-
From a collector/resale perspective don't do it! From a players perspective if it can be done well and you love the guitar and plan on playing it the rest of it's or your days, go for it. But maybe the happy medium is trading it for an L-7C or similar even L-4CES cutaway, that way no harm done and everyone is happy!
-
06-22-2017 10:52 PM
-
In 1990 I bought a nice 1948 L-7 to play in an acoustic jazz band. I put a set of 013 Phosfor Bronze on but the volume was dissapointingly low. Later I bought floating pickups and played it amplified with good results. Now I have a old DeArmond model 1000 on it and I am very staisfied with it. Amplified very well balanced with some nice mid bark, almost no feedback problems and a clear, warm well defined voice (I play Fender bf/sf amps). She doesn't like to be strung hard and softy playing with 013 TI strings and a 3mm pick sounds great. Fine guitar.
But playing accoustically, the volume is, while good balanced, excepionally low. I can't keep up with the volume of an average flat top.
Gibson made these types to be heard in a band with horns etc. so one would expect an acoustically barking beast with lots of volume... Is my guitar an exception to the rule? Your thoughts please, just curious.
-
I have a 1953 L7 and it has a nice snap and volume level played acoustically. Yea, not as nice as my Martin flat top but still a loud enough sound where I can play it in an acoustic setting.
Originally Posted by jpb
The problem I have is feedback! I had the guitar re-wired and it helped but I still get a lot of feedback so I'm thinking of changing the pick-up, but haven't since I don't wish to mess with the original set up.
-
I own a '50's L-7 cutaway, and I learned it has to have 13's - and maybe another brand other than TI's due to their gauges. Does yours have those thin Gibson frets ? All the more reason to go with standard gauge 13's, and drive that top ! Originally Posted by jpb
Also, you just aren't going to compete with the volume of an average flattop. These archtops articulate an even response when doing runs, and don't have the flattop's booming bass.
And if it helps, new acoustic L-5's are even quieter. It helped me understand Jimmy D'A's opinion that bindings just took away from the sound of the instrument.
Just MHO -hope it helps.
Dennis
-
First thing that comes to my mind is raising the bridge. If you want `punch` and `projection` from an acoustic archtop, I believe the bridge has to come up. The famous Freddie Green had his bridge extremely high up, 1 tp 1,5 inch.
-
Are you sure it's that quiet? Silly question but I have noticed that when I play an acoustic archtop it sounds quiet and tinny to me but if someone else plays the same guitar it sounds much louder and fuller. I think it's the way f holes project.
-
Across the room, from the audience's perspective, the acoustic archtop tends to be more audible than a flattop would be in a band situation. The frequencies emphasized by the archtop tend to travel better and cut through- when playing chords and double stops. It's much harder to get the volume across when playing single notes.
Much of the modern "jazz archtop" sound- dark, bassy, soft, etc.- is not what the archtop guitar's physics are designed to do, and are really only audible with a magnetic pickup. The top of most acoustic archtops is much thicker and the bracing is typically much heavier than a flattop acoustic, which reduces bass response. The archtop is designed to be bright and cutting- it replaced the banjo, after all.
-
Every guitar is unique. I have had many acoustic archtops and have noticed a lot of variation in volume. My 1947 L7 is probably my loudest guitar (and it has great tone too). On the other hand, I used to own a 1939 D'Angelico that was not loud at all. I tried all sorts of strings on it and nothing really brought the volume up to the level of my other guitars. I eventually decided to sell that guitar due to the lack of acoustic volume. My brother has had several D'Angelicos and they were all significantly louder than mine, so I am convinced that mine was the exception. There are so many other issues to consider, but I like to have plenty of volume out of a guitar like that or I am disappointed. Originally Posted by jpb
Keith
-
I also own a '36 L-7, non-cut, and I'm pretty sure it's louder than the '52 L-7. For my money, it's better sounding too !
There's always the 'old wood' explanation as a part of it, but really there's only 16 years age difference between the 2 so, ???
-
My 1945 L7 is pretty darn loud, and I have a Martin D-28 and a Gibson Smeck flattop to compare it to. Like hotpepper01, I have to wonder about the bridge--the height, and is it making good contact with the body?
Have you had your guitar set up by a pro recently? I'm sure you know the guitar very well, but I wonder if this might help. It can sometimes make a huge difference.
I think of my L7 as an unusually loud acoustic. It just seems weird to me that you are having this problem with loudness or projection on such a classic box.
Good luck!
-
My '44 L7 sounds fine, and loud, especially if I'm in front of it while someone else is playing. It has never sounded louder than a flattop when I'm the player. Great guitar. Love mine a lot. It's been refretted with medium jumbo frets, neck reset, and plecked. Also added a Lollar gold foil single coil. Plays like a dream, and sounds like it should.
-
I play double bass. It never sounds loud to the player, but people out in the audience hear it fine. Same with the archtop guitar. Everyone but me at guitar jams says that my Gibson '38 L50 is louder than all the Martin and Taylor guitars. Up close though, it sounds to me that I am just coasting along.
-
I have also questioned my hearing, meaning my nearly seventy-year-old ears Originally Posted by Greentone
........... it also occurred to me how much I'd love to try an archtop with a soundport.....
I don't see me cutting a hole in either of my current L-7's but if I found a ' project guitar ', I'd sure consider it..
Anyone here ever added one ??
-
Nope. I have played many of the "newer," more lightly constructed archtops--e.g., Dana Bourgeois, Benedetto, Heritage, Dale Unger (American Archtop), etc. These guitars all sound louder to the player, I suspect because they are more thinly carved--especially in the top--than the guitars from the 40s and 50s. (especially by Gibson)
To my ear, the thicker archtops are more penetrating and carry out into the auditorium, much the way a cello or double bass does. The thinner archtops have broader appeal to someone transitioning over from a flattop guitar. Pick up a Bourgeois and it's almost like an archtop/flattop experience, IMO. Heritage Golden Eagles--although they are crafted by folks who spent careers making Gibson L-5 guitars--sound lighter and more airy than the traditional Gibson does. It is _more_ audible to the player, for sure.
-
Thanks all, there is some good information given. I think the projection is something I tend to undersetimate. Still the guitar is not excepionally loud and it seem to dislike hard playing... Again, it is not a probem for me as I play it almost exclusively with a floating pu.
I did some measurements:
- Bridge angle is quit high (approx. 20 degrees and the distance top to strings is approx. 2.4 cm so I think there's enough pressure on the top.
- Frets are original and the width is a little over 2 mm, which makes them not parcicularily big?
- I measured the thickness at the f-holes and it is almost 0.5 cm, which is quite thick compared to other archtops from that era, as I recall well.. That may explain that the acoustic tone is not too loud. Also that I do not have much problems with feedback when playing amplified.
-
Jpb,
Have you tried using a heavier pick? Not sure what your using - but if it's thin - the volume will be quiet and thin played acoustically.
-
I use a Dunlop Stubby 3.0 mm pick (the small purple one) Originally Posted by QAman
-
first post for ages - hello again everyone
wondering if anyone has any experience of old L7s....40s - 50s
a) just in general
b) with pickup
they've looked to me like the great deal in ultra-archtops for a long time - but I've never played or seen one
if they're good enough purely acoustically they could still be worth going for
but if they (tend to) respond well to a floating pickup and amplification then they're well nigh irresistible
especially with the cutaway
thanks in advance to L7 aficionados prepared to share their wisdom with me
-
The L7 with a floater, particularly a DeArmond, is one of the great archtop guitars for just about any kind of music.
The 50s L7c is super.
-
1934 16" L7 with a DeArmond FHC is about as good as it gets for an acoustic-electric jazz guitar. The beauty of the DeArmond floater is that sometimes I feel like playing the FHC, sometimes the RC1000, sometimes the RC1100. Mostly the FHC though; I think it has the most character of the bunch.
-
Visited N.Y. a quite some years ago. Matt Umanov (sigh...) had a pristine late 40s L7, non-cutaway, not miked. Beautifully figured dark sides and back. Despite the v-shaped neck, I fell madly in love with this beauty, perfect for acoustic or just slightly amplified big band comping. It had a tremendous presence, both heard and felt. Alas, no money, no honey. A few years later tried another one back home. This one looked like a tank had run over it, but it still sounded a lot better than a fresh luthier-made archtop of similar dimensions.
-
An L7 with a Dearmond or KA will get you a sound probably electrically like a D'angelico NY without the price tag. In my opinon the Gibson L7 is probably the underrated guitar in the market for these reason.
THey are not the top of the line L5's, yet same basic sound
They lack the bells and whistles, same basic guitar as the big hitter L5
They seem to be plain Jane's and non-cut are seen as old fashion, they just do not jump out at you but are still wonderful playing.
This is also the best reason to buy one. Those Plain Janes know what to do! They are an incredible American Original guitar that cannot be duplicate and yet very affordable. Not buying one is probably an error. In time I believe these will be held in great esteem but that will be long after most of us are here playing them. Gibson guitars on the whole rarely ever need a neck set at least the archtop guitars. I never have re-set a neck on one that is for sure. They are easy to add different pickups and pickguards to get different sounds.
Oh, by the way if any one has one they want to sell and it needs lot of work I am in the market. I would live to find one that need some serious restore to do and then have myself. I have a few things I want to try. To me an L7 is a non-brainer for at a fair price.
-
The guitar sounds great as an acoustics guitar but the pick-up buzzes. I had it 'fixed' and it played fine at the shop but once I got home, with the poor grounding (???), it continued to buzz. I took it back to the shop and of course wouldn't 'fix' it again.
I really don't know what to do.
-
I’m a big fan of the L7. I think they are where you can find some of the best deals on Gibson archtops for sure. I also agree with what others have said about adding a DeArmond.
I shared this first video a few weeks back.
The Three Variations of the Pre-War Gibson L-7
I made this video of the 1940 with a DeArmond 1000 for the buyer of the guitar and amp.
1940 Gibson L-7 with DeArmond RC1000 through a c. 1937 Gibson EH-150 amplifier
-
I have played a 50s L-7C with a DeArmond FHC, another one with a RC-1000, and a 40s non-cutaway with a P90 that had been added, as well as a 40s non-cutaway with a FHC.
All examples were just tops. I really love the 30s L-7s, but the 40s and 50s guitars are great, too. If you can beat a DeArmond, I just don't know how. That said, the example that my friend owned with the set-in pickup added was pretty awesome. (I think he gave it to a jazz guitarist in another town close by.)
Reply With Quote
Speaker choice for old jazz?
Today, 12:46 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos