Robert Conti Equity Guitar Model

[bborzell]

I know there have been other threads on the Bob Conti guitar. I've read them all. What I am wondering about is whether any folks here are currently playing or have owned one and what their overall impression of the instrument is.

Their are certainly a ton of videos of folks playing on Conti's site and YouTube and listening to Conti through my studio monitors suggests that the guitar is holding up its end pretty well to compliment Conti's playing.

Any Equity action around here of late?

I should add that I am just atarting to look at solid wood, thin, single PU guitars and any recent feedback on this model would be appreciated

[PTChristopher]

Well I guess there are few owners here.

But while I have never played one, the guitar sounds fine (quite fine even) in samples I have heard.

Also, while the design has the unusual feature of a bridge on posts vs. a floating base - this feature makes a great deal of sense for many players. It represents no compromise, in my opinion, if you use a t-o-m.

I really dislike to look of the D'Aquisto style tailpieces on any guitar. It is purely an aesthetic opinion, but I think they look awful. They work just fine.

I know the Conti business has its supporters and detractors, but I think they have a very good guitar there. Well conceived, built by a well respected supplier, well appointed for the $$$.

Esteban is selling poor guitars to a mass audience. Conti is selling a very good guitar in a non-traditional business model, with what is in my opinion an honest attempt to help many players enjoy themselves playing guitar.

I have no connection with them whatsoever, and do not like Las Vegas, but I respect what they are doing as an honest approach to the market.

Chris

[carlescountry]

Almost nearly three years that I have the Conti guitar and I'm very happy with it.

Nice, with good sound and easy to play. And all for a reasonable price.
Personally I like the flat fingerboard and low action.

[bborzell]

PTC...

The tailpiece never really caught my eye. Now that I've looked at it, it appears to address one of my peeves with "floating" tailpieces; that they all seem to hover a bit too high for my taste. The bridge on posts seems a bit odd in that placing a TOM on splayed floating feet seems like a more effective option both for construction cost as well as perhaps tone. Maybe not.

As for Estaban, is there an emoticon for cringing?

carlscountry...

Very encouraging to hear that the honeymoon is not over after three years. Whatever I buy will be at the expense of my 1987 Ric 4001 bass that has been with me since shortly after its birth. The Ric is currently at the shop getting a pre sale tuneup. I want whatever I get to give me similar good vibes.

Also looking at an Eastman 146.

[Timo]

I played a used one last year and ended up getting a Gibson ES 137 Classic instead. I found the Gibson pickups to be better sounding-the Conti ones sounded thin to my ear- and the guitar was less expensive too.

[PTChristopher]

>>> The bridge on posts seems a bit odd

In my view it is unusual, but a very effective way to do it when the guitar has any sort of center block, floating or otherwise.

Far more traditional is the floating bridge base, but the underlying mechanics and physics do not make this in any way a better way to go, with one exception.

If you want to use a wooden bridge and do not want to adjust the wooden bridge by re-shaping it, then a floating base gives you a way to adjust the bridge compensation, in a limited way, as needed.

>>> in that placing a TOM on splayed floating feet seems like a more effective option both for construction cost

I do not see why there would be any notable cost difference between the two options.

>>> as well as perhaps tone.

I think that both options get your bridge coupled to the top and block very well.

At rather low break angles (over the bridge) the posts would probably give a bit better coupling, and sure would be more resistant to sliding around - not that this is a big problem in practice.

For this type of guitar it looks like a perfectly fine way to do the job.

I guess some criticism has been along the lines of, "Why solid woods when you have a center block?"

Well payers love solid woods as a sign of a sort of quality in design and material sourcing.

Some players love solid woods and associate those woods with certain sounds, even when the association is not as directly causal as is often promoted. In my opinion.

But certainly having a solid spruce top is not a waste of wood on this type of guitar. It is one of many ways to get a given mass, density, resonance, feedback resistance, etc. in a given design.

It is just more common to associate a solid spruce top with a carved and more acoustic guitar.

But lots of ways to pick your combination of design parameters. In my opinion.

Chris

[bborzell]

>>> The bridge on posts seems a bit odd

In my view it is unusual, but a very effective way to do it when the guitar has any sort of center block, floating or otherwise.

Far more traditional is the floating bridge base, but the underlying mechanics and physics do not make this in any way a better way to go, with one exception.

If you want to use a wooden bridge and do not want to adjust the wooden bridge by re-shaping it, then a floating base gives you a way to adjust the bridge compensation, in a limited way, as needed.

>>> in that placing a TOM on splayed floating feet seems like a more effective option both for construction cost

I do not see why there would be any notable cost difference between the two options.

>>> as well as perhaps tone.

I think that both options get your bridge coupled to the top and block very well.

At rather low break angles (over the bridge) the posts would probably give a bit better coupling, and sure would be more resistant to sliding around - not that this is a big problem in practice.

For this type of guitar it looks like a perfectly fine way to do the job.

I guess some criticism has been along the lines of, "Why solid woods when you have a center block?"

Well payers love solid woods as a sign of a sort of quality in design and material sourcing.

Some players love solid woods and associate those woods with certain sounds, even when the association is not as directly causal as is often promoted. In my opinion.

But certainly having a solid spruce top is not a waste of wood on this type of guitar. It is one of many ways to get a given mass, density, resonance, feedback resistance, etc. in a given design.

It is just more common to associate a solid spruce top with a carved and more acoustic guitar.

But lots of ways to pick your combination of design parameters. In my opinion.

Chris

Chris...

The bridge question was interesting enough to me to get me to pick up the phone and ask a few questions of the Conti folks. As it turned out, I was transferred to Bob Conti and was able to get a very complete picture of the design thought that went into the Equity guitar.

The T-O-M bridge is not supported by a block or post. The guitar is a true hollow body. I am not sure that I have an accurate picture in my mind, but Conti described two "rails" on the inside of the top and beneath the bridge. I am certain that I have not described this design accurately. I meant to go back and ask a couple of clarifying questions before we ended the discussion, but I forgot to.

Conti impressed me as a down to earth guy who wants to provide a high quality instrument at a reasonable price. He is also a wealth of historical jazz guitar information and he is willing to talk about jazz and guitars completely unrelated to his specific guitar or instructional DVDs.

That said, I have made a decision to buy a Conti Equity shorty after I successfully comply with my wife's belief that "one out, one in" is a reasonable approach. Given that I have two walls covered by mandolins and a few guitars and a hallway closet that has nothing in it but hard shell cases and steel guitars, I can't reasonably argue with her.

So as soon as my 1978 Ric 4001 finds a new home, I will be ordering a new Equity in Natural. Oh, did I mention that I showed my wife pictures of both finishes and she immediately preferred the natural finish. A few seconds later she glanced at me with a, "did you just set me up" look on her face. Nothing like getting folks to feel like they have an early role in important decision making.

...Bob

[PTChristopher]

>>> but Conti described two "rails" on the inside of the top and beneath the bridge.


Hah, shows you what I [don't] know about this guitar.

I had assumed that there would be a floating block - so a block that is attached to the top but does not go all the way to contact the back.

I have never looked inside one, so I suppose the question for the folks at Conti would be how wide and deep are the braces (bars, rails, etc.). Of course since it all seems to work just fine, it is sort of academic.

Still would be fun to understand the details.

Thanks for the info.

Chris

[PTChristopher]

>>> I will be ordering a new Equity in Natural.

Is it all natural, or a natural top and burst back and sides?

Chris

[blackcat]

Both models by Peerless ( definitif ) so clues may be found in their generic construction. Nice guitars as are the two new signature models for UK guitarits Martin Taylor. The word is spreading.

[mr. beaumont]

They're very attractive...except for that bridge!

I understand the "why" but a single pickup archtop without a floating bridge just looks WRONG...

[Jabberwocky]

They're very attractive...except for that bridge!

I understand the "why" but a single pickup archtop without a floating bridge just looks WRONG...

Tell that to the fellas who pin their archtop bridges. They'll set you right in a hurry.

(For that price of $2000 and a little over, one could get a good used Gibson ES175 or ES165 or Heritage. The Gibson especially will be worth something on the used market should you decide to sell it. Sorry, bborzell, not what you asked about but haemorrhoids and opinions, y'know.....)

[mr. beaumont]

Bridge pinning...that's what those guys who like those big heavy Bigsbys do, right.

No thanks.

[Patrick2]

They're very attractive...except for that bridge!

I understand the "why" but a single pickup archtop without a floating bridge just looks WRONG...

I agree . . . it just looks and seems wrong. That's why I never took a liking to the Heritage Kenny Burrell Groove Master.

[Jabberwocky]

I agree . . . it just looks and seems wrong. That's why I never took a liking to the Heritage Kenny Burrell Groove Master.

AHA! I was always wondering what it was about that model that rubbed me the wrong way whenever I scoured the Heritage catalogue. Could never figure it out.....UNTIL NOW. It's that fixed bridge.

[PTChristopher]

It may look funny with the bridge, and I loathe the D'Aquisto tailpiece style, but the Conti guitar really strikes me as a fine design and build.

Likewise, the Martin Taylor (which is a confusing name for a Peerless) just looks like a fine guitar to me. I have never played one.

Now if Martin or Taylor came out with a "Sammick Peerless" model, that would be something.

Chris

[jazzuki]

Its a Peerless! So why not have a Peerless Jazz City or New York?

[helios]

Aesthetics aside, I embrace the advantage of a fixed bridge TOM design. Mr. Conti probably wanted a guitar that sounded in tune, yet had a big box jazzy sound. I could never get my wooden compensated floating bridges to intonate properly, and I've had some nice guitars (the last one of this design type was a Borys B120). Perhaps I'm too fussy, but if it doesn't tune up properly, that's a game changer to me!
Here's a case in point-Joe Pass was a fantastic player by any measure, and I wish I had but 1% of his talent, but his ES-175 (with it's wooden floating compensated bridge) sounded like the intonation was off (you decide). I blame his floating wooden bridge. Please note the Mr. Pass will always be in my personal pantheon of jazz guitar greats, and this video is selected only to illustrate my point (or lack thereof if I'm wrong).
I'm glad Mr. Conti is having Peerless implement his guitar design visions!

[PTChristopher]

>>> sounded like the intonation was off (you decide). I blame his floating wooden bridge.

In my opinion and experience there is nothing about a floating wooden that limits any practical intonation adjustment (with bridge compensation being a big part of the picture).

By all means pin them bridge bases and install them tune-o-matics if you prefer anything about doing so. But it is not necessary for getting intonation as accurate as possible on a guitar.

All in my opinion.

Chris

[helios]

>>> sounded like the intonation was off (you decide). I blame his floating wooden bridge.

In my opinion and experience there is nothing about a floating wooden that limits any practical intonation adjustment (with bridge compensation being a big part of the picture).

By all means pin them bridge bases and install them tune-o-matics if you prefer anything about doing so. But it is not necessary for getting intonation as accurate as possible on a guitar.

All in my opinion.

Chris

Hi Chris,
You may be absolutely correct, I've simply never had luck with wooden compensated bridges, but have always managed with a TOM (Perhaps I should Instead concentrate on my playing, and not on my tuning-but that's another matter). Best wishes, Jeff

[PTChristopher]

Hiya Jeff,

It is just my opinion. By all means run what works for you vs. some web comment.

Chris

[helios]

Hiya Jeff,

It is just my opinion. By all means run what works for you vs. some web comment.

Chris

Hi Chris,
I have a question. Here is a photo of the TOM on my guitar. I used a strobe tuner to match the 12th fret octave note, to the 12th fret fretted note of my guitar. The tones match each other to within (+/-) 1/2 turn or so of the TOM saddle screw, and the guitar sounds correctly intonated (to my ears).
For a wooden floating bridge to work on this guitar (I don't want one-just wondering hypothetically), wouldn't a luthier to pretty much have to copy the exact locations of the bridge saddles as shown here, and translate them to the top of the wooden bridge in order for the guitar to sound right? I would think that this would not be a very accurate process. If the string guages were changed and the releif adjusted, a whole new bridge may have to be constructed! It seems to me that if one does not use a TOM, one is living in a world of lower expectations in terms of tuning. Is there something that I'm not understanding? Best wishes, Jeff

[PTChristopher]

Hey Jeff,

A number of things here.

>>> Here is a photo of the TOM on my guitar. I used a strobe tuner to match the 12th fret octave note, to the 12th fret fretted note of my guitar.

The whole 12th fret harmonic matched to the 12th fret note is a tried and true-ish method from back before tuners. It works OK in most cases, but it is funny to note the enduring use of this method despite the widespread use of tuners.

First off, while the 12th fret harmonic note itself is not subject to significant intonation errors, it is not of any practical use in the age of tuners.

Why not simply play the open string, confirm that it is in tune, then check the fretted note played at the 12th?

Or, FAR BETTER, check not just one note at the 12th, but rather check a number of fretted notes between the 7th and 17th frets.

It is possible that a slight string defect or a slight mis-shape to the crown on the 12th fret could lead one to precisely set bridge compensation for the 12th fretted note, while this particular note happened to be notably sharp or flat vs. the majority of other fretted notes. It happens.

I do suggest avoiding setting bridge compensation based on notes before the 7th or after the 17th frets. Notes before the 7th fret tend to be more affected by nut height and nut position errors than by bridge compensation. Notes past the 17th are usually more affected by inharmonicity and not a good bridge compensation guideline.

>>> For a wooden floating bridge to work on this guitar (I don't want one-just wondering hypothetically), wouldn't a luthier to pretty much have to copy the exact locations of the bridge saddles as shown here, and translate them to the top of the wooden bridge in order for the guitar to sound right?

Yes. When setting a wooden bridge on fixed posts, the bridge generally is best shaped for the specific guitar, strings, and setup parameters.

>>> I would think that this would not be a very accurate process. If the string guages were changed and the releif adjusted, a whole new bridge may have to be constructed!

Right. It can be a very accurate process, but not a very easily altered process. As you note, there are many reasons why one might want to moderately alter bridge compensation.

>>> It seems to me that if one does not use a TOM, one is living in a world of lower expectations

I used a t-o-m bridge during my first marriage way back when. Despite the t-o-m, I think I was still living in a world of lower expectations of various sorts.

>>> It seems to me that if one does not use a TOM, one is living in a world of lower expectations in terms of tuning.

Oh, I missed the "in terms of tuning" part,...

Well, for many players with fairly heavy strings (say .012 and up) and a wound G, the actual slight pitch deviations from an arguable ideal saddle position are so slight that thousands (many, many thousands) of guitars and players do just fine with wooden saddles.

>>>Is there something that I'm not understanding?

In my opinion you have a very good handle on bridge compensation in principle. I would only add a few near-thoughts:

- Setting the saddle only for the 12th fret note, will in some cases not provide the best fit over the general range of notes (about the 7th to the 17th frets) that are most affected by bridge compensation.

- Nut height and nut position can have a significant bearing on "intonation", yet are ignored in this whole discussion of t-o-m vs. wood.

- Lighter strings, especially with a plain G are far more sensitive to bridge compensation errors (for at least three reasons that I can think of). So a player using such strings is doing well to be more concerned with bridge compensation than a player with notably heavier strings.

Anyway, I hope this is of some help or interest.

Chris

[helios]

Hi Chris,

"Why not simply play the open string, confirm that it is in tune, then check the fretted note played at the 12th?"
I do this, as well as check the octave.

"Or, FAR BETTER, check not just one note at the 12th, but rather check a number of fretted notes between the 7th and 17th frets."
I have not done this, but I will the next time!

Thanks Chris, I'll always interested in all things guitar! Jeff

[edh]

Chris, here's a question to you. On a t-o-m, I noticed that the saddles have a bevel on one side. Does it matter which way the bevel is facing?

I ask because I had once removed the strings all my strings and couldn't remember in which position the saddle originally was in.

I tuned and intonated the strings and all is well.

Sorry if this is a ludicris(sp) question.