-
Beveling has a negligible effect on air resonances, even a deep one, set at a 45 degree angle wouldn't effect things much in my opinion and experience. Cutaways are another story. But that's a trade off that's far outweighed by players who need access to higher frets.
David
-
02-05-2015 09:51 AM
-
I can agree with that. You ever played a new Hofner president or Jazzica?
Originally Posted by TruthHertz
16 bout, the Jazzica being quite thin (wedged shape) yet the bass was immense. Much deeper and fuller than I have heard on any carved 17" Gibson.
-
This has certainly been an interesting thread. I'm thinking The Good Dr. Goetting was in between sleepless patients and had some time on his hands to let his mind wander and think about such things . . . and that's why he started it. Either that . . or as depicted in recent Power Ball TV ads, he picked the correct 6 numbers . . and no longer needs to think about more important matters.?.? Originally Posted by TruthHertz
TruthHertz; I have to agree with your comment on how cutaways affect the sound, tone and projection of an arch top. The Good Doctor once had a non cutaway acoustic Golden Eagle that he wanted me to experience during one of my visits with him. When he opened the case, my first impression was . . . "ugh . . . a solid black arch top . . . ugh!!". But, when I picked it up and played it . . I was just floored. Having played MANY Golden Eagles in many differtent configurations, inset pups, no pups, floating pups . . I wasn't really expecting too much difference from what I'd already experienced. Boy, was I wrong! It was a cannon . . projecting beautiful rich well balanced tonal joy.
On the other hand, I'm surprised that a luthier of Jim Triggs calibre would make a statement such as the one referenced above by Archtop Heaven. One would think . . (or at least, I would think) . . that Triggs would know how to refine the top and back tunings to offset any expected boomy-ness of a deeper box. This is also mentioned by Archtop Heaven in a post above; here's the quote; "However a good luthier can make bodies like the Johnny Smith sound like a full boded L5. Depends on the woods, carving, brace type and experience." I believe this to be true.
The comments on sound hole size are also interesting. One of the two best sounding and loudest arch tops I own, is an acoustic (floater) 18" Unity, whose specs are exact to those of a Gibson Super 400C, with the exception of the body depth which is 3-1/4" . . and not the 3-1/2" of the Super 400. But, its F holes are considerable smaller than those of a Gibson arch top. The other is also an acoustic (floater) Unity . . but, it's a 17" whose specs are exact to those of a Gibson L5C, with the exception of the body depth, which is 3-1/2" . . and not the 3-3/8" of the L5C. (the 17" X 3-1/2" actually sounds better and more balanced to me).
All of this chatter about the physics of ratio of air volume and Hemholz frequency is way beyond me. But, suffice to say, it was also way beyond Llord Loar, John D'Angelico, Jimmy D'Aquisto, Elmer Stromberg as well. I can say this, The bigger the box . . the bigger the sound. Talents, experience and craftsmanship handed down over many decades are then empoyed to further refine the tonal response as it relates to the wood type and box dimensions.
-
One thing I learned early on in my studies, all the quantification with glitter patterns, holographic imagery, fast fourier transforms and frequency signatures is just one way of understanding a piece of wood that's supposed to vibrate freely in an unnatural (driven at one point under tension and cut to an irregular shape) situation.
When a trained luthier, a part of a legacy with knowledge of diagnostic and adaptive techniques, works with a piece of wood, he(in generic term) feels flex by bending in one way, then in another, taps and listens for timbre, pitch and resonances. These are the exact things using electronic devices do. Except they can readily identify the exact frequencies, at a glance and how strong they are. It's no guarantee, it's the first step in a still interpretive craft.
So my greatest respect for all the master luthiers of the past, violin builders, guitar makers, cello craftsmen; they're working with the same beast. One thing I'm grateful for, is a broader knowledge of what is happening and why gives me the freedom to change parameters, to know how much more I need, to avoid taking too much off, to optimize outside of a specific personal design spec I may be comfortable with.
It' a little like jazz. When you really understand one set of rules, it gives you a wider set of resources to not just break them, but to interpret them in a different way.
The old guys built big because they needed to, they needed to move more air, but new guitars need new rulebooks. There are ways to move more air if its done efficiently, with a top that will move better, but it remains to be seen who will understand how to do that, and build it.
David
-
A couple thoughts to add:
Changes in parameters such as depth are typically not made in isolation of not adjusting other design parameters.The size, depth, scale-length, shape/thickness of the arch, bracing/bridge, soundholes, sides and back can effect the timbre, volume, responsiveness etc. (a complex system). The complexity of the system has historically demanded an empirical, sensory interpretive evolutionary process requiring mastery and experience to produce what are generally considered "great guitars".
That being said...
Guitars are complex systems and luthiers like Alan Carruth and Trevor Gore have attempted to understand flattops and classical guitars. Guys like Ken Parker have totally rethought the archtop in an innovative way and some players like them others don't. For example, I am currently partnering with a luthier on a different type of acoustic archtop that will attempt to have the mids, clarity and projection of a classic archtop more bass, sustain, overtone content. The shape and thickness of the top is different, oval hole, different back design are all part of the approach to achieve a sound.
So I believe you need the separate the conversation from adding 3/8" to the rim depth of fixed Lloyd Loar or John D'Angelico, Bob Benedetto type design from a general question of archtops. In other words, I agree with a number of prior comments. They appear contradictory, but I don't think that they are.
-
An honest and competent teacher of a craft will admit that about half of what he says is BS. But he doesn't know which half. To be sure, about half will be correct, maybe even more. If this were baseball, the batting average would be 500, which is damned impressive. So I'm not minimizing the value of a good craftsman.
A large amount of what we hear is influenced by what our other senses detect, the sensorial context. As an example, I have a friend who bought two Gibson Lucilles, one red and one black. He did this because he believed that in general those with a cherry finish produce a brighter tone. This guy is generally a high functioning, smart fellow.
Another example is that there is a widespread belief that the Gibson Varitone compresses tone in the #1 position even though that position Gibson states bypasses the capacitors used in the other five settings. This is so widely believed that there are products sold to bypass the effects of the Varitone and bring out the fuller ES-355 sound of the instrument. There are tons of testimonials that the Varitone does degrade the ultimate tone using the A/B method. But when scientifically studied, it was all illusion.
Another example I read of involved post-recording filtering. The band was listening to playbacks while the engineer toggled between using a filter or not. They all agreed that the filter sounded better. They later found out it wasn't even functioning.
I'd suggest paying at least some attention to psychoacoustics. One of the best lecturers is Poppy Crum. Below is one of her longer lectures.
Most people accept that humans can be biased. Madison Avenue was built on this. But most do not believe that they can be biased. When looked at objectively, it is very hard to compensate for biasing influences even when you are warned that they are present.
Just stirring up trouble.
-
Beware of "scientistic" reasoning: Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
A lot of discussion on acoustic design, tonewoods is based on a false dichotomy, i.e. "I understand this...and you don't". In truth, both sides understand part of what they're saying, but the complex reality defies complete description and understanding.
Acoustic design is not fully understood: Designing large performance spaces is a bit of a crapshoot...as far as I know. Avery Fisher Hall in NYC was a sonic dog when it opened. (which must have chagrined its benefactor, of Fisher Stereo components---remember when the U.S. was a world leader in this?!) But Bob Thiele, an Aussie engineer, supposedly came up with a series of equations to reliably produce ported, 2-way audio speakers. I still have a pr. of Mission 727's from 1982, and I can crank them all day long with no "sonic fatigue" that I get from other speakers with artificially juiced low and high ends. Great product, and reasonable cost at the time...and even cheaper now, in real terms. So, I believe, science can help...in fits and starts.
But does anyone remember when plastic cutting boards were going to replace "unsanitary and unsafe" wooden bds. Turns out, raw wood contains taxol which is a natural anti-bacterial agent. Thousands of yrs. of experience and lore was vindicated.
A lot of "mastery" and understanding resides in things not capable of precise description or verbalization...and this is not mumbo-jumbo....Django R. was a great player who never learned, I believe, the names of the patterns he played, but he still demonstrably knew them....great chess players look at a position and reject certain moves because "that's not what you play in this kind of position", or in my case, drilling with Russian chess software helped me to look at things, and I got to the point where I could sense the possibilities in a position, even if I could not give you a precise sequence of moves that was immediately decisive...and at first, I couldn't sense anything... my national rating improved 300 pts. (highly statistically significant) and I won my local club championship when I was a perennial middle of the pack guy before.(the chess rating system is set up so that a 400 pt. rating pt. difference is worth 2 standard deviations in strength, in OTW, the 400 pt. higher rated guy will win 90-95 of the time)
Solid state and tube amps are another example...the best explanation of tube amp warmth I've ever heard, has to do with the difference between binary logic and analog information which is infinitesimally graded....cutting up sound waves digitally, at some point, results in a loss of information, though it may, in some cases be beyond human hearing capability....but the sound engineers of the 60's were surely wrong in trying to usher in the solid state millennium. ( I still think tube amps sound warmer, in general, and most noticeably have better dynamic response...much more touch sensitive)...similarly guitars I've ever had with ebony fretbds. (a Les Paul, and now my L4-CES) have a much different sound, at least to my ears, than other guitars with maple or rosewood necks...maybe I'm just looking at the black bd. and hearing more clarity, and a certain high-end creaminess that is not there on a rosewood neck, because of a visual cue...but I'm not sure I'm imagining it. To me, this difference is pretty clear, and almost a bigger factor than the type of wood in the gtr's main body or soundboard.
I guess I'm making a plea for sonic agnosticism, on this score....I think a little tolerance is needed, if we're not to re-enact the 30 Years War (or is it the Big-Enders v. Little-Enders fight from Swift) over these issues.
-
I think than none of it really makes that much difference.
Ive had Johnny Smith sizes that sound deeper and bigger than full L5 ones. Ive had two 'tap flowers' (a point for anyone who can work out the name from that auto correct function) that sounded totally different.
In the end there are so any variables and I know they all have something to add but just because you achieved something one way, doesnt mean the same cant be achieved another.
Of course I am over generalising yes but you get my point.
-
What do you think about the body specs of the Ibanez SS300 :
Length 19"
Width 15"
Max depth 4" 1/3
Isn't this archtop kind of too .. "boxy", to name it?
It's really deep and somehow shallow in width.. I wonder what acoustic sound you get with these dimensions.
And it's a solid spruce top, maple back and sides..
-
when is an archtop not an archtop? - when its a thinline
i'm all for comfort - but i can't give up too much sound and feel in the name of it
the question is - of course - just how much?
i want to summarize my experience here - because it might help some people in some situations - and i'd like to find out what others have found and think
---
so i think you can go below 3'' to around 2.75'' but when you get below 2.5'' you get into trouble.
the trouble is surely this - the tone sort of sounds like the guitar looks, namely, a bit too thin.
i find my 2 7/8'' andersen has an incredible acoustic response and all the depth and richness you could ever want; my 2. 3/4'' campellone also is as full sounding as i could want it to be - with perhaps just a tad extra focus (and better response than it might otherwise have to amplification); my very slightly thinner sadowsky LS 17 (around 2.65'') is also lacking nothing in body and fullness. all three guitars - but especially the campellone - are incredibly comfortable to sit with.
but i had a 17'' campellone that was 2 1/4'' and it did not sound like a proper archtop to me. the guitar was glorious in every other way - being able to snuggle that close to it in playing made it feel just great etc. etc. bestest neck ever etc. - no deal. sorry. next.
however good that first one was i would need to have 10 great arcthops before i started to want one like that (and then i'd just get another proper one instead). the second one - it seems to me - could sound just great.
after playing a brand new L5 CES which is 3 3/8'' deep it strikes me that you probably can't go thinner than that if you really want a full fat (amplified) sound. its worth noticing that L5s, 175s and L4s are all at least 3 3/8'' deep.
on the other hand the ss 15 seems to generate a very full amplified sound - and it is stupid-thin.
'contemporary' archtops often feature thinner profiles - which suggests that recently luthiers have come to agree that you don't need the full depth to get the full sound.
i'd like to hear others' impressions and preferences.Last edited by Groyniad; 09-11-2015 at 01:30 PM.
-
I've been thinking about this for some time too and recently came to the same conclusion myself. Although I have played a couple of axes like the JP20 where the depth didn't detract from the sound enough for it to be an issue, although thats a 16"
-
I beg to differ. The last L5 ct I had sounded very deep and full tonewise not thin at all. Ill give you as much as probably the average of each would fall into your general description but certainly not all. Ive owned several L5 ces, L5 Wes Mo and CTs and each had their own tone. I never found any of them to be that much different tonewise from each other. The only exception being the 57 L5 with a Rhythm Chief 1100 that sounded huge. I believe a lot of a guitars tone comes from the player. Bob
-
I don't think it is the tone of the CT that you are reacting to. I think it is the presence of a slight delay setting on either the amp (a digital perhaps), or on a pedal that is causing you to suspect that something "less than Wes" is afoot. Me...I would stay away from delay for that type of music, myself.
-
very interesting
it would be great to have a really comfortable L5 - but i find it hard to imagine one.
greentone - i get your point about the funny delay, but isn't there a much brighter sharper edge to the tone underneath all that?Last edited by Groyniad; 09-11-2015 at 05:45 PM.
-
I love these guitars:
Depths at the rim range from 2" to 2.5" They don't sound as deep as a full-depth version, but on stage that's a benefit, IMO. The deepest-sounding one is the thickest, but the thinnest one is next, so it's not just body-depth that's at play.
In any case, I haven't been comfortable with a 3" deep guitar in many years, so for me it's a moot point.
Danny W.
-
Ive struggled with a 3" deep body for a few years now, but I really like the tone of an L5 so I still have one Wes Mo and a CT. I also started to struggle with the longer scale length over the last few years so I cant seem to bond with either of them. Ideally Id like to find a CT with a P90 and 24 3/4" scale. Bob
-
my campellone with a 25' scale and 2.75'' rims feels like a perfect compromise in terms of size.
but that full-bodied L5 CES sounded the biz. of course the es 150 and 350 have these rims as well as the L5, L4 and 175
that's quite an argument for full-size instruments.
for a long while my shoulders were in real trouble. they healed up - and now i'm looking at the full size instruments again.
danny - do you notice a real difference in feedback resistance on stage? do the CT's sound like L5s or like a different instrument?
i think byrdlands (and ss 15s) may be different because of the shorter scale - maybe that fattens up the sound from the thinner body.
-
Not being a luthier I don't know the ins and outs of this, but my guess is that there might need to be adjustments to the carving of the top and the bracing to compensate for the different body depths. Assuming we are talking about the electric rather than acoustic sound of the instrument, differences between pickups and variations in the values of the rest of the circuit (caps and pots) are also going to contribute.
I have a 1981 Ibanez GB10 which is an enormously fat sounding guitar despite the small body, but the pickups are wound hot and on mine are not very Bensonesque- more Martino-ish at least with pure nickel strings. The top end is very round, even with the tone pot wide open. I can get almost a Jim Hall sound from his ES-175/P90 days with that guitar (the Hall sound is a bit more open and airy than I seem to be able to get with the GB10). Acoustically it's almost negligible- loud enough to practice in the couch without plugging in, but not that much louder than my semi-hollow Tele.
My 17" carvetop (3" sides) is brighter and more articulate than the GB10. Putting in a modified Classic 57 floater fattened and warmed it up a lot compared to the mini humbucker it came with or the Kent Armstrong PAF-0 I had on it for a few years. The sound is more Peter Bernstein than Jim Hall.
Electrically the difference between these two guitars is the opposite of the original thesis, probably because I might think of a different "proper archtop sound."
-
In correspondence with me about thinline archtops last year, Jim Triggs expressed the view that 2 5/8" was the slimmest you could go without losing a lot of low end. He built a number of later Gobel model L5s at Gibson (same depth) and I suspect knows as much or more than many of us here about archtop construction.
-
Intuitively having a smaller body should reduce bass response, at least acoustically. I suspect a really good acoustical engineer working with a really good luthier could disprove that. IME the archtop electric sound roughly seems to parallel the acoustic sound- a bassy acoustic sound seems to result in a bassy amplified sound, for example, but there can be exceptions. But once a guitar is amplified we add in a whole bunch of variables- the characteristics of the pickup, electronics, cord, amp, speaker, room, etc. And we can end up with odd situations like the GB10.
-
The Gobel knocks an inch off the depth of a full-size L-5, putting it at 2 & 3/8". I've owned quite a few thinline L-5s and have investigated a bunch more and have never found one deeper than 2.5" and those were custom orders. Originally Posted by bananafist
The 15.5" L-5 Signature series does have a depth of 2 & 5/8" and mine sound terrific.
Danny W.
-
The guitar that made me believe you actually can squeeze a roar out of a pistachio nut was the Ribbecke Halfling. Try one some day. It's crazy how much sound that guitar pumps out.
One thing Patrick told me one day was most of the sound of a guitar gets muffled by the way you hold it while you are playing it. It's really true. When you play any hollowbody in the manner of which a classical guitar is played (back open, body resting on a small section of the lower bout rim) the acoustic sound comes alive.
No doubt the bigger the guitar, the bigger the sound can be, but you can definitely get a lot out of 2-5/8 deep body, for sure..
Joe D.
-
The depth of tone difference's even between 18" with 3" depth vs. 17" at 3" depth is the reason I moved to 18" guitars. Then I acquired a Guild Artist Award, which is 17" by 3.25" in depth, and I was impressed. It moved me as much as 18" guitars I'd owned. Then I acquired an 18" that was 3.25" in depth, and I was smitten again with the obvious overall tone projection and depth.
But after receiving a Tal Farlow at 3" in depth, that for me is a nice compromise. I prefer it's electrified tonality to most Spruce archtops with 3" in depth...and on the used market it's a relatively "cheap" option compared to most archtops. And I never cared for the looks of the guitar...but after a few weeks the appearance grew on me for at the end of the day it's a great playing guitar...and it's a size compromise over a 3 3/8" standard L5. The neck of the TF even feels very similar to L5 necks of the several I'd previously owned. No tone compromise here.
-
Some useful food for thought in this thread. I'm considering an upcoming, first archtop purchase, and I'd been focusing on lower bout size but hadn't given any thought to thickness. Having had spinal fusion surgery a few months back, my concern with size was driven by the need to play pain-free (or as close as possible) and not by the acoustic projection. Reading some of the responses here, I'll definitely be keeping all aspects of size in mind moving forward.
-
I wonder how much and in which way body determines the tone of a guitar – once it's amplified.
I have a (very deep) carved Eastman archtop, a (medium depth) cheap Ibanez AG 75 (the poor man's George Benson sized guitar) and a thinline Gibson ES 330. As these are all very differently constructed in every other way (like carved vs. laminate), they sound very different anyway. I'm trying to figure out if depth is the determing factor. Once the guitars are amplified I cannot hear more depth in the tone of the deeper guitar than in the thinner.
Thinlines are very comfortable to play and they seem less prone to feed back, so I wonder if a carved thinline guitar would sound much different than a full depth archtop.Last edited by guavajelly; 07-05-2019 at 04:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Guitar Center CEO: No serious musician wants $300...
Today, 10:42 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos