The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Hi, this question is going to kind of very specific. So pretty much I know the neck set up I'd like (Martin Performance Series C, 1.75, short thin frets), body size, and tone woods for body that I'd like. However everything else is kind of a mystery to me. Some of these things are bracings, neck wood, wood thickness, how binding affects sound, how body finish effects sound, neck thickness from 1st to 12th (kind of obvious but I don't know how to reference that compared to past guitars I've played since these details are never mentioned in the specs), ect.

    Besides bracings of X and parallel, I know that there are quite a number of different designs as I primarily play classical/flamenco guitar. Though, I'm not sure if the same Ideas would apply to an archtop. Also the bracing wood planks contribution I can't seem to find info on. I know the neck thickness from the first to the body is kind of obvious but I don't know how to reference that compared to past guitars I've played since these details are never mentioned in the specs. Also, how would I specify a martin performance series C style neck and frets, they don't have exact details of measurements but I really love the neck on my Martin 0X1e. Again it seems simple but they do make their necks specifically and if I request a 20" radius, it's not like they can just buy a martin neck online and change radius (or maybe they can). Also besides appearence, is there any significance from a lower bout size to higher bout size ratio.

    For any reference, I'd primarily be using this guitar for fingerstyle arrangements, accompaniments, and comping. I do like the sound and style of the pre war gibsons and some of the more parlor looking one with bigger necks. It will be more geared for acoustics but I do plan on having either a charlie christain pickups or a rhythm cheif.

    Anyway, thank you in advance for any help
    -Raquel

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    A number of these questions like re: the neck specs will be moot depending on where you will be "requesting" (ordering?) the archtop from. Supposing it is from a builder who accepts to work from plans/specifications you could just provide the specifications that are key to you.

    To what extent do you want your archtop to be something like a steel-string complement to your classical and/or flamenco guitar(s) ... and technique? Sounds like you might given your focus on the acoustic playing. I cannot really give advice about the kind of bracing in this aspect (in addition to the 2 you mention there's also a bracing method with a single diagonal brace, IIUC). I think they can all be appropriate for an acoustic archtop, provided it's done lightly enough and the top itself is light (thin) enough too. Preference here is a matter of invidual taste, and you'd have to listen to comparison videos (there's one of 2 otherwise L5 copies by Cranmer guitars) and try to judge for yourself by playing different models available in stores. To me, X-bracing gives a more flat-top like sound that you can perceive as warmer, more open, boomier or hollower (more the latter 2 for me). Parallel bracing gives a more focussed, projecting sound that is a bit more like that of a violin or cello and I *think* that this is the kind of bracing that can give the aura or "internal reverb" to notes you sometimes hear people talk about when trying out a 20s L5 (my Loar does that somewhat, too).

    I've never heard about bracing wood being picked for the way it colours the sound, probably because that isn't it's role AFAIK. I think it just needs to be light and rigid, and tonally neutral, which is undoubtedly why certain builders use very minimal bracing reinforced with carbon fibre. But there are also builders who drop pre-fabricated bracing struts to judge how they sound.

    A thought: listen to a number of Gibson L48s: most I've heard have a very nice sound that might make them more versatile (even) than the original L5. Good ones won't set you back more than the average custom build.

  4. #3
    Raquel, I'm trying to understand exactly the question(s) you are asking. Its my impression that you are considering commissioning an acoustic archtop guitar and have a bunch of questions about materials and construction. You also have some very specific questions about necks.

    First, my perspective is as a small time amateur builder, mostly flat top acoustics of various shapes and sizes and string type, but I have also built a couple of archtops, again of various types. I might be able to answer some of your material/construction question if I knew what kinds of guitars have you played (specific models, where they commercial or custom, vintage or modern, what did you like/dislike). It would help to know your price range.

    Many of your questions will be answered when you select a builder - have you sat down with one or more and discussed your needs? Have you played guitars by this builder? What did you think?

    As far as your questions about necks, when I start building any guitar the neck configuration is the second decision I make (first is general type of guitar - eg 16 inch carved archtop). I decide scale length, widths and depths, fretboard radius(s), string spacing. When I build a neck for someone else I ask them to bring a guitar that they really like the neck, I can duplicate it. I watch them play, both hands, it tells me a lot about what they like.

    There are many cross sections of different guitar necks on the internet and lutherie supply houses sell little templates with the classic shapes - Dee or Cee or Vee. I prefer to actually measure a neck, this is a vintage Les Paul that the player really liked, we used the same shape and size on an acoustic ES175 shaped guitar.

    Things I'd need to know before requesting an archtop-img_1486-1-jpgThings I'd need to know before requesting an archtop-img_1488-1-jpgThings I'd need to know before requesting an archtop-img_1899-jpg

    Hope this helps a little. Once I know more about exactly what you are planning I can comment on woods and bracing and other construction stuff.

    Oh, and I'll add one more comment. If you haven't played a lot of archtops get out and do so. I had not played many when I built my first one and I'll be honest, I hated it. I've decided now that it really is a pretty decent guitar, but it sure didn't sound like the acoustic flat tops that I've played all my life. It would be a shame for you to commission an expensive guitar only to find that it doesn't suit your style or your music. And honestly, if you do play something that you like you're probably better to just buy it.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Play a lot of archtops before you spend the money on a custom-made one. You will get a better idea of different sounds, and different ergonomic issues. An archtop sounds very different from a Martin flat-top, and you may or may not like the difference. The bracing makes a big difference in sound also, and an X-braced archtop sounds more like a flat-top than a parallel-braced one does, but both are very different from any flat-top. If you buy a custom archtop now, you're more likely than not to regret it, because you may not know what you really want.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Freeman Keller

    Many of your questions will be answered when you select a builder - have you sat down with one or more and discussed your needs? Have you played guitars by this builder? What did you think?
    Hi Raquel,
    New/custom guitars are fun!

    Freeman beat me to it, but these were the first questions that came to mind when I read your post!

    My last custom guitar was by Steve Holst (highly recommended!), and he had his own, very specific set of spec questions that we discussed and agreed upon before he started the build.

    Please let us know who/what you decide upon!

    Marc

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    I can't answer your questions myself as I am not a builder. I would strongly suggest you try to contact Daniel Slaman a guitar builder in the Netherlands. I don't know how available he is these days but I expect he is open to enquires. He is an expert in archtop building and the CC pickup, but perhaps more importantly to you, he was a classical and flamenco guitar builder before devoting himself to archtops. In fact he has developed a nylon string archtop called the "Dome".

    I ordered my guitar from him in 2005 and we exchanged emails back and forth hammering out the details and he had several suggestions while still being totally open to my preference.If anyone can answer your detailed questions it would be Daniel. 17 years on I am still playing my Slaman, the workmanship is solid, it sounds better and better each year, though it sounded played in for thirty years when I got it! Can't recommend him enough. At the very least it might be worthwhile to sound him on your ideas and questions. He has a long waiting list now, however.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    However everything else is kind of a mystery to me. Some of these things are bracings, neck wood, wood thickness, how binding affects sound, how body finish effects sound, neck thickness from 1st to 12th (kind of obvious but I don't know how to reference that compared to past guitars I've played since these details are never mentioned in the specs), ect[]


    Bracing on archtops is usually Parallel or X. X usually for guitars with floating pickups and parallel with set in pickups. The parallel giving more strength to the top around the pick-up area.

    Parallel will likely give you the stronger focused vintage tone you’re looking for and academic if you want a CC pup.

    Binding does not effect the sound, it’s cosmetic and protective of the top and back plate perimeter.

    neck thickness is a combination of width at 12th fret and 1st + fretboard radius, fret board edge treatment (rolled etc..) and the neck shape (C, D, etc..). All can factor in to overall enjoyment. This means you want to know these attributes to asses what it is you have and thus like. All manufacturers will give this information or some of it.

    Neck wood can have an effect on tone but to what degree is widely open for debate with no scientific data I know of. Mahogany is usually associated with a darker sound and maple, with a brighter one.
    Personally I think it’s more about feel than wood type. I don’t like the feel of mahogany necks and a I find mahogany to be more unstable than say laminated maple. However Ibanez make a very nice maple and mahogany laminated 3 piece neck.

    Not sure what you mean by wood thickness. A luthier will make the wood as thick or thin as needs be to get the guitar to sound as best he/she can. A thinner top is more lively but can sound brighter than a thicker top. A lighter guitar can be more resonant and quicker to respond.

    Solid backs add a lot of extra depth, volume and tone but if you chose a model that is too big, you might struggle to play it with the back not pressed against your chest, thus dampening the resonance and killing the benefit.
    A 16” bout guitar night be more suitable if this is the case.

    Bout size makes a huge difference in tone but so does depth of guitar. The deeper and wider, the bigger and deeper the tone and louder the guitar (in theory).
    I personally would never go below a 16” as the return on sound below that point is far worse than the offered comfort.

    Bigger guitars also feedback more. Archtops are terrible for feeding back. I play a D’aquisto style 16” (they have thinner bodies than Gibson) to maximise tone and feedback resistance. You will still get feedback though if you push it.

    laminate tops and backs help reduce feedback and many Epiphones of the day had lama into tops and a good strong snappy tone.

    A laminated top will also be better for a Cc pick-up.

    Do you have a particular player and or sound you can demonstrate?



  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Binding does not effect the sound, it’s cosmetic and protective of the top and back plate perimeter.
    That binding indeed shouldn't affect the sound. Binding along the f-hole perimeter is a different question. I can't escape the feeling that most binding materials will be denser (heavier) than the top wood plus the binding itself must increase local rigidity.
    That could explain why f-holes weren't (usually?) bound in the purely acoustic days of the instrument, but whether that extra weight and rigidity is good or bad (for sound) there will be some effect of it on the sound of the instrument.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven


    Parallel [bracing]will likely give you the stronger focused vintage tone you’re looking for and academic if you want a CC pup.

    A laminated top will also be better for a Cc pick-up.

    Neither of these statements are necessarily true considering that the ES150 had a solid top with X bracing, and famously used the "CC" pickup. The ES150 and pickup showed up around 1936, if I'm not mistaken, and Gibson didn't start using laminate tops until the ES300/350 and ES175 debuted in the late forties, 1949 for the es175. And they featured the new P90S pickups. The CC pickup could be special ordered from Gibson into the 1970s and almost all the instruments I have seen with CC retrofitted have been solid top instruments, L5s, Johnny Smiths, Super400s, Byrdlands etc. Anyway there seems to have been about 15 years between the ES150wCC and Gibson using laminates. Actually I am not sure Gibson ever factory equipped a laminate top with a CC pickup besides the short lived ES175/CC of 1978-79.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Hi Raquel,
    partly depending on where you live your best bet ALWAYS is to play and sample as many different guitars as possible so that your ear can build up a tone-memory and your body (hands and fingers) the corresponding muscle-memory. This might take some time but from what you wrote I gather that you do already have some experience with classical and flat-top guitars. However, the acoustic archtop is a DIFFERENT beast. It was never meant to be played lightly , it's construction does not really support the sustain of the strings like a flat top does and the tonal balance is shifted towards the mid and high(er) frequencies. It also does not produce as many shimmering overtones as a flat-top. When the strings are a few days old these will disappear. While there certainly are builders who's guitars will be more comparable to the non-archtop models
    (be it a nylonstring or steelstring) I mean this in a broad, general sense, judging from my experiences and observations during the past 30 years.
    The guitars from Steven Andersen and Ribbecke come to mind : both builders were and are trying to make their archtops sound more balanced, with longer sustain and also more sensitive to a lighter touch. Both use(d) the oval soundhole on the left upper bout, leaving the central soundboard intact. Ribbecke's Halfling models feature a partly FLAT soundboard, Andersen's plates also have a very reduced/subtle arching.
    It was the sound of the ELECTRIC archtop (Burrell, Wes, Hall, Martino, etc.) that drew me in as a young man and that is still the sound that I go after in my playing. Without exceptions all of the old-style archtops I played did nothing for me when played un-amplified whereas the sound of a well played and well built nylonstring guitar can bring me to tears. But that's just me.
    Do you know a player who uses an acoustic archtop for fingerstyle playing ? IIRC Lenny Breau was among the first who played fingerstyle on an electric archtop and when I first listened to Joe Pass' "Virtuoso" album where he didn't use a pick anymore I did not like the sound. Modern players like Pat Kelly or Martin Taylor both play an archtop with their fingers but it' s with an amplified model. Both have a very nice sound.

    Re your questions and remarks concerning the various measurements, bracing patterns, material thickness etc. I strongly suggest you talk to a veritable LUTHIER who has actually been building archtops for some years - here on this forum there is truly a wealth of knowledge but since we all come from so many different backgrounds, have our strong personal preferences and dislikes, use different terms for describing them etc. I'd be very cautious and hesitant : better not base your decisions and judgements on our disparate and often opposing opinions to this subject. Most likely your indecision will become greater .... No offense intended !

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by gitman
    the acoustic archtop is a DIFFERENT beast. It was never meant to be played lightly
    I think that could be reworded as "it was always meant to be a powerful instrument", following a different approach to producing lots of sound than that of the classical guitar (which is about as efficient as you can get with a flat-top construction in converting even the lightest touch in as much sound as possible). I full expect that a Ken Parker will give a good amount of sound from a light touch too, idem a good nylon-string archtop by e.g. Daniel Slaman or Alan Carruth (who made a few "classical archtop guitars").

    Before getting my 1st archtop (see sig.) I didn't really know what to expect in terms of volume - I was hoping for a nice round sound as you could hear in e.g. Rob MacKillop's recordings on an LH-700. I wasn't expecting an instrument that sounded fuller from the playing position as the Seagull mini-jumbo I had, with about just as much bass and a sustain that isn't that much shorter. Disclaimer: that jumbo was deceptively quiet from the player's position so it's hard to tell how the instruments compare in the room. I do know that the archtop's high E and (esp.) B sound a lot sharper from the player position than from a position facing the instrument. Also, I play fingerstyle (with flesh) which may make a big difference

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by gitman
    However, the acoustic archtop is a DIFFERENT beast. It was never meant to be played lightly , it's construction does not really support the sustain of the strings like a flat top does and the tonal balance is shifted towards the mid and high(er) frequencies. It also does not produce as many shimmering overtones as a flat-top. When the strings are a few days old these will disappear.

    I disagree with this! An acoustic archtop can be played lightly and it sounds good that way. Or rather, it has the capability of a lot of dynamics; it can be played lightly and heavily.

    Also, it is a contraction to say that the tonal balance is mid/high balanced but that it doesn't produce many overtones. Mids/highs are where the overtones are! Mine has a lot of shimmer, and I never change the flat wound strings. I've had to learn to control the amount of shimmer with my right hand technique. Even had to come up with new picking/plucking techniques. I love my acoustic archtop.

    I do agree that the acoustic archtop is a different beast, just as a flattop is different than a solidbody electric.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by supersoul
    Mine has a lot of shimmer [...]. I love my acoustic archtop.
    You mean some kind of "aura" around the notes, or what sounds like a kind of reverb?

    It may interest the OP to know what make/model you play!

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by RJVB
    You mean some kind of "aura" around the notes, or what sounds like a kind of reverb?

    It may interest the OP to know what make/model you play!
    It's German, from the 50s, solid carved top, parallel bracing, 16-17" wide, big baseball bat neck

    You know how if you brush a finger on your picking hand lightly against the strings you can get high harmonics? Mine does that well, even in comparison to other guitars. I've had to learn how to control the brightness with my picking technique. It can be dark or bright. Very responsive.

    Archtop guitars are decendents of mandolins, and mandolins also have a bright shimmer to them.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by supersoul
    I disagree with this! An acoustic archtop can be played lightly and it sounds good that way. Or rather, it has the capability of a lot of dynamics; it can be played lightly and heavily.

    Also, it is a contraction to say that the tonal balance is mid/high balanced but that it doesn't produce many overtones. Mids/highs are where the overtones are! Mine has a lot of shimmer, and I never change the flat wound strings. I've had to learn to control the amount of shimmer with my right hand technique. Even had to come up with new picking/plucking techniques. I love my acoustic archtop.

    I do agree that the acoustic archtop is a different beast, just as a flattop is different than a solidbody electric.
    Fine, your ears might hear different things in YOUR OWN guitar..... I simply tried to point out a few issues - that IMHO are worth considering - so that Raquel can make a more educated decision before spending some hard-earned $$$ on an instrument that might just not perform in a way she thought it would.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    This is always a fun video, by someone who was apparently less informed "going in" than Raquel appears to be from her OP


  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Some thoughts from someone who has commissioned many luthier made instruments.

    1) Meet the Makers and Play Their Guitars: Try to both meet luthiers and audition examples of their work. Look into attending one of the major luthier exhibitions (e.g., Artisan Guitar Show in PA in April, La Conner Guitar Festival in WA in May, Rocky Mountain Archtop Festival in CO in September or Woodstock Invitational Luthiers Showcase in NY in October). Photos and other’s descriptions fall short of this. Meeting the builder and having them see you play and evaluating their ability to listen and communicate is important.

    2) Ergonomics: the body size, rim depth, scale length, nut width, string spacing, neck profile, fret wire, fretboard radius, finger rest location, pickup controls, strap pins all need to be comfortable for YOU. A 16” instrument may be more comfortable than a 17” guitar, but there will be acoustic tradeoffs. You need to work through all of these with your builder.

    3) How and Where you Play: Are you playing quietly as a solo artist or within a band context? Are you playing more plugged in or acoustically? Are you playing at home in a controlled environment or will the instrument need to travel and be robust to environmental swings? This will help guide your luthier to make decisions on materials, pickups, design and construction.

    4) Avoid Armchair Lutherie: I am as much of an armchair luthier as any and I suggest that you avoid this. Yes, understanding woods, bracing, plate tuning and finishes is fun for armchair guitar geeks to discuss; but honestly spend more time letting them know how you play, where you play, what is comfortable for you and let them recommend the design, materials and construction methods.

    5) Know Your Budget: Carved archtops are among the most expensive guitars to make. There is simply more hours and material costs that go into them. More experienced luthiers will charge more, but you are not paying for the 150-200 hours that goes into making your instrument but the 20-40 years at the bench that led up to your guitar on their bench.

    I hope that helps and good luck!

    Quote Originally Posted by richay
    Hi, this question is going to kind of very specific. So pretty much I know the neck set up I'd like (Martin Performance Series C, 1.75, short thin frets), body size, and tone woods for body that I'd like. However everything else is kind of a mystery to me. Some of these things are bracings, neck wood, wood thickness, how binding affects sound, how body finish effects sound, neck thickness from 1st to 12th (kind of obvious but I don't know how to reference that compared to past guitars I've played since these details are never mentioned in the specs), ect.

    Besides bracings of X and parallel, I know that there are quite a number of different designs as I primarily play classical/flamenco guitar. Though, I'm not sure if the same Ideas would apply to an archtop. Also the bracing wood planks contribution I can't seem to find info on. I know the neck thickness from the first to the body is kind of obvious but I don't know how to reference that compared to past guitars I've played since these details are never mentioned in the specs. Also, how would I specify a martin performance series C style neck and frets, they don't have exact details of measurements but I really love the neck on my Martin 0X1e. Again it seems simple but they do make their necks specifically and if I request a 20" radius, it's not like they can just buy a martin neck online and change radius (or maybe they can). Also besides appearence, is there any significance from a lower bout size to higher bout size ratio.

    For any reference, I'd primarily be using this guitar for fingerstyle arrangements, accompaniments, and comping. I do like the sound and style of the pre war gibsons and some of the more parlor looking one with bigger necks. It will be more geared for acoustics but I do plan on having either a charlie christain pickups or a rhythm cheif.

    Anyway, thank you in advance for any help
    -Raquel

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
    A 16” instrument may be more comfortable than a 17” guitar, but there will be acoustic tradeoffs.
    What are those, according to you?

    I have never yet had the chance to play a 17" (and I strongly suspect 16" is my limit for the classical position I use) but I have listened to just about all the acoustic archtop recordings on YT I could find. To my ears a 17" doesn't sound better. It can probably produce correspondingly more volume if you play it hard but for fingerpicking they lack something from both 16" and 18" models. Of course it isn't easy to find comparable 16" and 17" models (and not recorded with "bigger-than-live" settings) but IIRC there are comparison videos of the ARx05 vs ARx10 archtops (600 and 800 series).

    For me the big surprise was hearing some of Michael Watts's recordings of the 18"ers of the Chinery collection, esp. where he plays himself. Interestingly Alan Carruth also thinks that nylon-string archtops (my current dream) need to be this big or bigger in order to sound really good (with which he may mean "more like a classical guitar").

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    I find a 17” archtop can be physically more difficult on my right shoulder to play. The larger top and back plates and increased body volume not only enhances volume, but the bass response increases and the attack slows down in my experience. Some people prefer this and others prefer the reduced bass response and faster attack of a 16” instrument.

    I was with Michael when he was recording some of Ty’s 18” guitars at the Rocky Mountain Archtop Festival last September in Colorado. He was having many of the attending players record for him (He works for Ty and his foundation and is behind all the videos you see). The same is true for an 18” vs a 17” in terms of trade offs. I am 6’3” and while I can play those 18” instruments, I would have difficultly playing them for a 45 min set. As I age, I find this to be more evident (I am in my 60s).

    Regarding Al, he is a smart guy, but I think a nylon string archtop is a non-starter for me. There is just to little energy for so much mass. Ryan Thorell makes a nylon string model if you are interested.

    Guitars — Thorell Fine Guitars

    Quote Originally Posted by RJVB
    What are those, according to you?

    I have never yet had the chance to play a 17" (and I strongly suspect 16" is my limit for the classical position I use) but I have listened to just about all the acoustic archtop recordings on YT I could find. To my ears a 17" doesn't sound better. It can probably produce correspondingly more volume if you play it hard but for fingerpicking they lack something from both 16" and 18" models. Of course it isn't easy to find comparable 16" and 17" models (and not recorded with "bigger-than-live" settings) but IIRC there are comparison videos of the ARx05 vs ARx10 archtops (600 and 800 series).

    For me the big surprise was hearing some of Michael Watts's recordings of the 18"ers of the Chinery collection, esp. where he plays himself. Interestingly Alan Carruth also thinks that nylon-string archtops (my current dream) need to be this big or bigger in order to sound really good (with which he may mean "more like a classical guitar").

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
    Regarding Al, he is a smart guy, but I think a nylon string archtop is a non-starter for me. There is just to little energy for so much mass.
    That's what I thought too, in part based on his many postings on the Delcamp classical forum. So if he actually thinks otherwise... Meanwhile I'll stick to a 16" at most (if it does sound lute-like so much the better ) and a builder in the EU. I'd consider Wu, but I just don't know if he'd have the right experience to build for nylon strings.