-
IMHO, the acoustic properties of the guitar are important in that they affect the decay envelope of the plucked note. In a solid-body, the plucked note will begin with a burst of unorganized energy that will self-organize into pythagorean segments (halves, thirds, quarters, fifths; and their multiples) whose numbers depend on the strength of the pluck, its location re: effective string length, string wear, and so forth. This results in a tone that, on a continuum from white noise to sine wave falls closer to the sw end.
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
In a hollowbody, on the other hand, top movement (resulting in variable micro-positioning re: string vibration), body resonance, and a host of other factors combine to create a much different decay envelope. Much of the energy of the pluck is absorbed by setting the top in motion, giving a small but detectable compression/peak limiting effect. These small but multiple resonance factors affect the harmonic content of the decaying note by enhancing or inhibiting upper partials, resulting in a tonal complexity more removed from the sw yet avoiding the wn.
What I look for unplugged in a guitar is even response/decay all over the neck. Perfection is rare, but there is a workable range.
I hope this makes some sense, as I had to put down my Telecaster to type it.
-
04-05-2018 03:21 PM
-
So my point is basically (a) for hollowbodies, the "acoustic properties" of the body strongly shape the electric tone , but (b) those very same "acoustic properties" might not make for a superior or even good un-amplified sound.
That has been my observation, based on the electric tone I like.
-
Exactly. The amplifier too is an instrument. When I am playing electric, I look at the signal chain from string to speaker being one single instrument, and aim to play that competently. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Flattop acoustics have great tones unamplified ... not so sure that's going to change the amp's mind about how things are going to be ... hence the moves from micing to soundhole pickups to piezos. All the organic tone in the instrument still has to transit several gain stages in any amplifier, and that tone will not come out unaltered. Period.
Once you plug in, your instrument has grown, and the amp will have its say.
-
One oversimplified way to look at unplugged vs. plugged in: The longer the string resonates unplugged, the longer the the pickup will pickup. Yes?
So it certainly can't said the that there is no correlation between how it sounds unplugged vs. plugged in.
-
Read what I said. I didn't say "no correlation between plugged and unplugged sound." I said that there is no necessary correlation in the quality of the sound. How long the string vibrates is only a matter of sustain, not complexity, richness, overtones, etc. A guitar that sounds great unplugged, like my Martin D28, can sound horrible if you put a humbucker on it. But a guitar that sounds so-so unplugged, like my ES175, can be pure gold plugged in. Originally Posted by wmachine
The correlation is not "if GOOD unplugged, then GOOD plugged." There certain is some connection, but I don't think it means a guitar that doesn't sound great unplugged will be a no-go for an electric player.
How a guitar sounds unplugged is too often presented as though it's some kind of automatic indicator of how it will sound plugged in. Typically those folks prefer and unplugged sound anyway.
A fun thing for me recently is learning to enjoy the differences among how various guitars sound and not trying to move them all into one tone profile.
-
Thanks. I likewise did not mean to imply that good unplugged is good plugged in. (However I think that is more applicable with solid bodies.) I do mean to start with something that is objective and not really a matter of what may be how one hears something. I would also think the better it is unplugged, the chances are much better it would sound better plugged in. My experience is by no means that extensive, but I've not heard what I would call a dud that sounded "better" plugged in. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
And again, any real significance here I would think to be more relevant to solid bodies.
Then again, it might be just misguided intuition, but that's what I'm experiencing.
-
It is precisely the assumption that "the better it is unplugged...better it would sound plugged in" is what I do not find to hold up, unless you define "good" plugged in sound as simply a louder version of the unplugged sound. I don't. I see the guitar and amp as a unified sort of system, not just something to make an unplugged guitar louder. Originally Posted by wmachine
-
I agree with you in principle but I noticed that in practice I just can’t do it. When I pick up an instrument it also has to work acoustically for me. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
I remember picking up a Joe Pass that sounded well plugged in but clunky acoustically and I just couldn’t get it. I admit it’s irrational. I also grew up playing classical and flamenco so I think that matters to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Nothing at all irrational about your own personal preference. You also probably speak for the majority, but I tend to think of plugged and unplugged as different musical expressions, and I want each to have its own character. So I don't want my electrics to just sound like loud acoustics. I do like the complexity of tone that an archtop body imparts to the electric sound, but I don't find I can predict the electric tone from the acoustic sound. I also rarely practice unplugged. I have a small amp in a central room in my house and a wireless connection, so I can sit on the sofa playing away plugged in and fired up. Originally Posted by blille
But I know I'm in a minority on this. Most like the electric archtop to have some acoustic vibe. I just like to stand up and be "that guy" the contrarian!
-
I get why some don't consider the acoustic sound of electric archtops to be an important factor. Although that make sense, it doesn't work that way for me. I love the acoustic sound of my ES 175. Mellow, sweet, compressed laminate guitar sound yet deep and full. It took me some time to set it up and cure the rattle prone pickups to get a good full clean acoustic sound. It gives me the feeling of playing a true acoustic instrument even when I use the amplifier. I know one can say that the "acousticness" of ES 175 is there only to manipulate it's sound through the pickups, but it's more than that for me.
In fact that's why I can't play semi hollows. They are acoustically worst sounding instruments I think. Much worse than solid bodies.
Here I'll admit, if it wasn't for the "acoustic instrument feel" of ES 175's, I'd have certainly preferred a semi hollow. The electric sound of many semi hollows can be made close enough for me to full hollows and they can be more convenient overall.
-
That's great for you. But when someone says their electric doesn't have good acoustic tone, I tend to say "so what?" It's like wanting a pickup truck to be a family car. I find it is always healthy to analyze our preferences and presuppositions, and when I analyzed my (supposed) preference for acoustic tone, i realized the guitars I most enjoyed playing actually didn't have especially good acoustic tone, but their hollow body character did produce a very nice electric tone. Which is why I play hollow bodies and not solid bodies. But if I want acoustic, I use an acoustic archtop with a floater, which is not very often. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
That would've been my position as well if I lived in a house Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Living in an apartment and having to practice daily in early or late hours, I can't turn my amp loud enough to drown the hollow body guitar out. So I often practice acoustically or use the solid body with the amp.
I can't even play my acoustic guitars during the week days for that reason.
-
I get that. We all have the limits of our situations to deal with. If I had to practice acoustically most of the time, I'd likely want a guitar that played like my electrics, but had a good acoustic tone. At the far extreme, too, is a solid body or semi with a headphone amp, but so far I haven't found that to work very well. I don't like all the wires. Originally Posted by Tal_175
That would've been my position as well if I lived in a house
Living in an apartment and having to practice daily in early or late hours, I can't turn my amp loud enough to drown the hollow body guitar out. So I often practice acoustically or use the solid body with the amp.
I can't even play my acoustic guitars during the week days for that reason.
-
EHX.com | Headphone Amp - Personal practice amplification | Electro-Harmonix
Battery powered with a really decent S/N ratio. Best one that I have had. I play more with an amp amp though. Just not super loud.
-
What would be nice is a headphone amp that transmitted to a bluetooth headset without latency. I would buy one of those.
-
Seriously. Ever since I started connecting wirelessly to my amp, I've hated cables. Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
All the guitars sound great! The Herb Ellis and the Gibson 175 sound almost alike, with just a little bit more treble than the Ellis. Could this due to the wood bridge on the 175 and the metal TOM on the Ellis? Re the Epi 175P, I have this guitar and love it. The pups are great. In comparison to the two Gibsons, it's def more treble, but also it seems crisper and clearer. Again, maybe due to the TOM on the Epi, in addition to the thinner hollowbody wood? I wonder if installing a wood bridge on the Epi would make a noticeable difference? Certainly a little tweaking on the tone knob and the amp would make it less trebly, but I kind of like that more focused sound. I would only turn down the treble a little. Good job in the comparison!
-
It should make a difference. There was a post here from an ES 175 owner who installed a metal tunomatic on the wooden base of his 175 and liked the results very much. His 175 (a 59 RI if memory serves) came with a wooden saddle. I'd like to experiment with mine some day but I finally have it dialed in pretty good so I'll leave it for now. Originally Posted by MoCee
-
I changed my TOM for a wooden bridge, and much prefer it. The guitar is a little jangly with a TOM, but it's a very nice sound with the ebony bridge. I've replaced the TOM a couple of times just to see if I like it again, but I reinstalled the ebony bridge very quickly. With that bridge, the Epi sounds and plays almost like my Benedetto, but I don't play it nearly as much because I don't like the deeper body on the Epi, preferring a thinner body for comfort. A TOM bridge gives much better intonation on all strings, but I don't like the sound, and accept the intonation inaccuracies to get the sound I prefer.
-
I think the 165 sounded the best. The Epi was second, and the 175 was the worst. The 175 sounded tin-like. Based off of this video alone, I'd NEVER spend the extra few thousand for the 175.
-
I changed the tunomatic to a rosewood bridge and liked the change a lot too on my ‘05 175. I tried the same on my PM100, which is based on Metheny’s 175 and the tunomatic was better. So I am guessing it depends on the guitar. Originally Posted by sgosnell
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
That's really strange. I listened again, and I play this guitar a lot, along with a "regular" ES175, the ES165, an L5ces, and various clones. This guitar has a solid, thick punch that I think comes through on the recording. I don't know where you get "tin-like" from. Also, this guitar is not "several thousand" more than the others. I paid, brand new, less than $2000 for this guitar, as have many others. I liked all three, and wouldn't say any of the three had a poor tone. I felt the 175 had some real thunk, the 165 has a lot of presence, and the Epiphone ES175 is in between. Hours and hours of playing these three guitars has reinforced that impression. Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
Tin-like, though, nope. I think you're just wrong there.
-
You may want to try nylon saddles on your TOM sometime. My ES-345 came with nylon saddles and they definitely have a mellower tone than steel or brass. Just a suggestion. Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
i do agree that good unplugged means potentially good electrically assuming you don't have heavy metal pickups or something. The catch is that some instruments are very quiet. For example, the GB10 and LGB-30 sound great electrically or unplugged but they are very quiet acoustically. Because of the way our hearing works, louder sounds tend to sound better to us (up to a point) but if you ever mic a GB10 or LGB-30, they have a good sound.
Incidentally, the chinese LGB-30 is a terrific guitar electrically.
-
Which bridge sounds best certainly depends on the guitar. I've seen it both ways, but I tend to prefer a wooden bridge more often than a TOM. The base also makes a difference, and that definitely depends on the individual guitar. I prefer a solid base on some, but a two-foot style on others. Top response is different with every top. But tone is always subjective, and my preferences are not anyone else's.
Reply With Quote
What's with all the weird Jazz guitars people buy?
Today, 03:21 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos