Deep body vs thin body guitars

[TN Pat]

Has anyone who played on a deeper bodied guitar been happy with thinline models after the fact, or did you find the tone a bit lacking? (Or vice versa). Was it hard to adjust ergonomically?

[mad dog]

I've not owned deeper body archtops, but have played many. The ones I own are either somewhat shallower than let's say the ES-175 (such as the Heritage H575 w/ body depth 2.75"), or more than a bit shallower, such as the Heritage H525 at 2 1/4 deep).

It's easy to generalize about ergonomics, not so much sound. The shallower guitars sit closer to the body. More manageable, less distance for the left arm to cover. I'm 6 feet tall and have long arms, still notice that difference. Shallower is more comfortable to me.

Tonally, it's all over the map. Example: I've tried numerous noncutaway, full depth ES-125s. It's a particular sound, a great sound. How much of it is body depth? Ended up finding the Guild equivalent, a '62 X-50 with their "Franz" (P-90 sort of) pickup. Which is shallower than the full depth ES-125, I think at 2.75 deep. Acoustically, this Guild is louder, projects better than any of the ES-125s I tried. Plugged in. no lack of bass at all. A big, balanced sound. Just beautiful! Not the same as the equally excellent ES-125. I suspect the differences have more to do with the p/u, could be wrong of course.

Then there's the H525. It's a lot shallower than an ES-175, but sounds alot like the earlier, P90 ES-125 to me. Not the same boom in the bass, otherwise not far. Hard to pick out any one spec and say that's the reason. Every guitar is the sum of its parts, so I just try them and let my ears decide.
MD

[Headshot]

I found that I prefer the 335 sized guitars over the deeper bodies, but that might have a lot to do with the fact I have been a solid body guy since I was a kid.

[hotpepper01]

I play guitar in a bigband. That is mostly rythm guitar four in a bar and every now and than a guitar solo. A big band is loud. The horns are loud, very loud and on stage it is loud as well as mostly we play without a PA. To me, a comfortable position for the right hand is important and avoiiding feedback is factor as well. Thinlines are less prone to feedback compared to full depth bodied models. I ended up with a Gibson L5CT. Nice guitar, good tone and can do what I want it to do.

[newsense]

This is an interesting question to me also. It is probably not very relevant to compare a full hollow with a thin semi-hollow such as a 335, as the center block has such much influence than the body depth.

A great comparison to make would be a new ES-275 vs an ES-175 - similar materials and pickups, but big difference in body depth. Has anyone got extensive experience with both ?

[sgosnell]

I own several full-depth archtops, and some thinlines, specifically an Eastman T145 and a Benedetto Bambino. I prefer the thinlines almost all the time, for almost everything. For a pure acoustic, you do need the big boxes, but for amplified playing the thinlines sound as good, and are much more comfortable to play. Mine are not semisolid, but fully hollow. Semis give a somewhat different sound, depending on the guitar, but are more feedback resistant. My ES175 and old Epiphone archtop just don't get played that often, mostly because the thinlines are much more comfortable, and sound as good to me.

[feet]

i have a casino, byrdland, g6118 and a g400, going from skinniest to fattest. neither are lacking in bass or treble. plugged in, its just a matter of personal preference. the smaller ones are more comfy and resist feedback a little better (though still do). they have plenty of boom and the casino can fart out any speaker without issue.

you do get a little more from the larger bodies, but i wouldn't let that dissuade me from a thinner one. if it is built and appointed properly, you won't be let down.

[Bluedawg]

It's all good ..

But I prefer big bodies for tone and love holding them

[jzucker]

Has anyone who played on a deeper bodied guitar been happy with thinline models after the fact, or did you find the tone a bit lacking? (Or vice versa). Was it hard to adjust ergonomically?

The thinner guitars have noticeably less dynamic range. I have been through a bunch such as holst, benedetto, eastman, painter, ibanez, gibson 137/HR Fusion, heritage and several others and none of them could compare to my 175 in terms of fatness, dynamic range, thunkyness, etc. Of course, some of these were semis so it isn't apples/apples in all cases but the holst, benny, eastman, painter & heritage were full hollows.

Still, the thinner guitars feedback less. In terms of comfort, i'm not sure there's a universal answer there. Many have said the full body guitars hurt their wrist or their back but for me, the full hollows are the most comfortable with less aches and pains.

IMO, in terms of tone, nothing sounds like a big hollowbody guitar regardless whether you are playing acoustically or electrically.

[oldane]

Have a couple of full depth archtops and some years ago had one with reduced depth (2.5") made. The full depth instruments has a fuller sound but for amplified playing I find the difference insignificant, especially as the thinner instrument is laminated wood. Amplified it has good depth and can thunk too at will (I feel the latter is as much about strings, picks and picking technique as about the instrument as such. Heck, I can make a solidbody thunk too).

[mr. beaumont]

I've given up on semihollows. Every thing they do I like my tele better for.

Hollowbodies are different, and a solid body wont do what they do. For a hollowbody, my comfort zone is 2.75 to just over 3 inches. 175's feel a little "big," but I'm also sure I could get used to one because I like the sound so much.

[KirkP]

In general, the louder the band I'm playing in the thinner and closer to solid the guitar I'll use. Thinline hollowbodies have always felt weird to me, partly because they're too darned light. I haven't used one long enough to see if I could adapt.

[gitman]

I make my living playing Jazz etc. and started out 35 years ago with an ES-345 for the loud gigs and an L5 for the rest - I still own a Super-400 CES but nowadays this monster (big and heavy) gets played mostly at home or on the rare occasions when the gig is only 2 sets and I can bring a stool .... The big body archtops do have THE TONE in my ears and when sitting down they are not uncomfortable , generally speaking. My main gigging guitar for the past 8 years is a custom made archtop by Victor Baker : It's the perfect compromise for me since it's a 17" wide, 2.5" inch deep (like a Byrdland) , full scale guitar and the top and back are made out of rather thin but stiff 3-
layer plywood, made by Victor in-house. This guitar has the response I want, the lows I want, it's very comfortable both in a sitting and standing position and feedback is never an issue. It does not have the depth of tone of my Super-400 but on stage that is of no great importance for me.
So that was my reasoning behind the decision to go for a custom made guitar. With a little luck you might find one of those special L5 editions that are only 2,5" deep, some even have only a neck pickup. OR, if you can adapt to the short scale then a regular Byrdland
model could be the ticket- Anthony Wilson (on tour with Diana Krall) has a great tone with his vintage Byrdland and he is no small fella !

[blkjazz]

This is an interesting question to me also. It is probably not very relevant to compare a full hollow with a thin semi-hollow such as a 335, as the center block has such much influence than the body depth.

A great comparison to make would be a new ES-275 vs an ES-175 - similar materials and pickups, but big difference in body depth. Has anyone got extensive experience with both ?

I own a 175, a 335 and a 275. The 275 kind of sits between the others tonally. Sort of. It is a different animal than either tonally and feel wise. I bought the 275 last May. While I continue to play all of my guitars at home, I have used the ES 275 on every gig I've played ( jazz / blues ) since I bought it. I don't find the tone lacking in the least. Of course, when I play it I'm not really looking for what I get tonally from the 175 or the 335 (or my Strat for that matter) so there is no disappointment whatsoever. FWIW, the 175 has T-Tops, the 335 has Shaws and the 275 has MHS pickups.

[newsense]

I own a 175, a 335 and a 275.

If you were allowed to own only one of the three, which would you choose ?

[blkjazz]

If you were allowed to own only one of the three, which would you choose ?

newsense,

That is a hard question. I've had the 175 since 1970. For a long time it was my only guitar and it fed my family. I played everything from Stax and Motown to Burrell, BB and a little Chet with it. Tonally and sentimentally, it is probably my favorite. These days, at 67, the thickness of body seems to cause some right arm soreness if I play it for an extended period even off a stool. I've had the 335 since 1985. It is sometimes easier to do different styles with the 335 but it, and the 175, are heavier than the 275. It can get close to the LP thing and covers a lot of territory when needed. Of course, 335 is also a fairly large guitar compared to LPs and Strats. The 275 is very comfortable re weight and size. It has a unique tone that I love. It has a kind of 50ish vibe I think. I'd probably slightly favor the 335 (or my Stat) for a mostly R&B / Stax gig. Of course the 175 is perfect for jazz stuff. I love the 275 for the blues. I love it for jazz too but it has more edge than the 175. A more "modern" sound I suppose. I guess I'm saying I can't really answer your question. They are all different and offer alternative tools to create. With a gun to my head, the answer would likely be the 175.

Update 2-11-19: It seems the arm soreness (and shoulder pain) I was experiencing was not related to playing the 175.

[Greentone]

Gee whiz. I found my ES-175 to be probably the most comfortable guitar I ever played. By comparison, the neck/body geometry of my ES-335 had me playing first-position chords way over in California. It was almost like playing a Gibson Explorer. I loved the 335, but would have preferred the neck/body architecture of the ES-330 (early models).

Point is, the body depth was less of an issue for me than the extended neck length relative to the dimensions of the body.

[pingu]

I'm comfortable with 16 or 17 jazz box something
Substantial to smooch with I guess

Can't play a 335 for long for comfort , strange

I like the fat sound too ...
But I do stuff the top half of the guitar
With foam , for feedback

Recently heard a guy playing Good-by pp hat on the bbc proms
On a maybe 2" thick gretch with filtertrons and
a bit of dirt , sounded absolutely great , jazz meets
the blues sound and he copped a few Beck lines !
very tasty indeed

[Scotto]

You should also keep in mind string thickness and what type of speaker or cabinet you will be playing through. The other night, I saw Pat Martino play his Benedetto, roughly the thickness of a Les Paul, through a Messa Boogie cabinet 4x12 along with Lee Ritenour who was playing a big Gibson jazz box through a couple Fender Twins and Martino's sound was much warmer and bigger than Lee's while playing side by side.

[Robertkoa]

I've not owned deeper body archtops, but have played many. The ones I own are either somewhat shallower than let's say the ES-175 (such as the Heritage H575 w/ body depth 2.75"), or more than a bit shallower, such as the Heritage H525 at 2 1/4 deep).

It's easy to generalize about ergonomics, not so much sound. The shallower guitars sit closer to the body. More manageable, less distance for the left arm to cover. I'm 6 feet tall and have long arms, still notice that difference. Shallower is more comfortable to me.

Tonally, it's all over the map. Example: I've tried numerous noncutaway, full depth ES-125s. It's a particular sound, a great sound. How much of it is body depth? Ended up finding the Guild equivalent, a '62 X-50 with their "Franz" (P-90 sort of) pickup. Which is shallower than the full depth ES-125, I think at 2.75 deep. Acoustically, this Guild is louder, projects better than any of the ES-125s I tried. Plugged in. no lack of bass at all. A big, balanced sound. Just beautiful! Not the same as the equally excellent ES-125. I suspect the differences have more to do with the p/u, could be wrong of course.

Then there's the H525. It's a lot shallower than an ES-175, but sounds alot like the earlier, P90 ES-125 to me. Not the same boom in the bass, otherwise not far. Hard to pick out any one spec and say that's the reason. Every guitar is the sum of its parts, so I just try them and let my ears decide.
MD

Nice Post - I asked Heritage about the 525 IF they would put Humbuckers on one but it is a bit expensive - it's unusually Phatt in Demos to my ears ..turns out that it is Hollow with only a backer board.

IF your 525 had full Humbuckers - would it even be closer in sound to some ES 175s ?

AND it seems to have longer sustain like a good semi hollow with a Stoptail does .

I noticed when I played an ES 137 it sounded more hollow and Phatter than a 335 on Neck PU.

I understand why Semi Hollows are not 3 inches thick BUT they should be about 2.25 to 2.5 to 2.75 inches thick I think for the best of both worlds.

So you have P90s on the Heritage 525 right ?

With Humbuckers would it even be closer to a 175 with more sustain ?

[mad dog]

Robert: some great questions there.

You could hack up a used 525 to put in humbuckers. Others have tried. Are they even making them any more? In any event, I can only guess. There is some kind of tonal sweet spot with the H525, something more than just the great p/us. I had read others hearing saying it was more like an ES-175 than the depth would lead one to suspect. That's how it struck me. I'd love to hear that body with HBs. That sustain you mention is another thing. Is it just the Lollar p/u? I don't know. My 525 did have more sustain than I've heard in similar depth hollowbodies, such as the Peerless Wizard. Mysterious stuff. I suspect it's due to a to how the top laminate is matched to the back and sides. A just right top thickness maybe? Did I just get a really good one? No way to know.

One thing about semis being deeper ... they get quite heavy that way, unless the sound block is very light wood - such as the balsa Gibson used in later ES-137s to lighten the weight.

Or, if the block is not solid. That is (I think) where the best of both worlds comes in on semis. As with the Godin Montreal Premiere. IMO, let down by way bright p/us, but there was a real airiness in that sound, and light weight, courtesy of the unique center block. More like the Gretsch trestle bracing than a solid block.

[Ray175]

My stable includes both a 1961 175D and a 1980 Ibanez AS200. I have no problem switching from one to the other in terms of physically playing the different shaped instruments, but I use them for very different things.
The 175 with 14s on it is "PAF heaven", and that's were I play it. the AS200 with 11s has a much wider tonal range and is more versatile in terms of the sounds I want to shape from it. I would be reluctant to let either of them go so don't ask me which I prefer.

[Alter]

The smaller ones are more versatile , suitable for any style of playing really. With the bigger boxes though, you really understand what the mainstream, old fashioned jazz guitar style is about. They have a kind of weight, bigness in their sound and their notes that the semis do not.

[jzucker]

I'm not sure you can generalize so much. My '63 Barney Kessel doesn't feed back, sounds great for Tal Farlow jazz sounds and Robben Ford jazz/blues stuff as well as heavy overdrive (holdsworth) stuff.

At first I would tape the F holds before gigs, then just taped 1 F Hole and now I don't tape either one. I played a REALLY loud gig recently and there was no issue with is. It can hold its own with any semihollowbody for blues/fusion and I like it better than an L5, 175 or Tal Farlow for straight ahead jazz.

The only issue is that I keep TI .012 flatwounds on it so I can't do G string bends.

[TedBPhx]

My GB10se is a small 14 1/2 x 2 1/2 at the rim full hollow body and is very comfortable to play but it is not quite the tone machine the 2016 175 really is.