Archtop Volume/Projection

**PascalD** · 09-16-2011, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by oldane

Actually parallel braced archtops are known for greater volume and projection, whereas x-braced archtops generally has a sweeter sound and maybe less projection ....... The sound of an instrument is of course determined by other factors as well - among them the thickness and shape of the carving.

Hmm. Yes you are right. Now the Parallel bracing will have more projection BUT the X-bracing will propagate the string movement over a larger surface.

There was an interesting thread on this forum just about that:

parallel and x bracing

Thanks for the catch
Pascal

**fws6** · 09-16-2011, 12:05 PM

> As I said, I did not play any Epiphone (old or new). Most of the current Epiphones are not carved, most are laminated.

Well, you specifically said "I'm not sure I agree with the Epiphone suggestions above".... hope I didnt over-react but these old Epi's are kinda close to my heart ;-)

> My comment was more on the "laminate vs carved vs solid arched"

this page explains better than I can that the 'solid pressed top' advertised on currently made guitars is actually asian lingo for it being a nicer quality laminate. FAQ: Laminated, Solid or Carved Top? J. Hale Music Not that there is anything wrong with a laminated top, this even will be preferred for amplified playing. But 'solid' in this case means 'not solid'.

>The sound of an instrument is of course determined by other factors as well - among them the thickness and shape of the carving.

Agreed, but even stronger I think these factors are interrelated. An x braced top has to be graduated different from a parrallel braced one

**PascalD** · 09-16-2011, 02:51 PM

Fws6
I would love to hear those old Epiphone... You have quite a collection. Do you record them sometimes?
I think I'm going to spend some time recording a couple of archtop acoustically and post them.
Thanks for sharing
Pascal

**SevenStringJazz** · 07-01-2013, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by AlohaJoe

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!

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.

I really appreciate everyone's comments and the depth of experiences and concern with playing arcthops acoustically. Here's a bit of my story offered with the hope it will help others here.

I have experience with playing both plectrum and finger-style on a high-end acoustic archtop and also study classical technique formally with a master musician/classical guitar virtuoso. I formerly spent years of careful study in beginning-to-intermediate classical repertoire playing with nails on very high quality hand-made nylon string guitars. I now play flesh-only or with a heavy plectrum mostly on hand carved 7-String archtops made by Bryant Trenier in the D'Aquisto/D'Angelico tradition.

There are several considerations to playing finger-style on a jazz archtop. Here are some of my thoughts:

The extent to which technique is highly refined and developed will determine the amount of volume one can get when playing finger-style. The "driving force" behind this is of course the plucking hand (RH for most of us) but the fretting hand (LH) also plays a part in tone production and cleanness of sound.

It should be emphasized that for most of us, this is likely a multi-year project that requires tons of diligent work. How this gets worked out varies from person-to-person and has differences depending on teachers, conservatories, etc. I highly recommend Emilio Pujol Gutiar School Books I-III as a means to develop solid RH and LH technique. These are books for the serious student of the guitar and it could easily take 10 years of daily practice to fully assimilate everything Pujol teaches into one's work.

I've probably spent 4000 hours working on serious focused Classical technique and related beginning-to-intermediate pieces. Most of this was over a decade ago on nylon strings with nails before I unfortunately stopped playing guitar for several years. I picked guitar up again seriously over 5 years ago. In the past 6 months I've revitalized this Classical work on my arcthop but actually started playing mostly without the pick two years ago. In contrast I've likely spent 8000 hours in my entire lifetime playing with a plectrum or some combination of pick&fingers.

Even after all of the good work I've done and continue to do with formal Classical RH/LH technique (much of it with a teacher who has used Pujol for 35 years), the plectrum STILL feels more natural to me for many things. I had actually stopped playing with a plectrum in mid 2011 but recently have been "adding it back" and even using the plectrum in working on some modern guitar Etudes by Brouwer (that I've played on/off for 20 years with finger-style RH).

I find that I can get the Trenier Excel to "bloom" more and generally get louder with a heavy (1.5mm "Plec") plectrum. However, when played finger-style with flesh-on-strings the guitar responds with a sweet, organic tone that is so personal! I'll be honest though, it's really hard to get this sound finger-style at good loud volumes. My master teacher believes that I can get more volume of the Excel by improving my technique. I know he's correct and at very slow tempos I can almost match the plectrum volume playing finger-style. While the Trenier Motif is also a hand-carved (oval hole) archtop it is built lighter and has a deeper more pronounced bass voice while maintaining sweet highs. I played Bryant's Motif prototype for several weeks last year, found it to be an excellent finger-style guitar, and wound up commissioning him to build me a 7-string, non-cutaway Motif which now is almost ready.

My Trenier Excel 7 has a floating KA pickup and I sometimes play it electrically with flat or nickel round wounds but mostly it's strung phos/bronze and played acoustically. Trenier guitars are very responsive and the model I currently play (Excel) and the one on order/almost finished (Motif -see image) are both X-braced and carved/setup in a way to make them sustain and "sing from a vocal-like depth" with a very wide dynamic range and harmonic envelope. In general X-braced guitars seem to be more responsive to finger-style playing than the typically louder, more projecting parallel-braced arch tops.