-
Hi guys,
Just want to know if any one of you have any experiences in comparing the tone and feel of small size archtops (i.e. between 14 to 15 inch body width) with the more common archtop sizes (between 16 to 17 inch)? Any feedback and comments will be very much appreciated
.
-
01-23-2017 02:08 AM
-
My current stable consists of archtops ranging from 16.5" to 18" lower bout. While they all sound good, I have to say that the larger the bottom, the greater the depth and fullness of tone. I've had smaller archtops (down to 14.1") but I've parted with them. Tone matters more to me than comfort & ergonomics. I'm tall and lanky so I don't mind playing a large archtop.
-
My only fully hollow small sized archtop is my Ibanez AG86. It is under 16" and its size is disproportionate to its full acoustic influence on the sound. Compared to larger Ibanez I have it actually sounds better.
I don't think this is typical though, maybe I just got lucky, maybe it's the unique material mix of the bubinga over what appears to be mahogany but it is one I definitely am happy to have.Last edited by GNAPPI; 01-23-2017 at 08:41 AM.
-
I've recently started playing a L5-size archtop for the first time and really like it, even though it's only a laminate top. In my experience there is not a great deal of difference to the plugged-in sound but there is a large difference to the semi-acoustic sound (and feel) when practicing at home, and that is what inspires me to play a lot more. Whenever I have a spare moment I can't resist picking it up and noodling. I do wonder whether a solid top might be even nicer, but there will probably be a price to pay (feedback). I have also wondered how a shallower body would affect the sound (all other things being equal); anyone have experience of that?
-
I have two solid wood hand built archtops, both spruce/maple, 7 strings. I use them both regularly but they're both quite different. Though they're built by the same builder, they're both quite different. One is a 15", like a benson size, the other a 16". I used to play a 17", a Gibson Johnny Smith and a Guild Artist Award. I don't even take them out of the case anymore but that's because the 17" bout just feels like my arm has to wrap around it; it doesn't feel like part of my body. The sound of both of those is well balanced and really sweet.
Because the 16 has the arching spread across a wider bottom bout, it's got a less "tubular" profile overall. This gives a rounder, yet still woody sound in the overall sound. To my ear, it sounds like the jazz guitar sound I associate with a good jazz box. The feel to my fingers is quite like the 17" guitars and the sound really is equivalent for my ear and hands.
The 15 has a higher arch in proportion to the width and the attack is more pronounced. It's just as deep in the bass as the 16 (which might surprise some people, but this is more a function of good building and a well tuned graduation; it's not merely the arching patterns of a 16 cut down to 15). To my hands, and to many listeners, it projects well and has a sound more like a good classical guitar. Because the top is graduated well on a 15" width, there's less mass and the response time and feel is quicker than the 16. It has a tighter snap in the attack. I play fingerstyle. This is important to me.
I really love them both, and I could never say that one does the same things the other does, but I will say I play the 15 more. It's really comfortable and it fits my sensibilities more, as a fingerstyle player with my start in classical.
All this is only MY experience and builder, set up, playing style and musical application are all really important. I will say that with these two guitars, I don't play anything else, and everything else I've accumulated in the past I'll wind up selling. A good team for a broad range of music.
David
-
I have solid carved top 15" (Peerless), 16" (Hofner) and 17"(Heritage). The bass response improves with size, acoustic volume increases although in my case the 16" has a deeper body than the 17" so the difference is much less. There is a much bigger difference in volume between the 15" and the other two. These comparisons fade away when amplified and become all about the different pickups (all floating humbuckers) and the tone circuits of the guitars.
Last edited by medblues; 01-23-2017 at 09:25 AM.
-
I have an Eastman ~15", a thinline, and an Epi ES175, 16" full depth. The Eastman is much louder unamplified. That's mostly because it has a solid carved spruce top with one pickup, and the Epi has a laminated top with two humbuckers. The Eastman is loud enough to be used acoustically, if I wanted, louder than my flat-tops. I think the archtop size war came about because players wanted more volume to cut through big bands, and it seems intuitively obvious that bigger means louder. I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Other factors are as important as the width of the rims. I hadn't played thinline in years until I got the Eastman, but I think I prefer them now because they're more comfortable to play, lighter, and sound just as good to my ear. With a pickup, I don't think it's possible to tell the thickness from a blindfold hearing test. Thinlines do lack some harmonic richness when played acoustically, compared to big 3.5" models, but you don't hear that when amplified. IME a 15" or even smaller guitar has numerous advantages over bigger models, depending on the situation and the player. My Benedetto Bambino is only 14.5", and that's what I almost always pick up. If you mostly play plugged in, a smaller model may be better. If you're playing an acoustic in a big band, you may want something bigger, though.
-
I'm with Helios on this one, the larger the bottom the fuller and deeper the tone. Not saying that the sound our of the smaller sized guitars isn't wonderful, it's just not that deep and fat. I own GB10s GB100s, Sweet 16s, Heritage Golden Eagles, Gibson L-5s, Heritage Super Eagles and special ordered MIC arch tops from Mr. Wu in many lower bout widths and the bigger the cushion the sweeter the pushin' as Spinal Tap used to sing.
Big
-
16" archtops are definitely my personal "goldilocks" size.
-
I have sat down and intentionally made A-B comparisons between 16 and 17 inch guitars (not 14-15 inch, though). Mostly 30s L4-L5-L7. There is a lot to like about 16 inch guitars, and they will tend to be just as loud in a band setting (treble cuts through the mix, the low end does not matter much). But in your living room, the extra low end of the bigger guitars does make a noticeable difference. I think that the same thing applies to noncut vs. cutaway, and electric, but I have not done an A-B on that.
-
I finally got my hands on an 18 inch acoustic with a non cutaway Campellone archtop in 2015 and in 2016 I picked up a Super 400 CES electric ...
I'm completely sold on 18 inch guitars now .... I still love my 17 inch guitars and my Sweet 16 (which is an acoustic with a floater pup) ... but in the end the 18 inch acoustic has more bottom end and the Super 40 has a full and rich electric sound
-
I find the smaller archtops need bigger amps/speakers/cabinet enclosures to sound "big", or "full", or whatever adjective you use to describe a big round jazzy tone. Whereas a 16 x 3 (or my favorite, 2 7/8") archtop will sound "big" even through a small speaker. I have no experience with anything bigger than 16 x 3.
-
And I use a strap to hold my guitar in the "classical position" over my left leg as opposed to my right leg ...
IMHO this makes it easy to handle the bigger bodies ...
-
I prefer 15"-ish guitars, strictly for comfort. Currently for jazz I have a Sadowsky JB, a Gibson ES-275, a D'angelico semi, and a Carvin semi. However, over my life I have owned many high-end 16" & 17" guitars. If you are primarily using it amplified, there is very little or no difference. Probably the best sounding amplified archtops I owned was a 15" (Aria) D'Aquisto NY-Jr with a hand made Kent Armstrong floater. I hated to sell it, but it developed a neck hump.
Conversely, one of the biggest duds I ever played was one of my teachers' Super 400CES. Acoustically dead. At the time I was playing an L-50 and it blew the Super 4 away.
Check out this cool 15"-er from our well-known far east maker.
PS-- I just noticed that the word "archtop" comes up as a spelling error here. Kinda ironic considering who we are
Last edited by Woody Sound; 01-23-2017 at 03:12 PM.
-
How much of a word is "archtop"?
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
PS-- I just noticed that the word "archtop" comes up as a spelling error here. Kinda ironic considering who we are
Definitions of archtop - OneLook Dictionary Search
onelook searches dozens of dictionaries, and it didn't find it in any standard dictionary, like Webster's or the Oxford.
-
That's interesting. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Archtop guitar - Wikipedia
-
I played 17" guitars for over forty years, but fourteen years ago switched to 15.5" x 2&5/8" instruments. To some great extent these guitars saved my playing career, such as it is, because I've gotten much shorter as I've aged (and was short to begin with), so the bigger ones had gone from being a joy to a struggle. The Gibson L-5CES Signature models I play sound really good for their size, and while not quite as open or full as the bigger version, work better for me on stage, and I find them far more comfortable to play. At home I play an acoustic version of the same thing and it sounds great, either acoustically or with the floater. I especially like that they are my preferred 25.5" scale length.
At the 2005 Winter NAMM I played a prototype of this guitar and was quite interested. The rep put me in touch with a dealer who was supposed to get me one, but there was a kerfuffle with getting the proper case size and it never was delivered. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
I prefer 15"-ish guitars, strictly for comfort. Currently for jazz I have a Sadowsky JB, a Gibson ES-275, a D'angelico semi, and a Carvin semi. However, over my life I have owned many high-end 16" & 17" guitars. If you are primarily using it amplified, there is very little or no difference. Probably the best sounding amplified archtops I owned was a 15" (Aria) D'Aquisto NY-Jr with a hand made Kent Armstrong floater. I hated to sell it, but it developed a neck hump.
Danny W.
-
I've a very old & fragile 13-1/2" and a very old and fragile 14-1/2" archtop.
Yeah, they don't sound big, just nice in a small way. They feel great, small and light.
Lightness is a guitar virtue that turns me on. They tend to sound nice, too.
These are different, specialist items. Might take some patient snooping.
Best of luck.
-
Thank you for all of your comments!
Corey
-
Well, I just got a chance to measure my Ibanez AG-86 and it's 14.5" wide. It's a very comfortable to play. Anyone who would like a REALLY inexpensive git that sounds Waayyy better than it has a right to, will be well served trying one, well at least one of the older ones with the wood over steel tailpieces.
Last edited by GNAPPI; 01-24-2017 at 02:14 AM.
-
Size matters.
-
Yes, size matters, but bigger is not necessarily better.
-
Its how you use it!
-
Are we talking (scale) length or girth? Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
A large headstock can be effective. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Reply With Quote
Monk's Mood
Today, 04:25 PM in The Songs