Spruce vs Maple tops: PLUGGED IN?

[Bluedawg]

Basically, just wanted to know if a maple-topped (laminate) instrument, with the right pickups, can have the same plugged-in tone of a spruce-topped (laminate). I didn't know how much of a role the top wood actually played when plugging a guitar in. I know very well what the difference is acoustically.

.

If you are lucky enough to be playing with a band ... you and your audience probably won't hear much difference once the bass and drums kick in ....

If you are in a nice quiet room or a recording studio ... the difference will be more noticable

[Philco]

My question has always been why, other than tradition and superstition, is it important if it sounds like an archtop.

Jim I think the answer is with sustain.
There are some of us (me) who find the fat staccato sound of an archtop.....think very early Benson and Pat Martino....to be the trigger that will set of an emotional response akin to ecstasy.
Then you hear the comping sound and it's like smeared warm butter.
It gets me in a visceral way.

To me (my opinion) that's why I play jazz. I want that sound.

A Telecaster (like the beautiful Thinline I just sold) has way to much sustain. Even with TI heavy Flatwounds.
From one note to the next there is no gap.
I don't like that sound at all, although they are a very convenient working instrument.

Have a listen to some really early Benson like this....

Alright some of it is in the hands and the picking but you will NOT be getting that sound out of a Tele.
If you don't find that sound appealing then just about any electric will do for "jazz".
But for "me" if you remove that tone then most of the magic is gone.

For the OP. I have a Gibson 775....a 175 with an ebony board but still a laminate top, and a Gibson L5 Wesmo.
They sound a world apart. The 175 has a very nasal sound acoustically. The L5 is to die for acoustically. I think I got real lucky with this one. It's getting louder a fatter the more I play it......and I play it a lot.
Electrically you can easily hear the difference. Recorded you can easily hear the difference.
The L5 has more depth to the note and has that slight "dwat" under each note.
The 775 doesn't have that but has a nice thing of it's own.

So the timber makes quite a difference. If I was just recording I would always use the L5 but for live work I'm tempted to keep the 775.

Oh you have to hear this. I can't be sure but I'm guessing it's when Pat was using an L5.

[Archtop 13]

This thread seems to be going in circles. There are so many variables that go into a guitar build that you can't pin every ounce of your tone down to the top plate. Yes, it will have an impact. So will the neck wood type & profile, the neck block & tail block construction, the thickness of the top, thickness of the paint, how much glue is used in the laminates, how thick the veneers are, how many grain lines, the type of bridge, nut, fingerboard, tailpiece, pickups themselves, bracing, kerfing & on & on.

[ruger9]

This thread seems to be going in circles. There are so many variables that go into a guitar build that you can't pin every ounce of your tone down to the top plate. Yes, it will have an impact. So will the neck wood type & profile, the neck block & tail block construction, the thickness of the top, thickness of the paint, how much glue is used in the laminates, how thick the veneers are, how many grain lines, the type of bridge, nut, fingerboard, tailpiece, pickups themselves, bracing, kerfing & on & on.

Which is why I said in the first post "all other things being equal"... because that would be the only scientific way to discern the difference between the top wood differences we are discussing.

[ruger9]

Jazz on a tele (skip ahead to 2:30)

I hope no one will say "it's not jazz" simply because it's Paisley, he's a highly accomplished player and knows a hell of alot of jazz. It's actually all over his country playing.

Anyway, obviously people will say "sounds like a tele"...because they ALREADY KNOW it's a tele... but try to be objective; I think this is a darn fine "archtop-ish jazz tone" out of a tele.. and I'm quite sure people here have heard teles sound even more like an archtop than this.

Anyway, just thought I'd post it for impressions since teles and thinline teles have been mentioned. I do hear the "too much sustain" (to sound like an archtop) thing...

[Philco]

Yeah great sound and great playing!
That's a fantastic sound for Jazz but of course a different sound to an arch top.
Depends what floats your boat.

My preference for the more staccato arch top sound is tied to the old Bop lines and the way they sound in the hands of a few.
No exactly the sound of today though

To stay on topic though......I couldn't get the depth I wanted out of the 775 but I got it out of the L5. Laminate as opposed to Spruce. Perhaps also 16' compared to 17'. Both 3.5'
But I am going for a very specific sound so my opinion is limited to "that" sound.

[oldane]

Heck, if pickups made most of the difference, I could drop some dark TV Jones in my Gretsch Hot Rod, slap on some flatwounds, and be in business.

Picups don't make most of the difference. The flatwounds you mention means more. And so does the choice of pick and picking position. But, yes, that was pretty much my point in my earlier posts. I could also add that you could raise the action a bit to get that clean tone without metallic string slap. You could also replace the metal bridge saddle with a wood saddle. That would darken the tone, make it more woody (whatever that is) and might also reduce the sustain a little. Then you would be very nicely in business.

Which is why I said in the first post "all other things being equal"... because that would be the only scientific way to discern the difference between the top wood differences we are discussing.

You are right. It would be the only scientific way to do it. But it would be rather academic and with little practical relevance, because in real life, all other things are never equal. You can't find two guitar models where the only difference is the top material. Even with the ES175 vs. L4 the fretboard is different (rosewood vs. ebony) as is the PU placement and also the back material (plywood vs. pressed solid vs. carved solid).

BTW, even if we tried with all our might (for example by building, for this specific purpose, a sufficient number of archtops to allow statistical significance), it would still be impossible to do such a scientific test, beacause not two guitars are the same, not even of the same make and model, and not two pieces of wood is the same, not even when they are cut from adjecent places in the same log. Like has been said before, the variables are too many and too big. In the end the whole subject is to a great extent speculative, and we are left with our beliefs rather than scientific facts. So this thread can indeed - as another poster wrote - run in circles forever. This discussion is not new at all. It has been running ever since the plywood archtops were introduced over 60 years ago.

[ruger9]

Picups don't make most of the difference. The flatwounds you mention means more. And so does the choice of pick and picking position. But, yes, that was pretty much my point in my earlier posts. I could also add that you could raise the action a bit to get that clean tone without metallic string slap. You could also replace the metal bridge saddle with a wood saddle. That would darken the tone, make it more woody (whatever that is) and might also reduce the sustain a little. Then you would be very nicely in business.




You are right. It would be the only scientific way to do it. But it would be rather academic and with little practical relevance, because in real life, all other things are never equal. You can't find two guitar models where the only difference is the top material. Even with the ES175 vs. L4 the fretboard is different (rosewood vs. ebony) as is the PU placement and also the back material (plywood vs. pressed solid vs. carved solid).

it would still be impossible to do such a scientific test, beacause not two guitars are the same, not even of the same make and model, and not two pieces of wood is the same, not even when they are cut from adjecent places in the same log.

We agree/disagree- I don't think there are anything wrong with "everything else being equal" generalizations, and think they can be very helpful (have serious practical relevance) to give one an "idea" about the tone discussed... acoustics are a perfect example. I agree that no two acoustics, even built by the same person, identically, with be 100% the same. But make one with mahogany back and sides and one with rosewood back & sides (or one with a spruce top and one with a cedar top), and they WILL sound different, and those generalizations on tone WILL be valid.

I of course comes down to the ACTUAL guitar, which is why I try to not buy acoustic/hollow guitars anymore that I can't actually play first. Solidbodies aren't as critical, all the same rules apply, but alot more can be done tonally to get an electric where you want it, electrically, since the body isn't doing much of the tone generation (when compared to an acoustic/hollow).

Thanks for the "flatwounds matter more than pickups" and "wood bridge" advice... I'm almost assuredly NOT going to turn my Grestch into a jazzier box, but it further helps me understand what makes a jazzbox sound like a jazzbox, especially compared to the thinner, maple-topped, meant-to-be-played-electrically archtops.

[PTChristopher]

>>> [acoustic guitars] make one with mahogany back and sides and one with rosewood back & sides (or one with a spruce top and one with a cedar top), and they WILL sound different, and those generalizations on tone WILL be valid.

I understand the view you are trying to drive here. And if the view works for you, then that's great.

The example may be a little bit unfortunate. The Mahogany vs. Indian Rosewood vs. Brazilian Rosewood concept has been batted back and forth for decades. It is not clear at all that in a double-blind test players can tell the difference at all.

Again, see this anyway that works for you.

[ruger9]

>>> [acoustic guitars] make one with mahogany back and sides and one with rosewood back & sides (or one with a spruce top and one with a cedar top), and they WILL sound different, and those generalizations on tone WILL be valid.

I understand the view you are trying to drive here. And if the view works for you, then that's great.

The example may be a little bit unfortunate. The Mahogany vs. Indian Rosewood vs. Brazilian Rosewood concept has been batted back and forth for decades. It is not clear at all that in a double-blind test players can tell the difference at all.

Again, see this anyway that works for you.

Totally disagree, all other things being equal. I've experienced it myself. I'm no "jazz guy" (limited hollowbody/archtop experience), but have been playing 25 years and have a quite picky ear. I usually hear things most others don't. So while I totally understand the point you are trying to make...no 2 guitars are ever the same...What "works for me" is irrelevant: woods DO have different tonal characteristics... I really don't understand what is so difficult to grasp about that fact, all other things being equal.

And again- generalizations aren't false simply because they don't apply 100% of the time; NOTHING applies 100% of the time. Generalizations are called that because they apply MOST of the time, and that is a helpful thing.

And I can assure you: on 2 acoustic guitars, built identically, most people with experience can most definitely tell the difference between mahogany, maple, and rosewood. Maybe not Brazilian and Indian rosewood... and also other woods like Koa sound alot like mahogany. But mahogany and rosewood? Same guitar? Same person playing the same thing? ("all other things being equal")? Absolutely. To believe otherwise would be to believe that all this "tonewood talk" is a bunch of meaningless BS, that it doesn't matter what wood is used... in which case, we should all be playing nato topped guitars with plytanium back and sides.

[oldane]

..... I try to not buy acoustic/hollow guitars anymore that I can't actually play first.

That's actually very good advice you give here. That way one can totally bypass those non scientific considerations and go straight to the heart of the matter: Do I like this guitar or don't I? - for obvious good reasons or none at all.

.... woods DO have different tonal characteristics... I really don't understand what is so difficult to grasp about that fact, all other things being equal.

I do grasp the concept. It's just that it is very hard to set "all other things being equal" up in practice, so those tonal differencies can so easily be drowned by other factors.

And I can assure you: on 2 acoustic guitars, built identically, most people with experience can most definitely tell the difference between mahogany, maple, and rosewood.

We are more on the same page here - with acoustic guitars. But the thread was about guitars plugged in, and it is those I have referred to so far. I too find a big difference in acoustic tone between a plywood jazzbox and a well made carved top guitar. The well made carved top instrument sounds sweet and pleasant, while the plywood boxes often sound like a monkey farting in a tin can - OK for practice in a pinch, but not for other peoples ears.

But still, the actual build of the guitar also means a lot. Bob Benedetto was convinced that the actual woods didn't play such a big a role as many people believed. He claimed that a competent luthier could take the differencies between different kinds of wood into acount when building the instrument, so they would end up sounding much the same. To prove it, he built an acoustic archtop made from construction grade wood which he bought in the local handyman shop. The top was made of knot riddled wide grained pine, normally used for boxes (no, not jazzboxes ) and the like. Despite the seemingly obvious, that guitar didn't sound and play significantly different from Bobs "normal" guitars, including the most expensive Cremonas made from AAAAA++++++ tonewoods.

[coolvinny]

I can buy that certain people can distinguish between subtle differences in guitar construction when listening intently, but I just have to wonder...with those amazing listening skills, wouldn't they be better off picking up licks, comping ideas, visualizing the chord progression, imagining little harmonies they could play, etc. rather than "hmmm sounds like brazilian rosewood on a carved spruce top"?

[rpguitar]

All of these minutiae are fascinating and fun to talk about. But none of it really matters until you actually pick up and play a given guitar. And better yet, own it for a while - gig with it, noodle on it, play it acoustically and plugged in (if applicable) through various amps. Try different strings on it.

I can predict and generalize the response, tone, or impact of a given guitar component/feature all day long. And after owning nearly 100 guitars over 35 years, I am pretty good at it. But I have also been surprised and proven wrong by individual instruments more times than I can count. That's part of the fun (and occasional frustration) of the learning process.

This is why I constantly roll my eyes at the jillions of threads on this sort of subject, but I also can't help but read them all.

[ruger9]

All of these minutiae are fascinating and fun to talk about. But none of it really matters until you actually pick up and play a given guitar. And better yet, own it for a while - gig with it, noodle on it, play it acoustically and plugged in (if applicable) through various amps. Try different strings on it.

Amen to that.

I can predict and generalize the response, tone, or impact of a given guitar component/feature all day long. And after owning nearly 100 guitars over 35 years, I am pretty good at it. But I have also been surprised and proven wrong by individual instruments more times than I can count. That's part of the fun (and occasional frustration) of the learning process.

And amen to that. I have had similar experiences.

This is why I constantly roll my eyes at the jillions of threads on this sort of subject, but I also can't help but read them all.

Don't think rolling eyes are needed... I still think generalizations can be very helpful, to at least get on into the right state, perhaps even the right county, until playing with/living with the instrument becomes required to actually get you to your final destination.

For example, if you like the tone of the 17" spruce archtops you have heard, and the generalization is that 17" spruce sounds more like "this" and 16" maple sound more like "that", if safe to assume to start your search in the state of spruce... that way, you don't waste time driving around 16" maple state, and can usually get to the desired location quicker.

No need to look at a Gretsch 6120 if the tone you love (that you have heard, on records, or whatever) is coming out of an L4CES.

Like I said- that's why they call them generalizations. Because they are true most of the time. And I see true most of the time as helpful most of the time.

[oldane]

Thanks for the clarification... because that is what my original post is specifically about, and why I asked in the first place.

If so I got it wrong. I thought your thread heading "Spruce vs. Maple tops: PLUGGED IN" meant - well, plugged in. What you quote from my post is about acoustic unplugged guitar sound. For me that's not the same.
Edit: By rereading my post, I can see that I wasn't too clear about this.

[ruger9]

If so I got it wrong. I thought your thread heading "Spruce vs. Maple tops: PLUGGED IN" meant - well, plugged in. What you quote from my post is about acoustic unplugged guitar sound. For me that's not the same.
Edit: By rereading my post, I can see that I wasn't too clear about this.

so now I'm still confused!

UNplugged, I think we all agree that all other things being equal, the top wood, ALONE, makes a difference, right?

PLUGGED IN, is where the waters get considerably murky... and my reason for starting this thread...

ok- train's back on the tracks now...

[PTChristopher]

>>> I think we all agree that I think we all agree that all other things being equal, the top wood, ALONE, makes a difference, right?

No. Some have tried to state that "all other things being equal" is an interesting but un-encountered situation. If it absolutely has to stand as a premise, with underlines and bold type, then fine.

But if you ask if everyone agrees, then my opinion is no. And certainly my small part of "everyone" does not agree that this is a practical way to address how to make fine guitar noises.

I understand that you absolutely want to address a question in a certain way. So sorry to have not contributed to this pre-defined narrow set of possible answers.

I think I am only going to thwart you eventual answer, so I'll drop off the thread and wish you all success in finding the answer that meets your needs.

O&O,

Chris

[ruger9]

Amazing how some people just can't accept the existence of a generalization, and that they are indeed helpful.

Applying that attitude to everything gear related would make all questions completely irrelevant, since everything depends on everything all the time... what would be the point of product reviews, because it all depends. Or even product descriptions by manufacturers, because, it all depends. Perhaps builders should just build whatever the want, however they want, offer no description or specifications to the public, refuse all reviews my magazines/websites, and just put it on racks and see if it sells. Because, after all- it all depends on THAT SINGULAR guitar. So all this other stuff like bracing, pickups, woods, etc... is all just BS. Doesn't mean anything. So why even give out the information? Play the guitar- if you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.

[Archtop 13]

Which is why I said in the first post "all other things being equal"... because that would be the only scientific way to discern the difference between the top wood differences we are discussing.

All other things equal, yes. You can hear the difference.

If someone tells you, you cannot, they don't know what they are listening for.

[jasonc]

Ruger9, given what you're after I would think the Epi would be a good fit. What amp are you using? That is the elephant in the room I think. The amp can be a huge factor. Also, if you dig the Gretsches why not look at one of the lower end models like a 5120 strictly set up for jazz? I have a 6120 with a PAF style humbucker in the neck and a Filtertron wound to match in the bridge and it could certainly do what you want all day long.....through the right amp. I understand Philco's point but you can still get a punchy, old-school not-a-lot-of-sustain type tone out of a tele. For example: Nat Cole trio "It's Only A Paper Moon" - YouTube
For a more Junior Barnard type sound:

The only reason I bring up the tele is that it also sounds like a good fit for the music you described=Western Swing/Rockabilly/Jazz.....food for thought.

[ruger9]

Ruger9, given what you're after I would think the Epi would be a good fit. What amp are you using? That is the elephant in the room I think. The amp can be a huge factor. Also, if you dig the Gretsches why not look at one of the lower end models like a 5120 strictly set up for jazz? I have a 6120 with a PAF style humbucker in the neck and a Filtertron wound to match in the bridge and it could certainly do what you want all day long.....through the right amp. I understand Philco's point but you can still get a punchy, old-school not-a-lot-of-sustain type tone out of a tele. For example: Nat Cole trio "It's Only A Paper Moon" - YouTube
For a more Junior Barnard type sound:

The only reason I bring up the tele is that it also sounds like a good fit for the music you described=Western Swing/Rockabilly/Jazz.....food for thought.

After much reading and listening, I am leaning towards not only a spruce top, but the Epi Broadway.

As for the Electromatics, if I were going to go the "cheaper" route (and maple tops/thinner bodies), I'd probably go even cheaper than that for this project... like a Xaviere or something. But I already have the maple/thinner body covered, definitely looking for something different. I was considering a Kingpin II as well, but with the opinions I've read, and demos I've watched, on the Broadway, I have a feeling it's probably the closest to what I'm after. I'll put flatwounds on it, and maybe or maybe not change the pups.

Actually, a Thinline tele has crossed my mind, maybe with CC pickups & flatwounds... it's true that in the end, I won't know until I own these guitars for awhile and decide what's going to work best for me, but outside opinions based on personal experience is always a good place to start.

I wish there was someplace locally to play a Broadway, a Kingpin, and a Xaviere... but there isn't. Actually not even ONE of ANY model (of course the Xaviere is mailorder only).

[ruger9]

oh- the amp- currently a Genz Benz Black Pearl, which is a hot-rodded AC30 basically. I don't like it with my Gretsch, just with my solidbodies. But I'm getting a Swart AST Master or MkII directly, which, while not actually vintage, is designed and built in the vintage mold. I've read nothing but stellar reviews, played an AST myself, and read where many people say it does the "jazz thing" very well (that's not why I'm getting one, it's an amp I've wanted for years, I just finally can afford one.)

[jasonc]

I just thought about this....you could also look at some older Guilds like the CE-100 or X-500 or maybe even a one of the Starfires. I really don't know what any of these are going for these days but they are usually quite affordable and they are usually quite nice. Again just something to think about. I've also heard good things about the Swart amps. They do certainly look cool.

[oldane]

so now I'm still confused!
ok- train's back on the tracks now...

Yes, the complexity of real life can truly be confusing. Sometimes there is no simple answer to a simple question, and trying to make up one will be overly simplistic and will not cover the real life situation.

That said, it seems you lean toward a spruce top guitar, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. There are numerous and excellent such instruments out there, and these years there's more to choose from than there has ever been.

Having settled for a spruce top guitar, you have the question of top material aside. Then you only need to decide about built in/floating PU, x-braced/parallel braced/parallel and cross braced, thick top/thin top, shape of arch and recurve, wide/narrow grain, neck matrial, fretboard wood etc.

But OK, OK, I'll stop teasing you anymore. Good luck with your search. There's plenty out there which can fill your needs. Take your time. Maybe even take a couple of days off from work if possible to check out the inventory of several stores. If you don't live in a large city with such stores, go there if you can.

All the best.

[ruger9]

Yes, the complexity of real life can truly be confusing. Sometimes there is no simple answer to a simple question, and trying to make up one will be overly simplistic and will not cover the real life situation.

But OK, OK, I'll stop teasing you anymore. Good luck with your search. There's plenty out there which can fill your needs. Take your time. Maybe even take a couple of days off from work if possible to check out the inventory of several stores. If you don't live in a large city with such stores, go there if you can.

All the best.

You do "get" that I'm not trying to chose a guitar based on top wood alone, right? As far as the teasing goes- no prob there- I've been playing 25 years, have been a gear hound almost that long, and know how to identify what works for me, with methods such as "generalization" being part of it. As I said, if somebody's looking for a Charlie Christian tone, you don't direct them to the filtertron-equipped Grestch isle.

Also keep in mind, at my price point, I'm not going to have the luxury of choosing top thickness, bracing pattern, etc... I'm just after a "budget box" that will get me closest to the tone I'm after... if this is something I fall in love with, I'll spend some big bucks later on.

Also- playing alot of guitars is also part of my dilemma, and why I came looking for opinions... there's a very good chance I'll end up mail ordering a guitar, which I hate to do, either because I can't find anything I like in my price range locally (which is usually what happens) or I simply don't have the time to go guitar shopping for several days (boy I wish I did.)