-
The Loar LH-700 caught my eye recently and i got interested in trying it out. It is a 16" body which is smaller than i'm used to, but is much deeper than most 17" archtops.
I have a Harmony archtop which sounds so so sweet, but it also has a narrower bout, but is deeper (3 1/2"). It seems to have much more projection than other 17" guitars i have (slightly less than 3"), have more detail to the sound (probably because of the age), but has a narrower frequency range.
So i'm wondering what the relationship of depth and width are to the sound in the body of an archtop. Is there a correlation to body depth and width, or is the 1" that i am talking about not significant enough to matter?
-
02-12-2011 06:14 PM
-
Before giving you a “bigger is better” response, I want to point out something. The thickness and type of wood used for the top both make a huge difference in sound. Some jazz guitars tops are too thick to produce a nice “acoustic” sound, and ply (or laminate) tends to be more rigid and stiff than solid wood. I once had a VERY nice sounding archtop jazz guitar (acoustically), even though the body was a bit bigger than a Les Paul! The top was hand carved hardwood and very thin.
As for projection, parallel bracing is helpful. The Loar LH-700 has parallel bracing. Your Harmony probably does too.
-
Body size in general relates to acoustic volume. Large size tends to increase susceptibility to feedback.
-
@Caravan. Yes the Harmony is parallel braced and very thin pressed solid birch. I think that is what gives it so much volume and great tone. I've been finding that i like guitars that are parallel braced, even when i didn't know what the guitar had.
@docbop. I'm asking specifically how depth and width are related to volume and tone. ie. at 17" body w/ 2.75" depth vs. 16" body w/ 3.5" depth.
Is there a relationship? A deeper body projects more but has a more focused sound? etc.Last edited by spiral; 02-13-2011 at 02:57 AM.
-
Spiral, it's fair to say there's lots going on. The effect of air chamber volume, in combination with soundhole size, is known as Helmholtz resonance. (Same thing you hear blowing across a pop bottle.) Make the vessel bigger (eg instead of a bottle, a jug with the same size hole) and the resonant note becomes lower. A quick calc of my own body shapes ( calculated as non-cutaway FLATTOPS), shows the 16" at 3 1/2" deep is 868 cu inches whereas the 17" at 2 3/4" is only 775 cu in. So you can indeed lower the Helmholtz by increasing body depth. With archtops, you can also alter air volume based on arching of the top & back. Graduation, soundhole size, arch height, bracing type and carving (and many other variables) all have an effect projection, tone and volume.
-
Now it's all starting to make sense. Thanks Dave for the great explanation. That also explains why certain non cutaways sound more resonant than cutaways. I was listening to a video on You Tube called "Summertime in Santa Fe" where several great players were playing different "Hoy Grail" vintage archtops made by Koontz, Benedetto, Stromberg and D'Angelico. When one player started playing a huge Stromberg 400 with it's 19 inch lower bout and it's depth, the sound was like nothing else. It was so dang deep and resonant, you'd think it was a baritone guitar. When the player did rhythm, the pulse just about knocked me out of the chair.
-
Thanks Dave. Just the info i was looking for. So are you saying size alone determines tone and volume (if all other variables remained the same, bracing, wood thickness, etc). Like if you have a 10" wide body that is 5" deep vs. a 5" wide body that is 10" deep (or whatever measurements give you the same cubic volume) will they sound relatively similar or does depth contribute to a certain property and width contributes to another?
Originally Posted by DaveS
Also, is there a golden ratio with depth and width? Why are most modern archtops 17"x3"?
-
I know that video. I was in fact underwhelmed by the sound of the Benedetto guitar in that clip - despite Benedettos reputation. The Koontz, the Angelicos (there were two of them) and the Stromberg sounded great, though. Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
If the body gets too deep - everything else equal - there may be a loss of the highest frequencies. While not exactly lowering the volume, it may make the tone more mushy, and the instrument may project less. Most modern archtop builders make them 3" deep. When I had Jim Triggs make me a Stromberg Master 400 "hommage" last year, he advised against making the body deeper than 3 1/4" as it might affect projection in a negative way.
The same way, a wider body has deeper sound. Barry Galbraith - who used Stromberg guitars - found that the 19" Master 400 projected less well than Strombergs 17" models. Many 19" Strombergs were 3 1/2" deep. Marty Groz once said that he might prefer a 16" instrument for big band rhythm playing. On the other hand Freddy Green used two Stromberg 19" instruments for almost 20 years with great succes, and he was certainly heard in the Basie orchestra. The Gretsch Eldorado he used from 1958 to his death was 18" (or a fraction of an inch wider that that).
However, body depth and width is only a part of the equation. The classic Epiphone Emperors, which where 18 1/2" wide, usually projected excellently. Their sound was on the bright side - even a tad metallic, which helped them to be heard in a big band, which was what they were designed for.
-
Originally Posted by spiral
The tone is coming from the top of the guitar, the wood solid or lam', thickness, set-in or floating PUP, the bridge material, tailpiece. The body of the guitar is the amplifier and plays a minor role in tone. Don't for get the neck, scale length, and type of wood play into the picture too.
-
With acoustic archtops, the back is in fact a very important part of the sound. It's from there much of the bass comes. Try holding an acoustic archtop so that the back is free and then hold the back against your belly and hear the sound thin out. Many of the older archtop rhythm players held their instruments at an angle so the back was free to vibrate (rhythm strumming also became easier that way, and the guitarist clould hear himself better). Think of the way Freddie Green held his guitar. On the other hand, overly boomy archtop sounds can be cleaned up, and some wolf notes can be tamed by holding a smaller or larger part of the back against the belly. One could argue that the sound of your particular archtop determines how lean or fat you ideally should be Originally Posted by docbop
.
-
Flattops often have the braces scalloped to change the sound, is there any reason to do the same on a parallel braced archtop?
Brad
-
Yeah, this could turn into a hairball real quick. Oldane makes many excellent points... in particular "body depth and width is only a part of the equation". If there's a rule, it's that everything has an effect..... no absolutes or formulas (...wish there were). The back contributes greatly to volume & projection. Making a small body deeper can take some of the "edge" off, and may give you a nicer base response with a back of lesser arch. Everyone should do the test implied and become familiar with tonal effects of damping on the back. In an acoustically well built archtop, the difference can be surprising. (..."that's why they all sat down!!")
-
You're not going to believe this. I just lost about 30 pounds and I noticed that my acoustic unamplified archtop actually sounds better. I thought it was me working with it but I do have more of the back free from my gut. I've got about another 30 pounds to go. The guitar will sound so good and I'll look so good, I won't be able to stand myself. Originally Posted by oldane
With acoustic archtops, the back is in fact a very important part of the sound. It's from there much of the bass comes. Try holding an acoustic archtop so that the back is free and then hold the back against your belly and hear the sound thin out. Many of the older archtop rhythm players held their instruments at an angle so the back was free to vibrate (rhythm strumming also became easier that way, and the guitarist clould hear himself better). Think of the way Freddie Green held his guitar. On the other hand, overly boomy archtop sounds can be cleaned up, and some wolf notes can be tamed by holding a smaller or larger part of the back against the belly. One could argue that the sound of your particular archtop determines how lean or fat you ideally should be .
-
If you really want to understand how acoustic instruments function and the various parts interact look up Dave Cohen. He makes mandolins and other instruments, is a serious scientist, and has done a lot of work determining all this. If you get bored by reading scientific papers you might find it a bit of a slog to get through his stuff, but if you really want to understand this stuff dig in and be enlightened.
I am not a scientist, just a guitar maker, so I will not attempt to lay out the scientific explanation for how instruments work, but I will say too many folks repeat partial truths and perpetuate myths without really understanding the physics underlying the function of sound propagation. I think it is because of human nature that we tend to be lazy, and to rely on easy explanations rather than really learning and understanding. There has been some good information in some of the posts above.
It is quite possible to make a 16" archtop make a LOT of sound acoustically.
-
I wonder if anyone has visited American Guitar Museum in NY? I had a chance to go there some ten years back and try out some of the guitars there, including these D'As :
D'Angelico
The non cutaway Excel there has to be the loudest acoustic guitars in the world, it was mindblowing really! You'd think by looking at the photo that the New Yorker was the volume winner but that Excel was really something else. I'm pretty sure both guitars are 3# deep too.
-
I've noticed the vibrations and tone changes with not bellying up to the back of an instrument with my ukuleles more than anything. The smaller bodies tend to vibrate a lot (I'm guessing there's a reason for it). Once I noticed it there, I started to pay more attention to it on the guitar. Quite a change when I did.
Personally, I'm a big fan of big guitars. I'm not the most experienced player and that has come a little late in my development, but I've set my sites on a big guitar for my next one. Again, there is so much going into producing the sound that big isn't always better. But, if I could get my hands on a 16" Stromberg at some point in my life, I'd be a happy little picker.
~DB
-
But there will be a vacuum in your wallet ..... Originally Posted by lindydanny
. Strombergs in good shape usually costs no less than $50000. But if you are interested, Gruhn has a couple of them right now (Doug Ranger is selling out of his collection).
BTW, I think that Stromberg made very few - if any - 16" instruments - at least after 1939, when they abandoned the use of pressed laminated tops and backs and Elmer Stromberg took up making carved solid wood guitars. There's a backstage photo (from Carnegie Hall, I think) of a mixed Basie/Goodman combo from 1939, where Freddie Green is seen playing the blonde Master 400, he also owned in addition to the sunburst Master 300, he was most often seen with in the 1940s and '50s. It must be one of the first Master 400 guitars made.
-
One aspect of sound production is the "coupling" of the top and back plates. This is where they are tuned to slightly differing but fairly close frequencies and reach a connection via the pulses within the air chamber, and the reason you hear such a difference when you damp the the vibrations of the back .
A 16" acoustic archtop is considered a small one. The traditional "standard" sizes equate to the Gibson L5 and the Super 400 , 17" and 18" respectively. Much like the D'Angelico Excel and New Yorker models made by Mr. D'Angelico himself.
-
Wait... Ranger Doug is selling out?!? What a time for me to be poor!!!
Michael, if it pleases the court, I'll humbly take an 18" if I must.
~DB
-
No rush. . . Gruhn's has been trying to sell those guitars for years, along with a Gibson Chet Atkins Super 400. Nobody can afford them! Originally Posted by lindydanny
-
I tried one of Ranger Doug's Strombergs, the $30,000 one with the cutaway and the sort of cherry sunburst finish. What a great sound it has. At the same time, Gruhn had a 1941 17 inch blonde refinished Stromberg which I also tried. The selling price was $18,000 semolians. I tried it on a Tuesday. It was gone the next day. The sound that guitar produced was the best I've ever heard in a vintage archtop including several D'Angelicos he had at the same time. That was sometime in Dec, 2009. I still have a scar on my lip where I bit it so I wouldn't cry any more. I wanted that so bad but I'm poor too. Originally Posted by Norman931
-
Gotta love George Gruhn. Where else can guys like us go to play $30,0000 guitars? Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
Reply With Quote
Blue Bossa Challenge-with Video
Today, 11:29 AM in Rhythm, Swing & Phrasing