-
a question about acoustic archtop tone:
IN THIS VIDEO a man plays the same chord progression with four different high end acoustic archtops:
I am impressed with the gibson L-12 (I used headphones...) and I would understand why.
to me that tone is what I mean with "smooth".
What makes that particular tone I'm impressed with?
the woods?
to be 17"?
the scale lenght?
the guitar setup (action, strings...)?
Of course it is a very expensive rare vintage guitar. But the other three guitars in the same video are just as rare and vintage but their tone leave me indifferent.
I own a THE LOAR LH-600, a not so bad (cheap) acoustic archtop and I wish to get as much close as possible to that tone.
maybe it's just a dream but if any of you has some suggestions, it would be very appreciated.
my THE LOAR is nice but a bit too bright for my taste and, in order to make its tone as smooth as possible, I lowered the action to its limit before buzz and I'm testing several guitar strings (type and gauge): the smoothest seems to be flatwounds. I tried D'A chromes .011 and .012 and i have just bought a set of Thomastick flats .013: these are nickel wound and it must be better to me than chromes, i suppose...
and,
here ( ) another man gets the same "smooth" (to me) tone with an L-7 plugged in...
which knowdlege do I miss?Last edited by gianluca; 11-03-2011 at 12:23 PM.
-
11-03-2011 12:17 PM
-
Here is my opinion . . . and, it is just an opinion and also an observation;
It seemed to me, that in anticipation of the smoother, warmer response from the L12, your right hand touch was a little softer. As you know, you will get a snappier and brighter response from parallel bracing than you will from X bracing (by the way, I'm really surprised that an acoustic L5 was parallel braced). But, it does seem to me that your pick attack/strum was softer on the L12.
You will be able to somewhat adjust the tone of your The Loar archtop by trying different string types . . . but, I highly doubt that you will alter the tone by raising or lowering the action. You will alter the sound/projection . . . . but not the tone. At the end of the day . . . (I hate that phrase) . . . your guitar is what it is.Last edited by Patrick2; 11-04-2011 at 11:21 AM.
-
That first man with the four archtops is me (it's my video). Let me tell you a couple of things about these instruments, particularly the L-5 and the L-12.
First of all, the L-5 sounds like relative crap in that video. For whatever reason, that guitar needed to have about 10 sets of strings installed before I found the ones with magic. It now sports - no criticism please - a set of GHS Silk and Bronze in 11-49 gauge. It now absolutely sings and I love it. The strings do not feel floppy or weak in any way. For whatever reason, they just sound beautiful and have the right response for my playing, when no set of 12's would do.
The L-12 has a special tone. It's an X-braced archtop, so it is less cutting and more warm/sustaining. It likes brighter strings. I have GHS Bright Bronze 12-54 on this one, which is more typical. The L-12 also has a shorter scale length than the L-5 at 24.75" vs. 25.5". However, if you heard it live, it is both warm and bright. The midrange is what gets diminished a bit with these X-braced fellas. That's not a bad thing. It's just an observation.
BTW, I have some really high quality audio clips of my archtops that are far more illustrative of their tone than that video. I just haven't converted them for web sharing or posted them anywhere. The L-5 plays like butter and the L-12 is a bit less forgiving; that combined with the L-5's pure blonde juicy goodness makes it my #1 guitar. I also have a '34 Reissue L-5 that is wonderful, but I didn't have it when I made that video.
-
I think you'll find that most 17 inch L5 and L5C examples are parallel braced and that the X braced 17 inch guitars are both scarce and mostly built before 1940.
Originally Posted by Patrick2
Which really shouldn't be too surprizing since they were designed primarily as rhythm guitars. Big loud buggers, and all that...
-
Yes, the official spec is that only the first generation of "Advanced" model L archtops had X-bracing. That was from somewhere in 1934 until 1939. Before that the 16" guitars had parallel bracing, and in 1939 the cutaway was introduced, and bracing went back to parallel. So they are a bit of a rare breed.
The Johnny Smith model has always been X-braced.
-
Thanks rpguitar and cjm, for the info. I knew that the 16" L5 started out as parallel, then switched to X bracing. I was unaware that it was switched back to paralelle when they increased body size to 17". I just read up on it in Adrian Ingraham's book . . "The Gibson L5, It's History and It's Players"
I thought I read that book thoroughly back when my son gave it to me as a father's day present a few years back. This ADD thing that I am challenged with really sucks. If I don't read something 2 or 3 times . . . I just don't get it all. I read it . . . but, it just doesn't register. Anyway, I learned something new about guitars today . .. . that's always a good thing!
I have 2 very similar 17" arch tops. A Gibson L5 Wes, and a Heritage Golden Eagle. Both have a single mounted pup, neck position. The Wesmo is parallel braced, but, I spec'd out the Golden Eagle with X bracing . . . other than that, they are very similar in dimensions and wood type.
The difference in the acoustical tone is astounding . . . . much more of a difference than I expected.Last edited by Patrick2; 11-03-2011 at 03:27 PM.
-
To my ears, the L5 sounds best, after that comes the Forshage. To me the L5 has the most coherent sound. The L12 is like divided in two sounds - the bass and the treble with some middle lacking in between - and (again to my ears) it has sort of tin can sound because of some unbalanced highs. It's true that the L5 is more punchy than the L12, but try to pick the L5 over the neck extension, and I'm sure one will hear lot of warmth.
Now, this only shows that tastes differ. As we say in Denmark, "one man wants the daughter, another man wants the mother, and that way both get married".
-
The only one I sometimes worry about is the one that wants the father. Originally Posted by oldane
Just kidding.
In all seriousness, our differences in taste is what makes sorting out all the hype on certain guitars so difficult. Some think that D'Angelico guitars were everything while others are quite disappointed with the sound. Some folks think the L5 is not what it's cracked up to be while feeling Gretsch is the Holy Grail. It applies to strings as well. The best thing to say is that listen to all of what's out there and make the decision according to your own ears. Otherwise you'll wind up like I did with a houseful of guitars and not being totally happy with any of them. Fortunately for me and my bank account, I changed my focus and went on to learn alot about archtops and what makes them tick.
-
This is not inaccurate. The amazing thing to me about acoustic archtops is that they are really sensitive to picking dynamics, angle, and location. And also strings. There are so many variables that one could write a book about it. Originally Posted by oldane
The L-12 can be "evened out" with mellower strings, just as the L-5 can be "softened" with more flexible strings. The L-5 is my favorite for many reasons. I recently played the 1946 L-5 in stock at Lark Street in NJ (http://www.larkstreetmusic.com/list/pict/L-5.1947.jpg). It's really warm and sweet sounding, a bit less punchy than mine. These guitars are all unique individuals, just like people. I sure do love 'em.
-
hfc . . . I must be either less critical of arch top tone, or have a less discerning ear .. . or both. The only arch tops I've ever played/heard that had a tone I just couldn't live with, had some sort of a defect, either from the factory or developed over time. The best example was a 1969 L5 CES that I owned quite some time ago. I was far less knowledgable at that time of arch top construction. All I knew for sure, was that the guitar sounded like shit. I took it to Ronaldo, my guitar tech. He tapped the top and the back near to the rim, with his knuckle (rather forcefully) . . . looked at me and told me that the kerfing had come loose from the top and the back in some areas. Natrually, my response was . . . "what the hell is kerfing???" I left the guitar with him for a week and when I picked it up it was a different guitar tonally. (I still hated it due to the laminated back and 1-9/16" nut width). Originally Posted by hot ford coupe
The only one I sometimes worry about is the one that wants the father. Just kidding.
In all seriousness, our differences in taste is what makes sorting out all the hype on certain guitars so difficult. Some think that D'Angelico guitars were everything while others are quite disappointed with the sound. Some folks think the L5 is not what it's cracked up to be while feeling Gretsch is the Holy Grail. It applies to strings as well. The best thing to say is that listen to all of what's out there and make the decision according to your own ears. Otherwise you'll wind up like I did with a houseful of guitars and not being totally happy with any of them. Fortunately for me and my bank account, I changed my focus and went on to learn alot about archtops and what makes them tick.
While I do own several arch tops whose tone I prefer over others I have owned or heard . . . . I can't really remember owning or hearing one that prompted a . . "wow . . that guitar's tone really sucks" response from me. Further, anyone who has ever heard a D'A and perceived its tone a poor, either had a guitar that had develped "issues", similar to those stated above . . . or, is misusing the term poor tone. Should probably substitute it with "the tone is not to my liking". As you and I know, "if John made a guitar that sounded like shit . . . he'd put it on the floor and put his foot through it." That quote, by the way, came directly from Jimmy D'Aquisto.Last edited by Patrick2; 11-04-2011 at 10:48 AM.
-
Hey Patrick. I agree with you 100% and don't think you have less discernable ears. Being a guitar rep for Heritage, you have a much better knowledge of what an archtop is supposed to sound like so I think you have better ears. That's where a lot of folks go wrong. It's not that a guitar is bad unless, of course, there is a defect or it has a lousy set up. It's more a matter of the fact that a lot of folks really don't know what a particular instrument is supposed to sound like. That was me. Before I ever heard an L5 or a D'A, I had a particular sound in my skull that I thought they were supposed to sound like and that's after reading the hype in guitar magazines and historical articles. I finally heard these instruments and now I can give a more educated opinion of what I like. I take the hype with a grain of salt.
As I mentioned, what one person likes, another might not. That's not a function of how good the instrument may be but it's more of a reflection of what someone likes to hear. That's the biggest variable. Same deal with cars, Chinese food, pizza or whatever people choose or avoid.
-
Hey Richb!! Thanks for the laugh. That's really funny. I appreciate the humor, on a Friday night. I'm sure it is humor . . . because nobody could possibly be so stupid to post what you just did. . . and be serious about it. So, with the utmost confidence that you are not a total idiot .. . I'm sure it was just pure humor . .. and, we all thank you for the laugh. I only hope you can post something equally as humorous in the real near future. Cheers man . . . you're a real laugh. Originally Posted by Richb
Last edited by Patrick2; 11-05-2011 at 09:48 AM.
-
Please don't feed the trolls.
-
Yeah, that seemed a bit over the top -- even by my standards. And by that, I mean I am not a huge fan of the unamplified archtop sound (and that I have consistently low standards).
But I think the only objective (and reasonably valid) criticism of the acoustic archtop guitar as a class is that they were designed primarily as rhythm instruments and we've more or less "repurposed" them today as a soloist's instrument...a role for which they were not designed.
And while there are exceptions -- deliberately designed as exceptions to the rhythm guitar role -- most acoustic archtops are "mid-rangey" to my ears. Out of the 3 1/2 octave range of the typical 6 string guitar, one octave right in the middle was optimized and the bass and treble ranges were allowed to go to hell.
Which makes sense to me, since that mid range is where the four-to-the-bar rhythm was taking place and that's where the volume and projection needed to be.
But then, you clamp on a DeArmond Rhythm Chief, and a whole 'nuther world of possibilities opens up.
And once you've got a good pickup on a decent archtop -- solid wood or plywood -- and plug it into a good amp...talk about a "dust bin with strings"...well, to me that's what the archtop makes the classical gut/nylon string guitar sound like. With a pickup, the response across all octaves becomes balanced and the sound box shapes the notes just right and...
...well, I could go on forever.
I often do.
But I'm done now.
So I'll stop.
Typing, that is.
For the moment.
-
I risk beginning an endless debate here, but that is the common "wisdom" that contemporary guitarists - who were not even a blip on the existential radar screen back in 1902 when Orville slapped a floating bridge his first guitar - always impart. Originally Posted by cjm
Yes, of course acoustic archtops were used as rhythm instruments, especially (and famously) in swing big bands. But have you ever listened to Eddie Lang, Carl Kress, and Dick McDonough? Back in the 20s and 30s, these cats recorded many sides of beautiful solo and duet music on their old "plectrum" guitars, which were none other than acoustic Gibson L-5s. The music was, to my ears, a blend of jazz, classical, and the pop sensibilities of that era. It is very much chord-melody in playing style, before the American Songbook (i.e. standards) even existed.
I encourage some exploration into that realm if you have not done so. The 78 RPM sound quality unfortunately may perpetuate your opinion about acoustic archtop tone, but perhaps the fact that these pieces are 80-90 years old might chip away at the "re-purposed as today's solo instrument" mindset.
Today's phenomenon is a renaissance of something entirely precedented and appropriate, not a mis-application of the instrument.Last edited by rpguitar; 11-05-2011 at 08:59 AM.
-
Yes, I have listened to early recordings of soloists using acoustic archtops. Originally Posted by rpguitar
First, this doesn't represent what most archtop use was prior to the introduction and adoption of the magnetic pickup. It was a niche, and a relatively small niche.
And, for the most part, this was not performed on the 17, 18 and 19 inch "cannons" of the mid 1930s into the 1940s. Much more likely to be a 16 inch L5 than a 17 inch L5, particularly on recordings produced before Gibson introduced the larger guitar, no?
As I pointed out, there also were guitars produced as exceptions to the general rule of the archtop as primarily a swing rhythm instrument. John D'Angeiico's X braced guitars were supposedly part of the inspiration behind what ultimately became the Gibson Johnny Smith.
But don't take any of it personally anyway...the guitars in the demonstration are fine instruments and they sound great. I was responding to a post that may or may not have been tongue in cheek...and aside from pointing out that my bias is toward the amplified archtop, the only objective criticism of acoustic archtops as a class of guitars (and asserting that there ARE also exceptions to this) is the tendency toward imbalance between the bass, mid and treble registers with a distinct emphasis usually given to the mid registers.
Some models were designed with more balance in mind, and with needs other than those of the rhythm player taken into consideration. Other individual examples, due to variations between seemingly identical guitars, exhibit more balance and less "mid-centric" response. String gauges can be manipulated to even out the response. Guitar players themselves can compensate for these characteristics to a considerable degree.
None of that changes the fact that the big archtops became primarily rhythm instruments and that most came to have design elements incorporated to enhance rhythm playing at the expense of their performance as soloist's instruments.
-
I agree that acoustic archtops are an idiosyncratic beast. Interestingly, though, on record they can sound remarkably similar to a nylon string guitar, which also has a limited sustain component, and a strong midrange. They are difficult to play, no doubt, but I think they can sound beautiful. That's just a personal opinion anyway, hardly worth debating.
I don't think that the early players constituted a small niche, though. There was about a 12 year period where that sort of acoustic, intricate music was played on acoustic archtops (1927-1939). Charlie Christian put an end to it. But, think about it - that period of time was longer than Disco. And people may hate Disco, but nobody thinks it was a small niche music. Also, the fact that there were relatively few players is due to two things; one, the big artists were controlled and marketed by record companies to a media-poor society, so only a few could become famous, and fewer still could leave a legacy that would be known 80 years later. And second, the music and the instrument are just not that easy to play! It was not, and still is not, a bedroom hacker's instrument.
The 17" L series guitars came out in 1934. So I would say that both the 16" and 17" instruments were represented by Kress, McDonough, and the few others (Lang tragically died in 1933).
The acoustic archtop got screwed by the inevitable advance of technology, made obsolete from a practical standpoint before it had fully evolved. Instead, it evolved into the electrified archtop that we know and love. But I still appreciate and greatly enjoy playing, and listening to, the original acoustic instrument that started it all.
-
What is this "Disco" you speak of? Some sort of barnyard animal? A pastry? An American Motors product? Originally Posted by rpguitar
I do not understand.
-
I would buy an orange Gremlin if I could find one. 'Nuff said.
-
I've got a 1944 L7 for which I just can't find the right strings. I never would have though of Silk&Bronze, but after hearing your description, I'm going to give them a try. I'd like to take a little brashness out of the box, and the silk just might do it. Thanks for the notion! Originally Posted by rpguitar
-
I'm just beginning to study solo guitar and chord melody.
this is an italian old pop standard.
the Loar LH 600, thomastick flat .013, zoom H2 recorder
a lot of mistakes but a tone that I like...
-
In general, acoustic Archtop tone, like so many of the finer things in life, is an acquired taste. But once you find it, it becomes totally, tonally addictive. You hear qualities of the finest violins in the transparency of the notes, the finest mandolins in the presence of the notes, and, if you get a great one, a bass sound that supports those two qualities rather than being detached from them. And don't forget that acoustic Archtops, due to the nature of stress on various parts of the guitar, open up hugely over time AND during each playing session. Play one for an hour and it can become a very different sounding guitar. Part of that is your approach adapting, but part is the very real molecular stimulation - something that doesn't happen with Flattops or solid or laminated or any other guitars.
It really takes getting an ear for an acoustic Archtop. Once you find that transparency, presence, crisp responsiveness, etc, you will be hooked.
One more thing - they sound completely different to the person standing 5-10 feet away than they do to the player. If you can get one with an upper bout sound hole, as Ken Parker, Steve Andersen (Oval Hole), Bernie Lehmann, etc, you get to appreciate some of the low end that will be completely missing from the player's perspective on an f-hole style guitar.
One more thing - try Elixir Nanoweb strings on an acoustic Archtop. They manage the harshness very well...
Bob
-
You are far too modest. That was good stuff at a professional level and your "mistakes" would have been released as part of the finished product on most jazz guitar albums ever produced. Originally Posted by gianluca
-
Here is the set I'm using: Originally Posted by Flat
GHS Acoustic Guitar Silk & Bronze Light 6 Strings, .011 - .049, 370
I assumed they would be dull and flabby, but not at all. Just the right tension for me, and no volume compromise (I play mostly chord melody anyway on acoustic archtops). Plus as a bonus, they seem to last a long time - I've got 3 weeks or more on my current set and they aren't showing signs of fading yet.
-
Very well said! We on the same page, Bob, probably even the same book. Originally Posted by uburoibob
I was drawn to these guitars 15 years ago but I had no clue how to play them. I let a couple slip away because they frustrated me. The tone and response didn't match my approach or my expectations. I think that happens to a lot of people, actually.
The good thing is that, thanks to Eastman and Loar, there are excellent quality solid wood archtops being made that allow players to try their hand without spending a mint on an old Gibson or (if so lucky) D'Angelico. I go strictly for Gibsons now because I am really hooked on the history of it all as well as the sound.
Amusingly, during a Googling effort one day, I came across a post of mine on a newsgroup from many years ago, in which I was proclaiming myself to be "done" with acoustic archtops.
Gotta love it. Life is about change and evolution, and sometimes re-discovery.
Reply With Quote
Installing a strap button(where and which) on an...
Today, 12:50 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos