Acoustic Archtop as an Acoustic Guitar?

[DRS]

I have been hunting around for an acoustic archtop to use acoustically. And I don't mean I want an OK acoustic tone that I can enjoy for quiet practice when the wife is asleep. I mean a guitar that has good enough acoustic tone that it is an end in itself. When you buy a Martin HD28V, you don't say to yourself, "oh, this has OK acoustic tone but it really shines through an amp." You listen to the acoustic tone first and if you need amplification, you search out a solution that makes that tone louder.

And I know a jazz guitar has a different tone than a Martin. But I've heard clips of some high end archtops that are miked and they sound pretty decent. Is it a waist of time searching for this tone in affordable (under $3K) archtops? And by acoustic tone, I don't mean Freddie Green chords. I think more like a Martin Taylor approach. Not completely fingerstyle but some as well as pick and hybrid picking.

My issue is that I'm growing more and more tired of electric tones and messing with amps, tubes, EQ, etc. I like the freedom of grabbing my Larrivee and having good acoustic tone. But an acoustic flat top isn't the best choice for jazz tonally, at least for me.

It seems to me that most jazz guys think like electric players where the guitar and amp are one instrument. That's cool and I understand in a full band context. But anyone else think the other way?

[jads57]

Eastman used to make an acoustic archtop hybrid model. I can't remember the model #, but it sounded great! And I have played many Martins, Collings, Gibsons,etc. I was always sorry I never bought that guitar! It had an arch back and a round sound hole. Maybe someone could chime in and tell us what the model was called?

[mr. beaumont]

A member here (spiral) Was selling a vintage L4 recently, I think right around 3k...I'd pounce were I you.

Although you should probably do some more listening and figure out if it's an X braced or parallel braced sound you're after.

[Scolohofo]

[D.G.]

I have an Eastman 905SB non-cutaway that is a "lifetime" guitar. It's great acoustically! I think they go for about $2400. My other acoustic jazz guitar is a JWC long scale D-hole gypsy guitar. That guitar will slaughter any dreadnought that gets near it, but you gotta like the twangy gypsy tone.

Also worth checking out are some of the high end small bodied flattops from Collins and Santa Cruz (check out the Eric Skye model.)

[snoskier63]

I would look for an old Epiphone acoustic archtop if I were you, and in fact I am looking. With a little patience you can find one for around 3K, +/-. They are cannons, and have a great jazz tone. The early 50's and before are good years to consider.

[spiral]

There is no more slippery slope than acoustic archtops. Welcome to the journey!

A member here (spiral) Was selling a vintage L4 recently, I think right around 3k...I'd pounce were I you.

Thanks Mr. B. I'm selling an L7 for $2700. You would be paying a premium for the name year and color and I don't know if will give you the sound you are after—parallel braced guitars are very percussive any maybe a little intense by itself. This one does sound beautiful if you want a pure acoustic.

Scolohofo's suggestion is a good one: an oval hole archtop is really the best of both worlds. You get the "full frequency" sound of a flattop but the action and attack/bite of an archtop. It's maybe a little more pleasing for solo / singer songwriter stuff. I loved my Eastman 904 non cut and regret selling:



But I sold it because I had this Yunzhi made:



I'd seek out an Eastman oval hole based on your initial request. I thought i just saw one either on AGF or Reverb. But maybe I don't understand the request but it sounds like you want an acoustic archop, but also attributes of a flattop.

[jads57]

Actually the Eastman guitar I was refering to was a trad Jumbo type flat top w/ an Arched back. Can't remerber the the model name! Spiral that's a very cool Yuhnzi archtop. Looks to be inspired by a Jimmy D'Aquisto or Dale Unger model of some sort.

[nopedals]

Stay patient and don't compromise. For good acoustic sound, you need a 17 inch guitar and not a student model. Look for a vintage Gibson L7 or Epiphone triumph. The Epis are way less than 3K if you shop around.

[DRS]

Stay patient and don't compromise. For good acoustic sound, you need a 17 inch guitar and not a student model. Look for a vintage Gibson L7 or Epiphone triumph. The Epis are way less than 3K if you shop around.

So no 16" all wood carved top archtop guitar has a nice acoustic tone?

[mr. beaumont]

I think the Loar have a great acoustic sound...but it's very much that strident, vintage tone. Nobody's going to mistake it for a flattop!

[iim7V7IM7]

No, some sound wonderful. They won't have the power or protection of a larger instrument, but they can be beautifully voiced if made by the right maker's hands.

So no 16" all wood carved top archtop guitar has a nice acoustic tone?

[spiral]

No, some sound wonderful. They won't have the power or protection of a larger instrument, but they can be beautifully voiced if made by the right maker's hands.

16" archtops are typically deeper and I've found them to be much louder with much more cut than any 17" I've played or owned. Jeff mentioned the Loar and my LH-700 is louder than my L7. What a 16" will have is a much more focused sound because it doesn't have as much bottom which will work well in an ensemble but not necessarily if you are doing solo work if I am reading the OP correctly. I personally prefer a 16" archtop. I love the cut.

[Jabberwocky]

Actually the Eastman guitar I was refering to was a trad Jumbo type flat top w/ an Arched back. Can't remerber the the model name! Spiral that's a very cool Yuhnzi archtop. Looks to be inspired by a Jimmy D'Aquisto or Dale Unger model of some sort.

This:

[nopedals]

16" archtops are typically deeper and I've found them to be much louder with much more cut than any 17" I've played or owned. Jeff mentioned the Loar and my LH-700 is louder than my L7. What a 16" will have is a much more focused sound because it doesn't have as much bottom which will work well in an ensemble but not necessarily if you are doing solo work if I am reading the OP correctly. I personally prefer a 16" archtop. I love the cut.

Not to be entirely dogmatic about it, but in my experience (at one time I owned a 16" 1934 L5 and a 1936 L7, and played them one after the other with precisely this sort of comparison in mind; also briefly owned a pre-war L-4, and several L-50s) the best 16" guitars (1920s and early 30s L5s and L4s, not the L50s) sound wonderful, but lack the lower end of the larger guitars. It is sort of the difference between a fine bookshelf speaker and a floor standing speaker with a large woofer in the same model line.

I appreciate that treble is more audible, but 16" guitars are not louder; volume is the reason players switched to 17 (and 18) inch guitars when they were introduced in the mid-1930s.

I had the sense from the OP that he did not want to compromise on sound, so to me a 17 inch New York Epi Triumph represents the sweet spot in terms of sound for the money.

I think there is also an argument that modern high end booteek guitars are made for solo, rather than band playing, and arguably fit the OP's needs better. I have never owned one, and can't speak to that.

[powerwagonjohn]

It is all in what you're looking for. I recently pick up a 1952 Gibson L-4 for $2000.00 and I really like it acoustically As others have said it is very percussive but this what I really enjoy about it. In fact I took the DeArmond 1000 off as I prefer the guitar played acoustically. My L-4 is a non cutaway guitar, they seem to a bit cheaper than the cutaway versions.
Thanks John

[Hammertone]

So the OP wants to find a GOOD acoustic archtop. It's too bad that the qualifier is needed, since so many bad acoustic archtops have been made. There was a time when an archtop guitar was simply an acoustic guitar, and offered with the same range of quality as the flattop guitars of the day.

Cutaway? If you don't need one, you'll save a bundle - non-cutaway archtops sell at a discount to similar cutaway models.

Body size? Bigger guitars usually sound bigger, not necessarily better. @16" - @18" probably covers off 95% of the instruments. I personally prefer 17" and 18" archtops for increased bass response/fatter/less brilliant sound. Hey, I also prefer the sound of a viola to that of a violin.

Availability? This one is a bit more difficult. I would estimate the ratio of good acoustic archtops to good acoustic flattops at 1:1000, due to the boom in flattop sales in the 1960s moving forward, and the disappearance of the acoustic archtop at the same time. The best thing to do is to play a few of them.

Quality of sound? Like flattops, there is a wide range of sound quality. I think it's harder to find a good acoustic archtop simply because the supply is so much smaller.

New or used? IMO, you'll find better value in used archtops, typically built from the 1930s to the 1950s. In the past decade, companies like Eastman have produced acoustic archtops that are now coming up used, but I prefer the sound of the older acoustic archtops. Newer companies like Loar and Yunzhi have entered the market, but I can't comment on the sound of their guitars. Most newer acoustic archtops from small "boutique" builders will cost in excess of $3,000, even used.

Location is relevant, In Europe, it's worth seeking out old German acoustic archtops - more on that later. Not many old German acoustic archtops in BC.

Here's a 1938 Epiphone Triumph and a 1938 Gibson L-12 (replaced tailpiece) - both superb acoustic archtops. Each has its own sound. Equivalent/similar guitars can EASILY be found for under $3,000.
While Gibson and Epiphone are the best-known brands when it comes to old American-made acoustic archtops, there are also excellent instruments from companies like Regal, Vega and National; as well as the occasional surprising good instrument from companies like Gertsch, Harmony, Kay, and more.

[nopedals]

The L10s and L12s are cosmetically tarted up a bit, acoustically the same as an L7. They may even be cheaper if bypassed by folks looking for L7s. Very cool guitars.

The Epiphones can be surprisingly cheap. I spotted a museum condition '51 Triumph Regent (Regent=cutaway) this weekend for $1500 in a music store. Not sure they knew its value (they had it marked as a '59). Needless to say, it is now in its new home.

[nopedals]

The Epiphones can be surprisingly cheap. I spotted a museum condition '51 Triumph Regent (Regent=cutaway) this weekend for $1500 in a music store. Not sure they knew its value (they had it marked as a '59). Needless to say, it is now in its new home.

Pic:

[Woody Sound]

A bit out of your price range, but worth hearing:

ps - 16" sounds pretty darn good to me.

[spiral]

Not to be entirely dogmatic about it, but in my experience (at one time I owned a 16" 1934 L5 and a 1936 L7, and played them one after the other with precisely this sort of comparison in mind; also briefly owned a pre-war L-4, and several L-50s) the best 16" guitars (1920s and early 30s L5s and L4s, not the L50s) sound wonderful, but lack the lower end of the larger guitars. It is sort of the difference between a fine bookshelf speaker and a floor standing speaker with a large woofer in the same model line.

You can get dogmatic. I started it. I was responding to iim7's comment that a 16" "won't have the power or protection of a larger instrument" which hasn't been my measurable experience now or in the past. There isn't a direct relationship between top size (17" vs. 16") and volume. Depth, wood type, top thickness, neck thickness, peak frequency range of the body, scale length, wood age, bracing, air volume, hole size & type, and string gauge all play a role. As you found, some 17" guitars could be louder than a 16".

You are right they definitely don't have the same low end. Our ears are not linear so more low end alone doesn't translate to more volume. In some ways more bass could actually impede projection and volume because the harmonics are more complex, the top isn't as focused and has more "work" to do.

There was a bit of discussion about the relationship (or lack of) between size and volume here. The reason I started that thread was because two often-discussed luthiers told me that their 16" guitars were louder their larger guitars and they said "more bass" is what you get from a larger body.

I got curious and measured 4 guitars with an SPL meter:
L7 noncut, 17 x 3.37" = 71.9 dbA
American Archtop noncut, 17 x 3" = 72.2 dbA
Yunzhi Oval hole cut, 17.5 x 3.5" = 70.1 dbA
Loar noncut, 16 x 3.25" rim = 76.7 dbA

Conclusion: archtops are awesome.

I had the sense from the OP that he did not want to compromise on sound, so to me a 17 inch New York Epi Triumph represents the sweet spot in terms of sound for the money.

You're right and I agree. To be clear: I wasn't recommending a 16" ... In fact I said the exact opposite ("it doesn't have as much bottom which will work well in an ensemble but not necessarily if you are doing solo work "). Your suggestion of a Epi Triumph is a good one. Earlier I recommended an oval hole archtop, and suggested a parallel braced archtop might be a "bit much" but that I personally like the sound.

It would be great to get feedback from the OP though as there are a ton of suggestions here.

[Hammertone]

I think a late-1940's Gibson L-7 would do the job nicely.
Preferably with a natural finish.
But where to find one?

[DRS]

Thanks for the input.
That Vignola Lage video is awesome. As would be expected.
If I win the Lotto, I will get a Parker archtop without hesitation.
Living in Canada, we see a lot less vintage guitars than you do down south and I would never buy an archtop sight unseen. Too many variables. How do Eastman AR805ce and AR810ce compare to other guitars acoustically such as the Epi Triumph? Are they actually well thought out and executed guitars or are they just shaped like this and are better for amplified use. The reason I ask is that if I was only interested in amplified tone, I could get a great Ibanez and a nice amp for the price of an Eastman.

[DRS]

I see Jim Soloway had a good thread going on exactly the same subject, and I see that I participated in it. They say memory is the second thing to go when you hit 50.
16" acoustic archtop? Is there such a thing?

[nopedals]

Actually, I had another thought on volume. The prewar L4 I had did not have enough room under the strings for a vintage dearmond. That's entirely consistent with an argument that a 16 inch guitar could be louder (if the strings are closer to the sound board). Also another thing to think of while archtop shopping if you think you might ever use a vintage dearmond. Some good info on archtop.com about this issue.