-
ive always found benedettos to be pinny sounding . and def would not hold up to playing freddie green style with a big band. every benny i have played has been super low action. he's going for the ferrari of the archtop world. not my cup of tea. old epi's are made to be played acoustic. the tops arent built around a hole for a pickup. they are braced for one thing only, projection.
plus you can get a emperor for under 8G and basically be done. there arent any BETTEr guitars out there IMHO. equals sure, but nothing i have played is better.Last edited by mattymel; 06-03-2011 at 04:38 PM.
-
06-03-2011 03:04 PM
-
agreed a 100%. Thats why , after histind explained what he was after, I came up with the Halfling --> the warm and rounded version of loud. I think that would be the thing he would be after.As mentioned in the OP, loudness is subjective. In a big band you'd want the fast attack, cutting kind of power. For solo chord melody, you'd want that "blooming" volume, you know where the attack is not so dramatic, but the volume seems to build for a moment and then sustain. One guy might call the first loud, and another might call the second loud, depending on the style they play.
Now if it were me (or mattymel) we'd oviously go for that swing beat attack/ fullness/ projection and go the Epi way.
Lark street has an Emperor at 'just' $ 4500 I bet you could kill a horn section with: http://larkstreet.com/list/pict/EpiEmperor50.jpgLast edited by fws6; 06-03-2011 at 03:27 PM.
-
Theoretically, an archtop should be able to get very loud, much more so than a flat top. This sound would also tend towards the brighter end of the harmonic spectrum. This is also why bowed strings are archtop instruments. It was always my belief that archtop guitars were adopted to be heard acoustically over horns or even full big band, as in the case of Freddy Green. The mid-range to bright bias of these instruments also helps the separation of notes, especially in the lower strings. Also, the use of banjos in early jazz was for a similar reason.
But, once amplification started to be used, the need for pure acoustic volume was not as much of an issue. Nowadays, flat tops (steel string and nylon/classical) usually have a very good volume to them, due to the advancement in guitar design and construction methods. It would seem archtop design didn't go in this direction due to the popularity (and practicality) of laminate top, set-in pickup instruments as well as semi-hollow and solid guitars.
-
Originally Posted by fws6
i was anyway. my 17x3 Gibby is also fully acoustic...
-
isn't it a double top too? (another volume producing technique) Originally Posted by histind
-
Not to my knowledge. Mathias Dammann is famous for the double top. I also think Contreras produced them as well. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Originally Posted by kamlapati
i get your point, and i'm not trying to be argumentative - but - i understand loudness to be measured in decibels.
rather, i think that we are also talking about tone/timbre, sustain, and responsiveness here.
-
And as much respect as I have for Mr. Benedetto, those recordings aren't very good. I cringe at the sound of intense buzzing on the strings like that. There is a difference between a nice rattle, such as in Django's playing, and overplaying the instrument. If the strings are buzzing like that you need to raise the action. Freakin' beautiful guitars, though.
-
Originally Posted by histind
right. there are many double top guys.
Robert Ruck, Fritz Mueller, Jim Redgate.
Classic Guitars International for fine classical and flamenco guitars, Chris Kamen
-
Originally Posted by histind
um. i think the player in question is a bit heavy handed. i would not blame in on the guitar.
(sorry Howard)
-
I have to agree with this assessment. The guitar sounds pretty good to me It sounds like he's really digging in with the pick way too hard. A little lighter touch or fingerstyle might correct some of that. I'm also thinking that like histind said, if the player wants to dig in with that kind of force, then the action should be raised to counteract the heavyhandedness. It's just like Freddie Green had to do so his strings wouldn't rattle when he whacked the guitar and he played some pretty well made axes. Still I don't think it's the guitar's fault at least not at those prices. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
um. i think the player in question is a bit heavy handed. i would not blame in on the guitar. (sorry Howard)
-
20 grand by now? I payed around 8 grand for mine in 1997 and it was made for me by Bob himself in his Stroudsburg workshop. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
And yes, my Fratello has had a carved spruce top all through the 15 years I have had it.
-
I may have misunderstood, but if you plan to play fingerstyle on an acoustic archtop you may be disappointed. Acoustic archtops were designed to be part of the rhythm section... hitting it hard with a pick and chunking chords out 4 to the bar. Not to be heard above the band, but BY the band. Freddie Green forever! Originally Posted by histind
That doesn't mean you can't do other things with one because of course you can, but unless you whack it with a pick and get that top moving it's unlikely to be as loud as you hope, and they're designed for percussion and projection, not sustain. I have a '49 Broadway and a '46 Triumph, both wonderfully loud rhythm instruments that are ideal for that job, but not so much for acoustic fingerstyle. Unless you're strictly playing solo in quiet spaces I think you're likely to get more volume and sustain from a good classical, flat-top or Gypsy jazzer.
-
Well, don't tell that to Chet Atkins or Paul Yandell. They both did some pretty notable work with acoustic D'Angelicos. I think one of the factors that you might be overlooking is that not all of the acoustic arch tops were designed and braced for strong loud rhythm work. Elmer Stromberg certainly did have "loud" in mind with his big boxes . . especially his 19" OMG!!! LOUD!!! But, it started with John D'Angelico, and his apprentice Vince Diserio when they started asking . . . "what are you going to do with the guitar"? Today, that's the first question a good builder will ask a customer ordering a custom built arch top. The wood selection, dimensions, top thickness and carve dish, bracing, sound hole size, bridge saddle, etc., . . . will all be determined by the intent. D'Aquisto was the best for this. While I agree that you will never get an arch top to sound like a pre war Martin D45 . . . there are quite a few acoustic arch tops that can more than cut it at most gigs for a finger style chord melody venue. Your late '40s Epi's were intended for exactly what you described . . . . power! It's very different today. However, it's also obvious that if you buy a pre-owned acoustic acoustic arch top . . . you may not get one that is conducive to softer, finger style chore melody settings. Originally Posted by AlohaJoe
-
Bingo!! That was the main difference between D'Angelicos and Strombergs and Big Epis. It was a fact that John D's favorite style of guitar music was chord melody. In fact, that as one reason why a lot of D'As aren't as loud as Strombergs. His buddy, Al Valenti used to play like that and did a number of advertizing demonstrations for him. The D'A I have isn't that loud either but when I play fingerstyle and chord melody, it really shows off. The guitar is balanced, sweet and clear. It's also only 16 1/4 inches wide. You can hear all the notes in the chord. When you play it through the DeArmond pickup, it's beautiful. If I played it like Freddie Green it projects but not like my 35 L7 rhythm box. The factory instruments I guess are more or less multifaceted. When you play a custom guitar in a way it wasn't designed, it may sound good but it seems to come up short. That was a hard lesson and an expensive one for me to learn. Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
I don't disagree. Chet Atkins certainly did notable work on every guitar he touched... it just doesn't get much better IMO. The question I responded to was strictly about volume.
I think that's why we started discussing Emperors, Strombergs and other "horn-killers. I've never had the pleasure of playing an archtop made for fingerstyle chord melody, but I'd love to. Originally Posted by histind
Now, that sounds like musical heaven to me, but for volume, electricity is involved. Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
-
Someone who has classical training is used to substituting fingernail for plectrum like sounds, particularly if you've had any exposure to flamenco techniques. But, I would agree that a pick is better suited for Freddy Green-style comping. Also, with so much finger exercise, you should have no problem taking a guitar to its maximum, non-buzzing volume. I can play just as loud with my fingers as I can with a pick (especially with my thumb). My right hand is softer in its attack, but I can get the same volume. Certainly, getting this volume is easier with a pick, though. And the integrity of my nails after playing is another story...
-
Steel strings wipe out my nails pretty fast. I have a friend who regularly performs and records on steel strings with artificial nails, but he also says they do real damage to your underlying natural nails.
-
Pure nickel strings are noticeably better for your nails, but still brutal. Your nails will respond to the constant abuse by growing faster and thicker, which is nice. I've also noticed that Teflon coated strings help. I've never tried nylon-wrapped, but they should be better in theory. One of these days I'm going to see if Elixir will make me a set of very thickly coated strings.
-
By the way, is there any polymer coated flatwound strings available that can help reduce right-hand nail abrasion and will sound good in a Jazz box?
-
Good subject.
I've been experimenting with some archtop guitars in the last 12 months: Benedetto Bravo (laminated), Benedetto Americana (carved), D'Aquisto New Yorker (arched solid), Gibson 175 (laminated).
I I understand the original question, it was about the acoustic sound projection. In my humble opinion, there is the projection and then there is the "tone". Some might sound loud, but not producing the right tones and overtones for a particular ear.
Strictly on projection (volume), I found Gibson to be less projecting than the other archtops. The reason might be linked to the thicker top (in my case laminated). The 175 does not work for me acoustically.
The Benedetto Bravo is a small body, laminated, so the acoustic sound is thin but balanced: usable to practice, not for gigs.
The Benedetto Americana is acoustically much better, although mine is a special model with 2,5" rim. Projection is not huge, definitely less than a flattop dreadnough... I have a recoding of the Americana acoustic sound on my website: Archtop Video demo
The D'Aquisto is interesting, because they are solid (not laminated) but not carved. The top and back are bent into an arch. The acoustic projection is good: louder then the Americana with more bottom. Because they are not carved, they are more affordable. The D'Aquisto is also a 3" rim, which of course does a lot of difference in volume, due to the additional air...
The last element is the bracing. Archtop today use in general 2 types of bracing: parallel and X-bracing. The X-bracing is the way acoustic guitars are braced. The parallel bracing is used to reduce feedback when amplified, so it does temper the acoustic sound. The Americana is parallel bracing. The D'Aquisto is X-bracing. The parallel bracing tends to be stiffer, X-bracing more open (projection).
I'm not sure I agree with the Epiphone suggestions above: those are laminated guitars and the acoustic sound is probably not their strength. But I never played one.
I hope this helps.
Pascal
Exxbox Guitars
-
>I'm not sure I agree with the Epiphone suggestions above: those are laminated guitars and the acoustic sound is probably not their strength
This is a rather old thread, so I head to read back. I dont know where you got that information or whether you tried an old Epiphone before ? But all those Epiphone guitars which were mentioned (or which I mentioned at least) are definately carved tops , and in general their acoustic sound is LOUD and EXCELLENT. Ask any vintage dealer which jazzbox to get if you're into the combination of vintage and volume and I am sure 9 out of 10 will immediately reply Epiphone.
Current (asian) epiphones can be laminates or pressed solid wood like you describe for your DAquisto. I have never played a modern DAquisto (I am happy to have an old one though ;-) ) but most brands that make solid pressed tops are actually still using an thinner underlayer to prevent cracks during the poressing. You can bend solid wood for a side, but you cannot deform it into an arch without stress creack occurring. That is why companies like Epiphone pioneered laminate woods in the 1920s (but thereafter strictly used it on the electrics)
Also with modern technology it is hard or even impossible to press a solid sheet of wood. In practice on most modern guitars like the ones made in Terada the term "solid" is actually referring to a 2-ply laminate with a thick outer layer and a veneer inner layer.
But coming back to the original topic, all the pre-53 Epiphone acoustic archtops are hand carved from 1" thick spruce, and with few exceptions they are tonal cannons.
-
Actually parallel braced archtops are known for greater volume and projection, whereas x-braced archtops generally has a sweeter sound and maybe less projection. Acoustic Epiphones and Gibsons (from the late 1930s onwards) are parallel braced. The old Epiphones were known as rhythm cannons. The original D'Angelicos were mostly x-brazed, though a few were parallel braced depending on customer request. Strombergs had a unique single diagonal braced coupled with a thicker carved top. Many modern luthiers prefer parallel bracing even to day (say Jm Triggs). The sound of an instrument is of course determined by other factors as well - among them the thickness and shape of the carving.The last element is the bracing. Archtop today use in general 2 types of bracing: parallel and X-bracing. The X-bracing is the way acoustic guitars are braced. The parallel bracing is used to reduce feedback when amplified, so it does temper the acoustic sound. The Americana is parallel bracing. The D'Aquisto is X-bracing. The parallel bracing tends to be stiffer, X-bracing more open (projection).
-
>The old Epiphones were known as rhythm cannons
Sure, that is what I meant above with common knowledge among guitar dealers. Of the dozen or more I owned there was quite a bit of variation in tone, the ones I kept are very sweet sounding. And all definately are loud.
>The original D'Angelicos were mostly x-brazed, though a few were parallel braced depending on customer request.
I think it is more 50-50 ? My DAngelico is parrallel braced. But that is an early one. I have been looking into buying an x-braced Excel but every time I found one it was parrallel. For DAquisto I think it is true that nearly all were x-braced but for DAngelico not so sure.Last edited by fws6; 09-16-2011 at 09:43 AM.
-
As I said, I did not play any Epiphone (old or new). Most of the current Epiphones are not carved, most are laminated. My comment was more on the "laminate vs carved vs solid arched" Originally Posted by fws6
I'm not questioning the acoustic sound of the old carved Epiphones; I would image they are great.
My fault, if I wasn't clear and thanks for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions