Ken Parker Archtops and His Concepts

[Hammertone]

My opinions, based on recollections from handling and playing several of Ken's archtops for several hours:

-Does the body isolated form the neck improve the tone?

Yes. My understanding is that the intent if the design is to prevent the neck/body joint from impeding acoustic vibration. The less area of the top is prevented from vibrating, the more freely it will be able to vibrate.
While it is a different design, it is not dissimilar from the intent of the neck/body joint on a violin/viola/cello/upright bass, where a significant portion of the fingerboard hangs over the body without touching it in order to maximize the vibration of the top. Many German-built archtop guitars have the same kind of fingerboard overhang for the same reason.

-Does the movable neck work? Ken's not the first to think of the concept. Babicz sells production guitars with another version.

Yes it works. The Babicz system accomplishes the same goal. I have tried both and have adjusted both.

-How about that sound hole? Certainly not new but is it better.

Aside from looking cool, it allows the player to hear the sound of the guitar directly. Although I have no problem with the traditional outward-facing soundholes of an archtop (or flattop) guitar I think this is a good idea - I sometimes play an archtop guitar while sitting in a corner (perhaps for being a bad boy?) if I want to hear the guitar better.

-Could these things be put into a production guitar - even if not by Parker?

I think yes, but my guess is that it's up to the designer to decide if he wants to do that. My guess is that Parker controls the intellectual property rights to the key aspects of his design.

There are a few other interesting design features on these guitars, including:
- The tailpiece floats on a post that is inserted into the endblock of the guitar, with a single point of contact. I believe that the height of that post is adjustable. As well the lateral angle of the tailpiece can be moved to adjust the break angle of the strings over the bridge.
- the x-braces do not contact each other - one goes over the other with an air gap between the two. I think the intent of this design is to lessen the dampening effect of the braces.

[coreybox]

There are a few other interesting design features on these guitars, including: - The tailpiece floats on a post that is inserted into the endblock of the guitar, with a single point of contact. I believe that the height of that post is adjustable. As well the lateral angle of the tailpiece can be moved to adjust the break angle of the strings over the bridge. - the x-braces do not contact each other - one goes over the other with an air gap between the two. I think the intent of this design is to lessen the dampening effect of the braces.

also:
* use of carbon fiber
* non-traditional back/side woods
* non-traditional neck woods (with CF shell, no truss rod)
* hollowed out "tent" bridge

[Hammertone]

also:
* use of carbon fiber
* non-traditional back/side woods
* non-traditional neck woods (with CF shell, no truss rod)
* hollowed out "tent" bridge

Yes, lots of interesting ideas at play.
I think it's great that he's chosen to develop his instruments in this way.

[Jim Soloway]

It really needs to be said that Ken's been a serious pioneer in guitar design for a very long time. I think people have forgotten just what a departure the Fly was when it first came out 20 years ago. The construction, the weight, the use of synthetic materials, the very early use of an acoustic bridge on a solid body electric. I remember playing one for the first time shortly after they were released and being really stunned at just what an innovative instrument this was. As for price and availability, with the Fly, Ken did everything he could to make it a mass market instrument at an affordable price point and he succeeded. Given the stress and difficulty I experienced just trying to get out 45 or 50 guitars a year, I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be mass manufacturing and marketing something that radical. Ken's about my age or maybe even a year or two older so I can certainly understand why he would't want to go through that all over again. I know I couldn't do it again and what he did was a lot harder than anything I ever did.