General Characteristics of different archtop flavors

[goldenwave77]

Yeah, it's all bloody complicated alright.

The floating pickup is almost a failed experiment in that it doesn't amplify the acoustic guitar; it simply offers an alternate sound. Its success is in the fact that it preserves the acoustic vibrations by not dampening things due to physical contact. But if you treat the acoustic archtop as an acoustic instrument and hone your technique accordingly, it will frustrate you immensely to not hear the same sound when amplified.

For all the fancy pants floaters out there - 1100, KA PAF - I have a low impedance (3 kOhm) Lawrence floater that does the best job at preserving the acoustic tone of its host. I'll have to make a recording and share it.

Les Paul's "secret pickups" were low impedance

I read an old interview in which Les Paul said his recordings which used his model were done with special design, low impedance pickups whose secrets/design he never shared with Gibson. Acc'd to him, low impedance was the way to go...like telephone lines where clarity of signal is important...I think Gibson tried to replicate this with that goofy looking Les Paul model that had all the switches and dials on it...I forget what it was called, but I think they probably sold two dozen of them, altogether...funny that Les Paul and Gibson were like an old married couple who really didn't get along all that well...but who decided to offer the appearance of sweetness and light to the rest of the world...instead of arguing in public.

[Archie]

Great. It took us about 6 posts before this turned into another thread about Pick-ups

[Ren]

This has been a very educational discussion of the different sub-species of archtops. Great thread! Just wondering about one thing Roger said:

"At the same time, the denser the interface between the string and the medium, the less energy reaches the medium. It stays in the string. A dense interface is a fixed metal Tune-o-matic bridge. A giant Floyd Rose trem bridge is an extreme example. A less dense interface is a floating wooden archtop bridge. A thin rosewood classical guitar bridge is an extreme example."

I would have thought that it's the stiffness of the interface material, not necessarily its density, that determines how much energy is transferred from string to top, with a stiffer interface resulting in more energy transfer. So a metal TOM bridge saddle should produce more acoustic volume than a wood saddle. That was my experience when I replaced the TOM with an ebony saddle on my L5 Premier. I'm not a physicist, so I'm only guessing here, but isn't there also an issue of energy being absorbed by the interface material, and dissipated as heat, I think?

[rpguitar]

I'm not a physicist either. My experience is empirical, and based on limited but fairly representative materials (aluminum, steel, ebony, rosewood, plastic). Whether it's density or stiffness, a metal bridge definitely keeps the string moving with more conserved energy in the string itself vs. a wooden bridge, which causes transfer to the top. When you think you got more acoustic volume with a metal TOM, it's actually more likely that the string itself was sustaining longer, and that in itself produces the effect of being louder overall. It's not necessarily the case that the loudness was caused by the body of the guitar vibrating. These attributes are very interactive! So it's hard to assign simple causation to one isolated variable sometimes.

Perhaps it's best to say that stiffness enables transfer, but density limits it. A very stiff but very lightweight material would therefore be the best transfer medium. A very dense (heavy) material is going to inhibit transfer regardless of its stiffness. Again, interaction... Lots of variables here.

[GNAPPI]

Les Paul's "secret pickups" were low impedance

I read an old interview in which Les Paul said his recordings which used his model were done with special design, low impedance pickups whose secrets/design he never shared with Gibson. Acc'd to him, low impedance was the way to go...like telephone lines where clarity of signal is important...I think Gibson tried to replicate this with that goofy looking Les Paul model that had all the switches and dials on it...I forget what it was called, but I think they probably sold two dozen of them, altogether...funny that Les Paul and Gibson were like an old married couple who really didn't get along all that well...but who decided to offer the appearance of sweetness and light to the rest of the world...instead of arguing in public.

That was the Les Paul Recording model. They actually sold quite a few, unfortunately there were no low impedance amps around so the could not be used live. It was also opined in the old days that low impedance pups were a better solution than what we wound up with.

There are less cable length issues, and less noise picked up with lowZ cables.

[Mark M.]

I read somewhere (can't find a reference to it now) about a study where instruments of different kinds - trumpets, saxophones, guitars, etc, were recorded and when sustained notes (with attack and decay were edited out) were played back for listeners they were unable to distinguish one instrument from another. Interesting concept. I don't know what it means in relation to this conversation other than it raises the question of whether the quality of tone differences we hear in various build types of archtops (as described so deftly by Jeff and RP) are mostly inherent to what happens during the attack and decay of notes.

[mr. beaumont]

Oooh, we gotta find that. I think that's a huge point.

[Ren]

I'm not a physicist either. My experience is empirical, and based on limited but fairly representative materials (aluminum, steel, ebony, rosewood, plastic). Whether it's density or stiffness, a metal bridge definitely keeps the string moving with more conserved energy in the string itself vs. a wooden bridge, which causes transfer to the top. When you think you got more acoustic volume with a metal TOM, it's actually more likely that the string itself was sustaining longer, and that in itself produces the effect of being louder overall. It's not necessarily the case that the loudness was caused by the body of the guitar vibrating. These attributes are very interactive! So it's hard to assign simple causation to one isolated variable sometimes.

Perhaps it's best to say that stiffness enables transfer, but density limits it. A very stiff but very lightweight material would therefore be the best transfer medium. A very dense (heavy) material is going to inhibit transfer regardless of its stiffness. Again, interaction... Lots of variables here.

Roger,

We are close to agreeing here. The only thing I still question is the idea that the energy you put into a string either stays in the string, causing it to sustain, or is transferred to the top, causing acoustic volume. I think that there is a third possibility, which is that energy is dissipated due to absorption in the transfer material. For example, suppose I stick a thick piece of felt or something between my strings and top. That's not going to increase sustain or volume, right?

I completely agree with the last thing you said, that "stiffness enables transfer, but density limits it." So that makes the comparison between a TOM and wood saddle tricky; the TOM is both heavier (and denser, since they're about the same size) and stiffer. Maybe my ears fooled me, but it really sounded to me that when I switched to an ebony saddle, I lost both sustain and volume. I'll concede that I didn't do a scientifically controlled experiment or anything, that was just my impression.

BTW I kinda miss the way my guitar sounded with the TOM, and I'm thinking of putting it back on.

[rpguitar]

Unfortunately, none of this erudite discourse will help a dude with $300 find the "best archtop." Play on, brothers and sisters!

[Mark M.]

Here are a few related links, though not exactly what I initially read:

AES E-Library » Preliminary Experiments on the Aural Significance of Parts of Tones of Orchestral Instruments and on Choral Tones

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

An interesting observation:

Listen to Coltrane's solo on "Trinkle Tinkle" on the classic Monk/Coltrane recording:

There are sections where I could be convinced I'm listening to a cello. Why? Certainly there is no similarity in type of attack, etc. I guess it's possible that Trane's articulation simulates a bowed string. Anybody else hear this?

[Cunamara]

is there a significant difference between a floating pickup screwed to the neck and one fixed to the pick guard

The only way to address that would be to use the same pickup on the same guitar mounted both ways and see what the difference is. I believe there is a difference. The pickup in the top is coupled to the guitar and itself vibrates under the string resulting in a complex interaction. Uncouple the pickup from the guitar and it effectively reads the string differently.

My carvetop came with an Allparts mini mounted on a Benedetto fingerrest that screws into the side of the neck and has a cork block at the back as a spacer above the top. It is quite flexible. Electrically it was bright and harsh, necessitating adding a tone control as I couldn't cut enough highs at the amp. The sound was very different from a Gibson Johnny Smith with the pickup mounted on the end of the neck with a bracket. That was what got me thinking about this. Was it just differences in the pickup or did the mounting method have an effect? Both pickups had about the same DC resistance on a multimeter, around 8k plus or minus a tenth. They were the same size. I don't know about magnets, wire gauge, etc. The guitars both had carved spruce tops and maple backs and side, 25" scale, X bracing, etc. They should have sounded very similar but they didn't- the JS sounded like a fine jazz guitar, mine sounded tinny and harsh.

I swapped in a Kent Armstrong 12 pole humbucker mounted on the original fingerrest and it too was harsh and nasal- more like a Tele bridge pickup and not at all like a PAF. I had to roll the tone off about 90% to get rid of the ice pick effect. I talked with KA about it and he gave me some specs for the controls which helped (500k volume, 250k tone and 50 cap, but even then the sound was still too bright and too "hard."

After a couple of years of this, I reinstalled the Allparts mini with a different fingerrest. The second fingerrest was made from walnut and Gibson shaped. I mounted it to the neck using the existing screw holes and then also had a Gibson style bracket mounted to the waist of the guitar and to the fingerrest. The pickguard was much more firmly mounted than the Benedetto style one. Using the exact same pots and cap as before, the mini now sounded better than it did and better than the KA PAF-0. I think that was to do with the fingerrest being more solidly mounted to the guitar- with the Benedetto design the fingerrest can flex and move a little bit; I think this adversely affects the electric sound.

Being inspired by Pete Bernstein's sound- he has a Gibson full sized humbucker with a neck bracket mount, apparently from a Howard Roberts model guitar and has IMHO the best sound of any jazz guitarist with a floater; he also sounds much better than he did with his ES-175 to my ears- I modded a Classic 57 to be a neck mounted floater with dramatically better results. I had to have Kent fix it because I broke a coil wire and killed it; he balanced the coils while he had it, repotted it and sent it back to me probably better than new. I don't sound exactly like Pete for a variety of reasons- talent being the biggest- but I am the happiest I have been with my sound on this guitar. There's a thread about this on the forum:

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...uitar-day.html

So, my impression is that the more solidly the pickup is mounted to the guitar, the better the tone. The Benedetto style mounting, I think, effectively uncouples the pickup from the guitar resulting in a bright, thin tone. Firming up the mounting by attaching the fingerrest more solidly seemed to improve the tone on my guitar, resulting in a cheap Allparts mini humbucker sounding better than a Kent Armstrong handwound on a Benedetto style fingerrest. Mounting the pickup to the neck worked even better, at least for the tone I want to get. That said, there are a lot of guitarists using the Benedetto style pickup mount that sound absolutely fantastic- far better than I did- so YMMV.

[Groyniad]

i played laminate archtops for a very long time and recently changed to solid tops with floaters.

i think the armstrong 12 pole piece pickup makes them genuinely viable as amplified instruments (you don't need grant green's technique to make them sound good). on my andersen the 12 pp armstrong is attached to the pick guard - but the pick guard is wood and attached via a very large metal tongue right into the end of the neck (invisible join) - so i think its much more intimately joined to the vibrating guitar-body than standard pick guard mounted floaters.

for years i thought that a solid top with a mounted pickup was going to satisfy any sensible desire you might have for acoustic responsiveness. i was dead wrong. the difference between the acoustic response of a solid top with a mounted pickup and with a floating pickup is enormous. i have gained a very great deal from moving to instruments that work beautifully without being plugged in - and that does not mean that i don't care about my amplified tone. i wouldn't be able to do any gigs at all with my trio if i did not plug the damn thing in.

[helios]

Nice liberating thread!
Here's a bit of quality audio (the video dialog is somewhat remedial) to supplement the set-in (Eastman Pisano AR680) vs. floating (Eastman AR 905CE) discussion:
(Compliments of the people at Sound Pure Studios)

[pingu]

Oooh, we gotta find that. I think that's a huge point.

cant find it but .............
I remember reading something about that YEARS ago
wrt synthesizer tone generation methods to imitate real acoustic instruments
(roland or Yamaha I think)

anyway the finding was ...... that nearly all of an instruments identifying features
are found in the attack transient

anyway this is a GREAT thread .....
I'm speaking as a guy with foam stuffed into one side of a Lam archtop and digging it

This is some complex inter-relational acoustic/electric/magnetic sh1t man !

[Spook410]

I am not a physicist either.. but I do fish. If you have ever fished with a wood (cane) fly rod then you know that it does not transfer any where near the vibrations a graphite rod does. In fishing rods the grail is a very high modulus of elasticity while still being durable enough for the rigors of the sport. This is to allow as much energy as possible to transfer from the motion of the cast to delivering your fly while generating as much feel as possible (in the form of physical vibration) to know what's happening in the water.

I think a wood bridge acts as a filter. A metal (or graphite) bridge would transfer energy much more effectively to the top because it would transport more and absorb less. However, you might not get the frequency spectrum and envelope you were looking for.

[Ren]

I'm wondering, what if you want it all in one guitar? How close can you get? For example, what if you put a single neck humbucker in a solid top that's designed acoustically; can you get a nice classic amplified arch-top tone with this approach, without compromising the acoustic qualities too much? I've seen some folks do this on Heritage Sweet 16s. I suppose the L-5 WesMo is in this category, though my understanding is the WesMo has the same thicker top and bracing of the CES, so it's not built to optimize its acoustic voice. I don't have any experience with any of these "hybrids" myself, so I'd be interested in hearing how they compare to guitars squarely in one of Mr. B's categories.

[mercosound]

Nice thread; just thought I'd add an anecdote.

A couple of years ago, I saw Bucky Pizzarelli, Howard Alden and Howard Paul (Benedetto guitars CEO) perform at the Savannah Music Fest. They were all playing Benedetto Bravos, thru Henriksen amps, but the sound Howard Paul was getting was noticeably superior; even my non-musician date was easily able to hear the difference. I spoke with Mr. Paul after the show, and he told me that he was playing a Bravo Elite - with a solid carved top - as opposed to the laminate tops on the standard Bravos played by Bucky and Howard Alden. I was surprised by how noticeable the difference was; I know that solid vs laminate tops make a huge difference acoustically, but with a routed-in pick up, I never thought that the difference of the amplified sound would be so pronounced. Live and learn; it was great to have the opportunity to hear/make that comparison first hand...

By the way, Howard Paul is a very good guitarist, who was definitely not "out of his league" performing with Pizarelli and Alden. He also gave me a complete tour of the Benedetto shop the following day, as well as an informative "lecture" about the subtleties of archtop guitar construction. All in all, another good time at the Savannah Music Fest.

[rpguitar]

I have a low impedance (3 kOhm) Lawrence floater that does the best job at preserving the acoustic tone of its host. I'll have to make a recording and share it.

Done:

[Klatu]

Done:

Sounds great, and that guitar is a work of art.

What is the white knob on the upper bout for?

[jads57]

Small trio setting w/ out drums lower volumes> Solid carved top w/ floater

Trio or Quartet w/ drums medium volumes> Solid carved top built in pickup (humbucker, C.C.,etc.)

Louder settings> Laminate w/ built in p/up!

[Archtop Guy]

Mr. B, nicely done but it's essential to note that what we are discussing here are nuances. And there are plenty more nuances we could discuss, and because we're here, we will discuss them and enjoy that thoroughly.

But all of that is secondary to the overall context.

One of the big learning areas for me this year has been to begin to address the way a guitar's sound changes when it leaves the practice room and gets buried by a real band in a real room full of real people. When the drums, bass, piano and horns kick in and somebody is sitting sixty feet away, they can't tell if I have a floating-mini-humbucker-equipped long-scale full-size D'AThing made by a master-craftsman using only an organically grown toothbrush, or if I'm packing a $275 used Epi with a Metallica sticker on the back. It sounds like a guitar. I'd better play it, too, or The Hook comes out!

You hit the nail on the head Sam. It all depends on if you're a player,needing volume to be heard or a home player either for personal pleasure or professionally recording. That laminate isn't going to sound good in the quiet of your living room unplugged but that acoustic arch top will. And that acoustic arch top isn't going to have that wonderful tone when the band is cranked. The right tool for the job applies. Great thread Mr. B.

[rpguitar]

What is the white knob on the upper bout for?

Volume for the floater.

[Spook410]

Rogers video reminded me of a subset I wanted to add to the 'solid carved top/back' category.

Oval sound hole archtops often live in the space between a flat top and archtop. I think they are different enough from f hole archtops to be in their own cubbyhole. Certainly more unique than the difference between most 1 vs. 2 set in humbucker guitars. It's an important distinction given the number of folks that keep asking for something more acoustic'ish.

Of course.. it's all fuzzy and overlapping when you start talking about hand made guitars. But it's nice to have some starting points.

[rpguitar]

I agree about oval holes. The weird one above breaks every rule. It has an arched spruce top with a D'Aquisto style cocobolo bridge, a bone saddle, a flat braced back, and rosewood back and sides. The oval hole too, of course.

it was originally equipped with a KA 12 pole PAF, which is a great pup but it made this guitar sound like an L-5CES. Wow! You might say. But it was a bit annoying, because the acoustic sound and response was nothing like that. It's an archtop that sounds a lot like a flat top, but ultimately is just unique altogether. Even the bracing is different; it's sort of K-shaped instead of X.

[Chimera1to1]

I'm intrigued by Roger's conclusion that floaters are a bit of a failed experiment. Mike Vanden builds with a pickup and Fishman piezo on the Martin Taylor and Ken Parker archtops have this...


"The pickup was developed by Mike Vanden, a fine archtop builder in Scotland, for his own work. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#666666][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Mike approached Larry Fishman with his superior design, and the result is the Fishman Rare Earth soundhole pickup, "


Ken Parker suggests piezo isn't the way to go on archtops. Is KP moving in the right direction? As players are we wanting guitars from the extremes ie, very acoustic or very electric/feedback resistant?


Are we being sold guitars that don't really suit what we want from them?