-
I've had otherwise identical L-5CES guitars in a variety of depths. There is no doubt that the full-depth models have had a more robust bottom end. Since I always gig with a bassist, I've never found this to be a detriment, and I appreciate the reduced feedback on stage.
Danny W.
-
07-05-2019 01:33 AM
-
It isn’t *the* determining factor but it is one of them along with body size (let’s say lower bout for convenience), solid vs. laminate, what kind of wood is used, scale length and everything else.
As for what I’ve noticed generally with deeper vs. more shallow guitars, they do have more bottom end but it’s more of a general fullness of the sound so even higher strings will be noticeably different and not just the low end, as well as how chords attack and ring. Depending on how you play that might be good or bad, also depending on the amp, what gauge strings you’re using and so on. And there can be a trade off with feedback so that might be higher value to you than the sound you’d get from a deeper body. Feedback is manageable though in most guitars and you can’t manage extra space in a guitar (a small guitar is always small but you can work out ways to deal with feedback). I’ve always preferred bigger guitars for various reasons including the sound and just tried to stay away from guitars that are more problematic with feedback (and that does include smaller ones like the Benson guitars, which I had many more issues with than a larger guitar like an L5).
My Eastman is one of those guitars - feeds back like crazy and that’s why I stopped using it as an electric and just made it acoustic. Due to having to sell all of my electric guitars, though, I just put a pickup back on my Eastman today out of desperation basically but I made some f hole plugs out of flip flops. So far it seems that the feedback is much more manageable but I’ll know for sure at higher volumes with a group on Saturday. Another thing people do is packing tape over the holes as well as stuffing the guitar with foam.
I don’t know what model you have but many of their solid wood guitars are very thinly carved with light bracing. Mine doesn’t have a set in pickup either so it just vibrates if you look at it the wrong way and starts feeding back. Whereas when I had my L5, it is a bigger guitar (similar depth but 17” rather than 16”) but practically never fed back because it is carved thicker, braced differently, has set in pickups and is built heavier. It had the potential to feedback but I knew how to deal with it whereas problem guitars would feedback in a way that affected my playing and were close to uncontrollable at a certain volume. So I would probably guess you are seeing the feedback from the construction of the guitar rather than the depth.
As for the tone, every part of the guitar affects amplified tone. Some more than others. The pickup is only hearing the string but the body and everything else affects how the string reacts to playing. I think it’s more noticeable or less due to both the person listening as well as a number of variables (string gauge, picks and other seemingly small things as well as the amp, settings and where the guitar is being played). If you don’t hear a difference then I guess you’re good to go with whatever you’d like so that makes it easy. I both hear and feel a difference which is why I like larger guitars so to each their own. Hope this is coherent - it’s very late and about to go to bed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Rio, mine is the AR 905 CE. And I stopped using it with groups like 11 years ago for the same reason as you – got a telecaster instead and everybody was happy. Now I find myself getting interested into a more acoustic archtop tone again with the eastman being my favourite tone-wise – but still the group (hammond organ trio) plays too loud for it to be the best choice. I got a Gibson 330 lately and love it. The Ibanez also works well.
Still I have that idea in my head of a solid carved instrument with real acoustic properties. I wonder if the top and back are thicker and a thinline body (mainly for comfort) it would have the acoustic properties AND be more immune to feedback?
I have the idea of a top with an integrated, carved bracing – maybe feasible with CNC – that may be more solid but still have good acoustic properties. I can't build it myself and there aren't any archtop makers nearby (they tend to live in the south of germany) so I yet have to find one to discuss this idea.
-
I have solid carved top archtops ranging from 1.75" deep to 3.5" deep. There is a definite difference in acoustic tone between them, but surprisingly little when amplified. I have two Wu-made archtops, one with an 18" lower bout and 3.5" deep, and one that is just under 16" lower bout and about 2.4" deep. Despite the big one having a set humbucker and the smaller one having a floating Rhythm Chief, they don't sound all that different when amplified. The big one does tend to feed back more. I seldom play it, because it's so big and uncomfortable to play, but it sounds very good. I also have an Eastman T145, which is only 1.75" deep, and while it has little bass response acoustically (no surprise there) it isn't that different from the others when amplified. I think the pickup matters more than the depth. I mostly play the smaller Wu, because it sounds great acoustically when I want that, and it's small enough to be comfortable to play. It's also probably the best sounding when amplified, probably because the Rhythm Chief provides the sound I prefer without having to mess with knobs. I have only a volume control on it, no tone, and I usually set the amp to very close to flat, whichever one I use, with only minor tweaks of the treble needed. So to me, the bottom line is that the depth of the archtop doesn't make a lot of difference when using a pickup. It does matter when playing acoustically, and I prefer a medium depth for both sound and comfort.
-
+1 to those comments. It's not just the low end, it's the whole sound spectrum as well as the 'woodiness'.
Originally Posted by rio
Another thing I'll add: I find that smaller guitars need bigger speakers in the amp to sound good...or at least "as good" or close to "as good" as larger guitars. Small guitar plus small amp often leads to 'boxy' to a degree you would not get with say a 16 x 3 hollowbody. I have a Collins Eastside Jazz which is about 15 x 1.75 and it sounds great with a 12" open back but with a small closed back amp, the magic just isn't there.
-
The acoustics of a guitar are very complicated. Luthier Alan Carruth once asked friends at major research laboratory try to model the acoustics of a guitar and they couldn’t do it. They said to him, “it ain’t rocket science... it’s way harder”.
That said, the body of the guitar will have its own fundamental frequencies that will reinforce certain harmonic overtones of the notes you are playing. This is most obvious in the acoustic sound. Nonetheless, some of this reinforcement gets transmitted to the strings. Out of control, this becomes feedback, but it is why even amplified through a pickup different guitar bodies will impart different “tone”.
There are so many variables that it is impossible to say that every time a deeper body will reinforce more bass overtones. You could have a thin guitar that has deep bass overtones and a deep guitar that reinforces higher ones.
But there does seem to be a shared experience that, yes, in general, deeper bodied guitars seem to reinforce lower overtones even to the strings when played amplified.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
I agree with DannyW. Since I do gig without a bassist, however, I like having a full low end available.
My big archtops deliver in that setting.
-
I had a conversation with Roger Borys years ago. It was his feeling that a carved spruce top had to have body dimensions of a minimum 17" lower bout & 3" depth in order to sound full. As laminates by contrast are stronger & therefore can be made thinner, a laminate body with dimensions of 16" x 2.75" can sound great when amplified!
-
So when discussing acoustic properties vs electrified sound. And also discussing solid carved top and back vs laminates. We are also discussing internal bracing as well. These get to be debated quite a bit here in these forums.
My take is the acoustic properties are important mostly for the carved top instruments rather than the laminates. And designs have changed due to musical styles and louder gigs with modern bands.
I found my Benedetto Bambino to be incredibly versatile and able to cover ES-175 to ES-335 abilities. So if versatility is needed that would be a great design choice
However if small ensemble playing is the order carved tops from the venerable Gibson Johnny Smith as well as smaller offerings like the Lee Ritenour L-5 Signature model work wonderfully.
It really comes down to personal preference and affordability for everyone. The great thing is there are myriad of choices on the used market in reasonable range for just about everyone.
-
I've owned and used (extensively + over many years) various types of acoustic, electric, solid top/lam top archtop guitars ranging from the Ibanez George Benson GB10/20 models to Gibson L-5 CES, Johnny Smith, Super-400 CES, Super-300, Borys B-120, Victor Baker 17" lam-top/thinline and my newest aquisition, a Trenier Jazz Special 16" lam-top. Of all these, the Super-400 CES has the fullest, deepest, most robust and rotund sound, bar none. Second in line was a '68 L-5 CES, followed by the Victor Baker thinline lam-top. The Trenier is something different since it was designed to strike a balance between providing useable acoustic volume and a classic electric tone (via a floating single coil pickup). It's bass/lower mids output is somewhat tamed but this is welcome in my case since I use the guitar in small group/low volume settings almost exclusively (solo/duo/trio w/o drums).
When you seek punch, depth, sustain and heft then check out the Super-400 - if it's too large/heavy for you then go for a 17" guitar , lam-top or solid , depending on taste.
-
I concur. I have found that deeper guitars tend to sound...deeper. More width also does the job. The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand, oh yeah.The bigger the cushion, the better the ...well, you know the rest. Originally Posted by gitman
The Gibson Super 400/300 is a nice guitar. A Stromberg Master 400 will do the job nicely as well. Maybe a D'Angelico New Yorker. Or something custom from Elferink or Triggs (both of whom are known for their big boy guitars). Here's a somewhat modified old John Abbott Sr. archtop next to an old Emperor. And a Monty Montrealer next to one from some other guy.Last edited by Hammertone; 07-08-2019 at 12:45 PM.
-
Roger told me this back in the ’80’s when I had him build some guitars for me. I believed it to be true because I had no evidence to the contrary, and held on to that belief for the next fifteen years or so. Originally Posted by helios
At the 2003 winter NAMM I met Lee Ritenaur in the Gibson booth and got to play the prototype of the L-5CES Lee Rit Signature as well as Lee’s personal version of this. These are 15.5” x 2 & 5/8”. I found them to be great-sounding guitars despite having carved tops and all solid wood construction, so what I believed all that time wasn’t necessarily true. As soon as I was able to find a couple of them I started phasing out my 17” guitars, since the smaller ones are much more comfortable for me to play.
Danny W.
-
I won't say that deeper guitars don't have more resonance, but let's just say my thinlines--Gibson ES-135 and Peerless Sunset--have a great mellow sound--maybe more modern than classic, but still a great tone for jazz. The Peerless even sounds good and reasonably loud acoustically.
The ES-135 is very surprising to me--I compare it to my prior ES-175. It doesn't have the same thunk, but if you're going for later-career Jim Hall or Kenny Burrell or Grant Green it certainly gets the job done.
I think the designers really hit it out of the park on both these guitars.Last edited by Doctor Jeff; 07-08-2019 at 11:28 PM.
-
They type of pick up will have the most to do to cause feed back more so than the bout size. some Pick ups are more microphonic and will feed back more than a tighter pick up. Now your strings vibrate to help achieve feed back.
-
The fact that body depth can be heard electronically (it can), has certain interesting consequences. It proves that there is feedback to the strings from the body.
The dimensions of the body affects the response of the lower frequencies. The longer the air chamber inside, the lower the wavelengths it'll be able to amplify. The depth of the chamber (the other dimension) determines how much it'll be able to amplify these frequencies. But that's a purely acoustic phenomenon. It'll literally create vibrations that travel through the air. So how can this possibly be detected by the pickups. That means two things must be true:
1- Air vibrations inside the chamber feedbacks to the top. Air inside and the top become one resonating system (at least a very interactive one). That makes sense.
2- Top vibrations in turn feedback to the strings.
Some may argue that "2" is not necessary. Top vibrations can in turn vibrate the pickups. But that's probably a marginal factor compared to the string vibrations (displacement of the strings is much more pronounced than the pickups themselves). Besides if that was true. ie 2 didn't exist and all feedback was pickup vibrations, floating pickup designs would not have been affected by body depth which is not true.
This is also consistent with my experience with electric guitars in general. The acoustic tone and the amplified tone of guitars are very closely related. Because acoustics of the guitar feeds back to the strings.
-
Let's say two guitars are built from the same woods, same measures, same everything – except for the depth of the body. Played by the same artist, same strings, pick, etc.
How would that affect the tone?
Would it affect only the acoustic or also the electric tone?
-
Deeper body accentuates lower frequencies. Or does it?
Here is link to more information than you probably want regarding body depth and tone.
-
He lost me at Hemholtz. But I noticed that he didn't mention varying the size of the soundhole as a way to influence bass frequencies.
The gypsy jazz guitars have different size soundholes and I have read that smaller yields more bass.
So, if you're reducing bass with body size, can you get some back with smaller soundhole?
And, how does varying the body depth affect electric tone?
-
this ties in with speaker design...in olden days a big bass sound meant a big cabinet with a big 15" speaker...(think altec voice of the theater speakers...which were used in most movie houses)
nowadays with better cab designs (thiele) and the use of ports, much smaller cabs and speakers can still provide some great low end
same applies to guitar bodies...every part of the design matters...from thinner body to size and placement of holes, number of pickups etc etc...
but given everything exactly the same..except for the fact that one guitar body is thinner than the other, you would certainly hear a difference...especially acoustically...but slap a fuzztone on your amp tone and it might be tougher to distinguish!! hah
cheers
-
I've owned a number of Gibson L-5 guitars in various body depths: 3.375", 2.5", 2.375", 2.25", and 2".
For the most part, they sound quite a bit the same except for the bass response; however the 2" deep one sounded surprisingly robust and my 15.5" x 2.675" L-5 Signatures sound fuller, albeit less open, than the thinlines. On stage I doubt that any of it matters, except that the thinner ones and the smaller ones are all less likely to feed back than full-depth ones. Since I always gig with a bass player having somewhat less bass is a good thing.
Danny W.
-
Alan Carruth knows what he's talking about. He's been experimenting with building guitars and other instruments for many years. You may have been lost at Helmholz, but you can trust the gist of what he was saying. If you want to know what he has to say about the size of the soundhole, or anything else related to stringed instruments, the famed Google search machine, or any other, should give you enough information to keep you busy until the virus is gone.
Reply With Quote
Barry Harris / Oliver Nelson - Dom7/Diminished,...
Today, 03:11 PM in Improvisation