my thoughts on the popular 16x2.5" body size

[jzucker]

It seems that the 16"x2.5" archtops have become very popular. There are a number of reasons for the popularity but comfort seems to be the main one. Lots of people who previously played solidbodies or 335s seem to gravitate toward these. I personally think the comfort factor is overrated. I have found that given some diligence, you can get used to a bigger guitar. I am 5'7 and have small hands but after a couple weeks, have no problem playing an L5. A super 400 is a bit tough though!

To give you some context, I have owned (Holst, Painter, Eastman, Benedetto, Ibanez, Gibson) and played (PRS, Heritage, et al)

For a traditional jazz tone, I think this particular body size falls short. There is a lack of dynamics and projection when amplified. The tone is not as full and the bottom end lacks the traditional jazz guitar tone embodied by such traditional tones you hear with folks like Joe Pass (Joy Spring), Tal Farlow, Jimmy Raney, Wes, etc.

When I play any of these guitar and then switch over to a 175, the difference is HUGE. The 175 just has that fat, traditional jazz tone that is missing on every one of the 16x2.5 archtops I have played. Body width seems to make a difference here too as I have played the L5-CT and owned a Heritage Eagle thinline which were both 17x2.5 and thought that they fared MUCH better.

On the other hand, the 16x2.5 guitars have some other attributes. The tone is brighter, less muddy and less prone to feedback. They are also more modern sounding any many younger jazz musicians are blurring the lines between the archtop masters of yesteryear and the fusion artists of today. Artists such as Rez Abbasi, Kurt Rosenwinkel and Adam Rogers all sound great on their thinline guitars.

Of all of the 16x2.5 guitars, the PRS JA-15 would be the only one I'd consider purchasing (again) and only in a situation where I had to play very loud or something in which I was playing electric / fusion as well as traditional jazz although the string selection is usually a compromise in those cases.

[Danny W.]

All this is moot when you can lo longer wrap your right arm around a bigger guitar without it going numb in ten minutes.

In any case, while I agree that in isolation my bigger guitars sound better, my L-5 Signatures sound fabulous at gigs, which is where it really counts. As you said, better brightness, less mud, less feedback all add up to a much more satisfying gig experience. Add the physical comfort factor and I can never see myself playing big guitars again.

Danny W.

[jzucker]

All this is moot when you can lo longer wrap your right arm around a bigger guitar without it going numb in ten minutes.

If this is happening, I think you need to examine how you are playing and holding the guitar. I have had spinal surgery and have 3 discs fused in my neck and my range of motion is about 75% in my neck. Additionally, I have permanent nerve damage that effects my right bicep and wrist. Yet, I can still comfortably play an L5.

[jads57]

I've played numerous newer archtops that fall into this criteria, and while in most cases I'd agree w/ Jack Z on the acoustic qualities, it really depends on the individual guitar. Some wonderful examples of small guitars w/ great acoustic tone are Gibson Lee Riteneour L-5 Signature, Bill Comins, not all but a particular Heritage Sweet 16 w/floater, and even though it's a bit larger 16.5" x2&1/2-3" depth my Elferink Tone Master w/ floater. One thing to note is all of these guitars are solid wood carved instruments vs. laminates. Also have to agree w/ Danny W. it's on the gig where it really counts and if it's uncomfortable to play.

[Tom Karol]

Astute observations, Jack, but ...
I have an Eastman AR403ce - stock with roundwound 12's.
With many amps it does have the sonic deficiencies you describe.
But with my stock Henriksen JazzAmp112 (Beta 12A) it sounds glorious - grand piano bass and fat highs with loads of depth.
And (I'm only 5'7") it's so damn comfortable to hold and play!

[Danny W.]

If this is happening, I think you need to examine how you are playing and holding the guitar. I have had spinal surgery and have 3 discs fused in my neck and my range of motion is about 75% in my neck. Additionally, I have permanent nerve damage that effects my right bicep and wrist. Yet, I can still comfortably play an L5.

If I were 4" taller, I could too, but I'm not. OTOH, I can still play sitting down.

Wise up, Jack--people are different. Your physical problems have nothing to do with mine, and vice versa.

Danny W.

[vinlander]

I wish to still be able play big Archtop while getting older; guys like Herb Ellis, Tal and so many others could until they passed away. Posture can be adapted but you are still trapped with your genetic and can't avoid your physical limitations at some point. I could play my 10.4 pounds Les Paul Standard for hours while standing when in my 20s...can't anymore with my back issue; got an SG for that and my back is thanking me.
Good thing is while sitting, I can still play it for hours

[Klatu]

I'm a huge fan of the 16x2.5 body size guitar. My Heritage H575 has those approximate dimensions, and I consider it to have the perfect amount of acoustic to electric tone ration; in fact, there's nothing that a larger box could do that it couldn't IMO. If I need a darker tone, I roll down the tone knob a bit or adjust my amp.

On the other hand, I own a few larger 17x3"+ boxes that need a bit of tweaking to achieve the clarity and acoustic response of the slightly smaller instrument. For example, when I play my Epiphone Broadway Elitist, with a 17" lower bout and L5 body depth, I often find myself cranking the treble on my Fender style amp in order to add acoustic characteristics to the sound. I find that if I don't add a bit of treble, the sound can get a bit dark and lose some of the defined acoustic hollowbody characteristics that I crave.

At the end of the day, I'm grateful to own all sorts of lovely instruments. I've got 17x3 3/8", 17x2.5, 16x2.5, electric and acoustic instruments. Which one I pick up on a given day may depend on amplification needs, genre, or just my mood. Either way, I enjoy them all and feel that their variety provides that extra bit of pleasure that sparks both dedication and creativity.

[Max405]

Jack, By the way, I loved your sound when you played the 137 (or was it a 135? I don't know, the blue one).
I've often wondered why you moved on from that.

[Jim Soloway]

My thoughts on this are pretty simple ... each to their own. I play what makes me comfortable and happy and I chase the sound in my head instead of someone else's preconceived notion of what a guitar ought to sound like. It makes my life a whole lot easier.

[jzucker]

Jack, By the way, I loved your sound when you played the 137 (or was it a 135? I don't know, the blue one).
I've often wondered why you moved on from that.

It was too heavy.

[Stringswinger]

Jack, On balance I think you are right that the thinner the guitar, the brighter the sound (and I like my sound dark and thick). But all rules have exceptions. My 7 String (Ibanez AF-207) has the body size of which you speak and yet sounds as dark and thick as my Super 400 (I have had a few jazz guitarists approach me on gigs asking how I got the Ibby to sound like a Gibson). The takeaway from this is that each guitar must be considered on its own merits.

[jzucker]

Jack, On balance I think you are right that the thinner the guitar, the brighter the sound (and I like my sound dark and thick). But all rules have exceptions. My 7 String (Ibanez AF-207) has the body size of which you speak and yet sounds as dark and thick as my Super 400 (I have had a few jazz guitarists approach me on gigs asking how I got the Ibby to sound like a Gibson). The takeaway from this is that each guitar must be considered on its own merits.

I wonder if the wider neck contributes to that at all? The FG100 is also those dimensions and sounded notably bigger than the holst, painter, benedetto (bravo) and eastman 803.

I will probably get a 16x2.5 guitar at some point to use for projects where I want a tweener guitar. The recent '74 330 and the JA-15 were examples of guitars that are the 16x{thin} bodies that I liked the sound of. Neither of them sound like a traditional archtop but they each had great tones in other areas.

[jzucker]

P.S.

I agree that the generalization doesn't apply 100% of the time but for me, I've played and owned enough of them to realize that for me, it's a good rule of thumb.

Some of the thinlines that i've owned:

• Holst thinline plywood
• Painter P16
• Benedetto Bravo
• Gibson 350T
• Eastman 803 (16 & 15)
• Gibson 137
• Heritage Eagle thinline
• Heritage Sweet 16
• Heritage 575
• Gibson 175T
• PRS Hollowbody
• Les Paul Supreme
• Various 335 styles from eastman, collings, gibson, hofner, guild
• I'm sure there's more, lol.

Again, ymmv, not saying 16x2.5 == bad, just making some observations about what I've experienced.

Plenty of great players getting great sounds out of thinner guitars such as Rosenberg, Sco, Valeanu, Abazzi, Rogers, Rodney Jones, Randy Johnston, Paul Bollenback et al.

[Bluedawg]

I have a Sweet 16 which is 2.75" according to the Heritage website

Had it about 23 years and it has aged nicely

It has become my go to guitar for noodling while watching TV .... it has a few battle scars from a few years of big band gigging ...

I have an 8 month old scottie and 2 two year old westies bouncing around the house so I am not as worried about them bumping and scrapping up against my Sweet 16 as I would my nice Gibbies

Mine has a floater. The acoustic sound has developed nicely. Flatwounds help bring out the low end and tame the high end ... which works for my ears.

Electrically it usually sounds much better with a band than it does at home ... imho Once the bass, drums ... and horns kick in you don't hear all of the little nuances that please you or grate on you when you're playing alone at home

[jzucker]

i like the sweet 16. It has way more dynamic range than the holst, painter, benedetto bravo or eastman 803. Does the extra 1/4" make that big a difference or is the body slightly larger than 16"? Not sure but it's definitely there because I've owned 2 different sweet 16s, one with a floater and x bracing and another with set-in pickup and parallel bracing.

[John A.]

If this is happening, I think you need to examine how you are playing and holding the guitar. I have had spinal surgery and have 3 discs fused in my neck and my range of motion is about 75% in my neck. Additionally, I have permanent nerve damage that effects my right bicep and wrist. Yet, I can still comfortably play an L5.

I have cartilage damage in my right shoulder. I can play a thinline for an unlimited amount of time without discomfort, but not a full depth guitar. It's not a position or technique issue. All of us old guys are damaged in our unique, individual ways. Variety is the spice of life.

John

[jads57]

The ES-175 also has a shorter scale than most the acoustic archtops mentioned. That along w/ the laminate design make it ideal for playing at high volume. But going that route, I actually prefer my Benedetto Bambino Std. to the ES-175

[lawson-stone]

I am not sure I understand. The 16x2.5 is not that different from an ES175 body, which is a 16" wide body and 3" and a bit deep. Do you really think 1/2-3/4" more depth makes a dramatic difference in sound? Actually, I think it does. I think there is some kind of magic point at about 3" deep that makes for a richer tone; but not all would agree.

That said, the ES175 seems to me not to be a good contrast with other 16" wide guitars. I have to confess, that while I've played a pretty good round of guitars--ES175, Heritage Golden Eagle, Epiphone Sheraton II, Epiphone Broadway, and Loar LH-650, I don't have near the breadth of exposure others here have, so I'm interested to hear how we'd define the difference created by another inch of breadth and less than an inch more in depth.

[2bornot2bop]

16 x 2.5 - Just sayin'

[jzucker]

I am not sure I understand. The 16x2.5 is not that different from an ES175 body, which is a 16" wide body and 3" and a bit deep. Do you really think 1/2-3/4" more depth makes a dramatic difference in sound? Actually, I think it does. I think there is some kind of magic point at about 3" deep that makes for a richer tone; but not all would agree.

The 175 is 16x3.5, not 16x3

[Gitfiddler]

Interesting conversation on a topic near and dear to me. I've always wanted a big bodied archtop...like Wes, of course!

Eventually, and after playing mostly semi-hollows for over 40 years, I made the jump to my pleasingly plump love, a 17" Golden Eagle. (Our friend Patrick made me promise to give him first shot at it if I ever sold it.) While I have no immediate intention of parting with my GE, that big girl brings a sharp pain to my right shoulder after about 30 minutes of playing. A nagging torn rotator cuff injury that I refuse to have repaired surgically is the issue. But I'm addicted to the lush tones, and bear the pain of our slightly dysfunctional relationship. Gigging with her is out of the question.

Now, I play mostly 15" or 16" archtops or semi's. (H575, H525, H555, GB10, ES137 and various Ibanez semi's).
Interestingly, the laminate H525 gets the best 'amplified' tone of all of these for playing jazz! Maybe its the P90's, or the slightly thinner depth, or maybe it's the fairy dust Heritage's Marv Lamb put in it as he built it for me.

All of this simply goes to show that each guitar is different. Each person's anatomy is unique. All of us hear and desire something different. The only constant is that we all love guitars!

Tim

(PS.@Jack Z: The PRS JA-15 is 15", not 16". I'd love to try one!)

[kkfan]

Isn't the function of a pickup to pick up the magnetic field of a vibrating string and create current? If this is a pickup's sole objective, how does the dimensions of the body affect the tone?

Or, is what I described not the sole function of a pickup?

Of course, if a guitar is amplified using a mic, it's a whole different story.

[Pat Clare]

I have been playing 17" archtops for many years, Guild Artist Award, Heritage Eagle and Palen Perfromer.
A friend past away recently and left me his Heritage Super Eagle and the 18" body feels and sounds great.
I've yet to try a 16".

[vinlander]

My profane understanding is that the body construction, depth, wood density and variety will affect the way the string vibrate; it is that vibration affecting the magnetic field (pickup) that is being amplified not the wood sound.