Cunningham L5

[Woody Sound]

What a stunning 20's L5 copy.

2016 Jackson Cunningham L5, Figured Maple/Adirondack Spruce - Dream Guitars

[Bluedawg]

[gitman]

I just listened to the clip on their website and can't deny I'm a bit underwhelmed - the sustain is there, the intonation, string separation but not a lot of overtones or is the player's fault ? These costly Royer mics should have no problem picking up everything that's there ....
I guess the maker simply copied what the folks at Gibson had in mind back in the 20's : make a guitar that cuts through a bunch of blaring horns and what does that better than really strong mids ?! The sizzling highs and a warm bass is not necessary for that goal. The sound of this undoubtedly very fine (and beautiful) guitar made me think of my similar experience when I first played a bunch of vintage D'Angelico, Stromberg and early Gibson L5 models at Mandolin Bros. : they delivered the goods when strummed HARD but when played back to back with an exquisit Zeidler and an early 60's D'Angelico/D'Aquisto collaboration these old workhorses left me cold. There was nothing inviting or enchanting in their tones. YMMV

Listen to these in comparison :

[Woody Sound]

I just listened to the clip on their website and can't deny I'm a bit underwhelmed - the sustain is there, the intonation, string separation but not a lot of overtones or is the player's fault ? These costly Royer mics should have no problem picking up everything that's there ....

I get what you're saying (hearing?). It almost sounds as if the strings are old. Could be different strings, or recording eq. Who knows?r
Conversely, in the vid you posted, those sound more like the scooped sound of flattops.

[omphalopsychos]

I've said this before but I played a Cunningham L5 and was underwhelmed. I'm sure some are better than others. Other people like J Stout have told me they had the opposite impression so ymmv.

In contrast, the few Gilchrists I've played were astounding.

[omphalopsychos]

Also a lot of it can come down to player and recording setup. Nothing appealing here. This dotneck sounds thin and harsh.

[deacon Mark]

Also a lot of it can come down to player and recording setup. Nothing appealing here. This dotneck sounds thin and harsh.

Agreed and no real bass presence. That to me is why I am not the great fan of the 16 inch early dotnecks. They can be sharp and cutting with plenty of treble but rarely have I heard one that bass side keeps up.

[omphalopsychos]

I think it comes down to the individual guitar and player but my point was also that recording technique and playing technique makes a difference. I get plenty of bass from my dotneck.

Go to 2:00 in the video below.

[wintermoon]

Don't go by videos. I've played and a number of dot necks and have owned a few, some are better than others but ime most have been at least really good.
As far as bass goes, remember these are 16" guitars so they're obviously only going to have limited bass response, but they blow away almost every other 16" guitar in that respect. Don't compare them to an 18" New Yorker, that's not a fair fight.
Frankly imo they're the best archtops ever made, I'd rather own one than a D'Angelico and I've owned and played my share of those and am a huge fan of John D. I love those early 16" DA snakehead L-5 copies, but I've yet to hear one that sounds better than a good dot. They can literally be used for just about any kind of music, if I could only own one acoustic archtop for the rest of my life it'd be a good dot neck L-5.

[omphalopsychos]

Agree with the above. The excel in my clip above has way more midrange and punch, but the versatility of the L5 is unmatched.

[bluejaybill]

Agree with the above. The excel in my clip above has way more midrange and punch, but the versatility of the L5 is unmatched.

Honestly, maybe the best acoustic arch top I've ever played was a late '20's L5, and it had a very contemporary feeling neck to boot. It was transcendent, and unfortunately above my pay grade. It had been the main acoustic guitar for a famous jazz/session guitarist for decades, and it sure sounded great, and for just about any genre.

Is the Trenier fuller sounding than the other two, or is it in the recording? They all sound really good to me. I haven't played a D'Angellico in quite a while, I wonder how it would strike me now.

The Cunningham, I went on and listened to a bunch of their arch tops, I kinda feel there is something going on with the recording. They seem somewhat mid-rangey to me compared to others. I have a Royer, it would not be my first choice for miking an acoustic, though it sounds great on amps.

So difficult to make solid opinions based on Youtube videos.

[gitman]

Honestly, maybe the best acoustic arch top I've ever played was a late '20's L5, and it had a very contemporary feeling neck to boot. It was transcendent, and unfortunately above my pay grade. It had been the main acoustic guitar for a famous jazz/session guitarist for decades, and it sure sounded great, and for just about any genre.

Is the Trenier fuller sounding than the other two, or is it in the recording? They all sound really good to me. I haven't played a D'Angellico in quite a while, I wonder how it would strike me now.

The Cunningham, I went on and listened to a bunch of their arch tops, I kinda feel there is something going on with the recording. They seem somewhat mid-rangey to me compared to others. I have a Royer, it would not be my first choice for miking an acoustic, though it sounds great on amps.

So difficult to make solid opinions based on Youtube videos.

MY experience with a) ribbon mics and b) the clips on the Dream Guitar website :

There is a reason why these Royer models are so extremely popular und widely used : they can convey a pleasing and warm sound that's not dull in any way, they are equally suitable for amp signals with high db levels and for picking up acoustic instruments. Another nice feature is the fact that they do not need much pre-amplification like many other ribbon mics do and this makes for a much lower noise floor.

Dream Guitars have been around for a LONG time and they know their stuff. The representation of the instruments is top notch and apart from Al Petteway the players usually know how to handle the different types of instruments and can demonstrate their - supposed - strengths. This Cunningham guitar DOES have a strong midrange which it needs - provided the player uses it in an acoustic combo setting.

I still think that Loyd Loar had something different in mind when he drew up the L5 and while it makes total sense to me that the owners of such vintage pieces are in love with the sound they hear when they play these in their living room - my reaction as a listener and as a player is simply another one. When I listen to great musicians like Matt Munisteri or J. Stout I enjoy the music they make, their note choices, the timing, the musical humor and creativity but the TONE of their undoubtedly fine guitars does not enchant me in the least - in no way comparable to some of my other hero's like Ralph Towner or Kevin Seddiki or Pat Metheny.
.

[Cunamara]

Lloyd Loar designed a guitar to be heard in combos, which led to a focus on midrange and upper frequencies and not much focus on bass frequencies. In those days, it was not unusual for there to be a single mic for the entire combo. Remember these guitars were replacing banjos in big band settings, etc. These things are designed to bark; they're like the high hat or the snare drum. They are bright, loud, kind of nasal. Somebody playing in the Reuss style is going to capitalize on those qualities; someone playing in the Jim Hall style might not.

IMHO, as the size of jazz combos shrunk for economic reasons, the spectrum range of the guitar needed to broaden to fill out the sound of a 3-4-5 piece band compared to a 10 or 20 piece band. Guitar design changed to accommodate pickups and amplification. Play a 1920s 16" L5 in a quartet or trio and it's not going to sound like what we have gotten used to.

As an aside, it would be interesting to try Monel strings on one of those guitars to see if that doesn't fatten up the bottom end a little bit. And that Cunningham is just effin' gorgeous BTW.

[lorenkii]

I owned a Cunningham for a while, and it was clearly a very well made guitar, loud, lightweight, and in theory very similar to an old L-5. That said, it sounded a lot more like my old Loar LH-700 (also a decent acoustic archtop) than my 1930 L-5, or other 16” L-5’s that I’ve owned. I don’t know how to describe the difference, but the L-5’s have more warmth and complexity, and L-5 has good bass too. The Cunningham was a bit thinner sounding. I wondered if it was the top wood Jackson uses, which on mine was a wide grain Adirondack spruce that he had harvested. Obviously that’s different than what was used on the vintage archtops. That said they are really well made and Jackson seems like a real cool guy. I would be happy to try another sometime, but I did not hang on to my first one long.

[deacon Mark]

I owned a Cunningham for a while, and it was clearly a very well made guitar, loud, lightweight, and in theory very similar to an old L-5. That said, it sounded a lot more like my old Loar LH-700 (also a decent acoustic archtop) than my 1930 L-5, or other 16” L-5’s that I’ve owned. I don’t know how to describe the difference, but the L-5’s have more warmth and complexity, and L-5 has good bass too. The Cunningham was a bit thinner sounding. I wondered if it was the top wood Jackson uses, which on mine was a wide grain Adirondack spruce that he had harvested. Obviously that’s different than what was used on the vintage archtops. That said they are really well made and Jackson seems like a real cool guy. I would be happy to try another sometime, but I did not hang on to my first one long.

So now the question is if the Cunningham was that much better than the Loar. There is a huge amount of money and stake, and I am not trying to make downplay handmade guitars of Cunningham type, but I would like to know. Could very well be one of those modern Loar's are quite fine guitars that are underrated.

[garybaldy]

So now the question is if the Cunningham was that much better than the Loar. There is a huge amount of money and stake, and I am not trying to make downplay handmade guitars of Cunningham type, but I would like to know. Could very well be one of those modern Loar's are quite fine guitars that are underrated.

This is getting interesting!
My Loar 700.

[Onesimus]

Mr.Cunningham moved across the country to a rural area of Virginia known for bluegrass music(Galax Fiddlers Convention) and to learn from the revered flat top luthier Wayne Henderson. He states that the sound of Mother Maybelle Carter’s 1928 Gibson L-5 is a big inspiration. Bluegrass music and the bluegrass sound is big in and around where he lives.

Maybe he is building/voicing them with a “bluegrass” musician’s ear and not a jazz musician’s ear. He probably has heard quite a bit more bluegrass music and players than jazz. From the statements and descriptions given of the C L-5, the sound would sit between a dreadnaught and banjo. Just a thought.

***I grew up near the area where Cunningham now resides. The majority who live in the area believe there are two types of music, bluegrass and country.***

[mr. beaumont]

Why would I want overtones?

[bluejaybill]

[QUOTE=gitman;1355848]MY experience with a) ribbon mics and b) the clips on the Dream Guitar website :

There is a reason why these Royer models are so extremely popular und widely used : they can convey a pleasing and warm sound that's not dull in any way, they are equally suitable for amp signals with high db levels and for picking up acoustic instruments. Another nice feature is the fact that they do not need much pre-amplification like many other ribbon mics do and this makes for a much lower noise floor.

Dream Guitars have been around for a LONG time and they know their stuff. The representation of the instruments is top notch and apart from Al Petteway the players usually know how to handle the different types of instruments and can demonstrate their - supposed - strengths. This Cunningham guitar DOES have a strong midrange which it needs - provided the player uses it in an acoustic combo setting.

/QUOTE]

That's fine, I am well aware of the Royer sound, I've owned one and used it professionally for 20 years. They are extremely flat frequency wise, and well thought of for that reason. However, there is a reason why they came out with an active version of that mike, said to be livelier sounding, I haven't tried it.

When used on an amp, they are often paired with a dynamic to get a bit more of that upper midrange "zing" or what have you; the two mixed appropriately give an excellent, well balanced and exciting sound.

In all of my years working in LA, I have never seen a pro engineer pull a Royer out for an acoustic guitar, it is always a small diaphragm (or two), preferably an old Neuman tube model. Or certain large diaphragm models, like an AKG C12, for a different sound. The Royer does sound great on trumpet, classic sound. They can take that volume without splatting out.

Dream guitars does a great job, I guess to me, I like to hear a bit more string sound than I heard on the guitars I checked there. We all have our own taste in these things!