-
gettin' lotsa nibbles over there on AGF....let's see how long it takes 4 someone to step up to the plate...it's a privilege to have the opportunity to buy one of those AJ-817's used....but one doesn't know that until they've owned one.
Originally Posted by Spook410
yep, great guitar...but when u've got big boxes on your brain...it's gotta go...just as well as it's not getting any play time.
when I find a 16" or 17" that plays like an 18" I'll keep it. Even the Bourgeois, as good as it was, in the end I longed for a low end...the SKB has ruined my ears, what can I say. Originally Posted by mikeSF
-
02-26-2013 06:22 PM
-
First, different guitars or even similar ones may or may not sound different. If or how much they sound different, it may be because of the sum, the combination or of the interaction between different factors.
Of course body size comes to mind. Also: wood, thickness of the wood, carve, bracing, type of finish. That's just the body so far. The neck: wood or woods, neck profile, neck thickness, size/mass of the headstock.
Then there is the scale length, fingerboard radius, the material an quality of the hardware.
finally, the player's technique.
All these will affect comfort, playability, tone, volume, projection, enjoyment and bonding to various degrees.
There is no this is good but not that, or this will always sound better than that. Sorry, just no rules. First because there are many variants, as I have mentioned and I haven't even mentioned "personal taste" yet... Second, guitars don't always follow rules.
Using three of my guitars, all strung with TI Swing, all played acoutic:
Guitar 1: a 16" 1934 round hole L-4 short scale archtop (weights 4.600 pounds)
Guitar 2: a 17" 1949 L-7 long scale archtop (weights 5.490 pounds)
Guitar 3: a 16" 1953 L-4c short scale archtop (weights 4.850 pounds)
Example 1: "17" guitars have more volume (are louder, project more) than 16" guitars." Statements like that usually don't leave much room for exceptions... Yet here are the winners in the category Volume:
3rd: Guitar 3 L-4C
2nd: Guitar 2 L-7
1st: Guitar 1 L-4
Yep! A 16" came first but only by a nose. It was almost a tie with the L-7.
Example 2: "17" guitars have more bass response than 16" guitars."
The winners in the category Bass:
3rd: Guitar 2 L-7
2nd: Guitar 1 L-4
1st: Guitar 3 L-4c
1st and 2nd place, two 16" guitars, were very close but the L4-C won. The L-7 may not have been in the race for bass output, but its bass response is still nice and creamy, just not as thick as the two others.
The brightest guitar: Guitar 2, the long scale 17" guitar. No contest. It seems more focussed. It might also be the most versatile (I thought that it would be the round hole L-4...).
Sorry, no contest for comfort. It is too personal.
While they all play superbly well, they have different body size, scale length, nut width, neck profile and so forth. That too is personal preference. I can't say that one is better than another excerpt with the disclaimer that it's only my taste...
Volume, bass, mid and treble frequencies can be measured and should be the same for most people playing these exact three, but there is just no way that I can put personal taste on a scale...
So the two short scale 16" L-4's are warmer with a lot more bass response. They are really mellow. The long scale 17" L-7 is mellow too in a way, but not like the L-4's. All three guitars have strong mids and thick trebles, but to very slightly varying degrees. The L-7 has a clearer definition.
I am sure that we could get different results with another sample of guitars (thus confirming the no rule rule).
Go for what appeals to you in terms of playability and tone. Go for the one that you will bond with, regardless of the specs.
As much as I find the tonal differences huge between these threes guitars, it seems that many people who heard me play the L-7 after it arrived did not really notice a different sound. They said that it was just the sound of me playing... They might notice that it is a bit brighter, but only after I tell them that they sound different...Last edited by Eddie Lang; 02-27-2013 at 03:19 AM.
-
That's a well intentioned treatise Richard but you could have put it into one statement. "It's too personal". Every single aspect of a guitar's design, sound, playability, size, weight, finish and bling factor is simply a matter of personal taste. If I'm in the guitar buying mode, I have never asked anyone else about their preferences.
I personally don't care about how great it sounds, I don't ever want a 17" guitar. I don't want a Marshall stack. I don't want anything gold plated, I don't want anything with a short scale like a Byrdland.
Guitars are very personal things. Other's preferences are meaningless.
-
I went from 17" to 16" to 15" and now the 15s feel soooo good. I am on the smaller side, 5-7, with a short trunk on longer legs, so when I sit, the 15" is perfect between my leg and underarm. Obviously the bass tones cannot compete acoustically with a larger guitar, but a good carved 15" sounds surprisingly full.
WS
-
The premise of this thread has a little bit of thinly veiled implied machismo: The "mine is bigger than yours" phenomenon. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
Kinda like those rock threads where one guy shocks everyone else with his claim of "big fat tone" from using 11's on his Strat.
I have also owned my share of archtops in 16", 17", and 18" sizes. They just can't be generalized that much. Bracing, top thickness, and soundhole configuration play too big a part in sculpting the sound.
My 16" Solomon has a paper thin top and a very strong bass response. My 18" Super 400 non-cut acoustic has a rather full range sound with deep bass, but is not necessarily the perceived loudest. My 17" L-5 non-cut acoustic has a penetrating midrange by design, so it is less bass heavy.
This is not hi fi we're talking about; guitars don't really sound better when they produce the entire audible frequency spectrum. There is a reason why acoustic flattop players sometimes prefer small bodied parlor guitars, and there is a reason why acoustic archtop players sometimes prefer 16" parallel braced 1930's L-5s.
I prefer 17" bodies for comfort, but I can't use the size element to generalize on sound - there's just too much variation.
-
The antidote to that was Freddie Green, perhaps the most humble, non-macho player, who was happy to stay in the background and humbly play whatever was needed, even if it was the one note *Freddie* chord. Originally Posted by rpguitar
All the while playing on a 19" box with huge-ass action, on 16-60 strings.
-
Many, maaaany, years (decades) ago I was taking some lessons from a fine jazz guitarist. I came in for my first lesson with my cheap little 16" L-50. The guy had a Super 400CES. He asked me to try his guitar. I was surprised at how dead the big 400 sounded. Being young, inexperienced and naive, I said something to the effect of, "Boy this big thing makes no sound compared to mine." Not a good way to start off
WS
-
I read an interview with K Burrell where he said (papraphrase) that anything smaller than a Super 400 is inferior because it won't have as much "tone." I thought it was a very misguided statement. Originally Posted by rpguitar
WS
-
nailed it roger. Originally Posted by rpguitar
-
I've had some big guitars (though never an 18") and some small ones. I don't think there is a straight correlation between loudness, tone quality, and guitar size. I guess, generally, a big guitar will sound acousticaly "bigger". I'm not so sure it makes a difference when plugged in.
Lately I've been using a Sadowsky SS 15 (a 15" thin body laminate) for all my practicing at home. An important advantage of a small, lightweight guitar is that it's so easy to pick up and play 20 times a day. It's not loud, but has a pleasant, well balanced acoustic tone. The thin body doesn't hurt my shoulder. (yes, I am old.)
For me, the smaller guitar is better because it's the one that gets played.
-
I have an SS-15 also, in addition to the other big girls noted in my post above. Originally Posted by Gilpy
You know what? The SS-15 is damn loud for a 15" wide, 1.75" depth body - with a laminated top no less!
So even though you were making a different kind of point, your use of the SS-15 as an example is perfect. That is a guitar from which you would never expect so much acoustic sound. And it proves the point that there are many variables, and generalizations sometimes hurt more than they help.
-
Originally Posted by Gilpy
here's the answer IMHO
Of course it also an excuse to keep buying guitars ... until you find the one or two or three that you do actually play
-
"My Heritage Sweet 16 is a wall ornament while I play my Heritage Prospect all of the time. "
Isn't the little Prospect a cool guitar? I REALLY like mine too!
-
It's great. I don't play anything else, although in the interest of full disclosure I also use it through a Roland GR-55 to model other guitars and to play synth parts. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
-
well, in my limited experience the past few years with some 40 archtops...i've lost count Originally Posted by Gilpy
I've not had a 16" that had the bass depth or midrange of 18's I've owned. The Heritage Sweet 16 I owned was a looker, but acoustically and electrically the guitar's tone was anemic by comparison. I liked the definition and sustain of the Bourgeois, but in the end I had to say "where's the beef of the low end?" I simply think my ears are ruined for anything else.
and in my experience..."Plugged in" or acoustically, there's a depth of lower midrange and bass on 18's that I've not heard on smaller archtops.
-
why would you settle for 18" when you must know a 19" is even "better"?
-
Did you know that each one of these musicians is over to 6' tall?
-
LOL! Theirs arms are going around the upper bout instead of the lower bout! Originally Posted by ESCC
-
I'm not a jazz player (wish I was) but I do make guitars. I'm adding jazz guitar construction after 18 years of building acoustics. From my experience, and from the material I've been studying for archtop building,materials and dimensions of guitars do make a difference in sound. That being said, I don't think comparing any 17 jazz guitar with another 17 inch jazz guitar, even if/when all other dimensions are the exact same, are a sure way of expecting how either would sound. In other words, they will most likely sound different. A lot can change the sound of an archtop, like th rate of graduation from the center of the plate to the edge of the top and backs, the amount of carving of the recurve after the box is assembled, the type of maple or spruce, the grade of maple or spruce, the neck material and mass, the fingerboard material, .....you get it. These are all variable BEFORE finish types and techniques are thrown in. Even between two tops (or backs) of the exact same species of wood, there is the age factor of the wood, the density of the wood itself etc.. So my humble opinion is that when you're to a point of parsing frequencies of a given instrument, instead of buying guitars on specs alone (hoping the instrument sounds better thru an amp, or after it ages or is played in - before that) have one built by a luthier that can maximize the geometry, mass and acoustic properties of the wood in hand. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
-
What a great first post by you JGL. The content of this post is extremely well said and nothing we haven't discussed here before. However, your comprehensive stating of the many many aspects determining a guitar's eventual tone definitely adds some additional clarity. The part I've highlighted captures the very essence of a John D'Angelico, Jimmy D'Aquisto, John Monteleone, Bob Benedetto . . . and so many more. These guys, and many others . . could ask a customer exactly what they were after in tonality from a guitar . . then make a guitar whose attributes lend itself to exactly what the customer is looking for. That's pretty much why I bristle when people question the cost of such workmanship. There are no "cookie cutter" boxes built by such people as the affore mentioned elite. Originally Posted by JGL
The Gibson L5 and Johnny Smith type guitars built in the '50s, '60s and early '70s were afforded such skills in lutherie . . . which today is pretty much non existent, even in the wonderful guitars currently coming out of the Gibson Custom Shop in Nashville. The guys who were building the boxes back then were all trained by the most skilled people of their time. I'm fortunate to have two, (not Gibsons) a 17" and an 18", built by one of the decendents of those masters. There is a noticeable difference in tone in these guitars . . not found in most of the guitars currently being built by almost all other builders of a lesser notoriety then those of a level I mentioned previously.
For those who doubt this . . just pick up a Benedetto . . one that was built by Bob himself . . then, you'll understand.
-
Thanks for the kind words Patrick2. I'm still learning the craft myself, but hope my trials as an acoustic maker will serve me well with my archtop endeavors! Glad I found this site because I'm sure you guys will help educate me.
-
I've played some 17's that sounded wonderful but they were just too big for me to handle so it does't really matter to me how great they sounded. I actually considered a Heritage H570 but I struggle enough with an undersized 16 to be convinced that a 17 probably just isn't the right guitar for me.
-
really? that seems odd. you must only play standing, or are under 5'10" I'm guessing. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
how often do you see people playing 18" archtops out in the real world?
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
How insensitive. I've met Jim several times and he's only 4 feet tall. It's not something we mention to his face, least of all on a public forum. Little people have feelings, despite what Randy Newman has to say on the subject. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Last edited by Hammertone; 12-09-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions