Further Thoughts on Thunk

**Burrellesque** · 02-13-2018, 04:02 AM

Reading through the previous 'thunk' threads I noticed the biggest contributor to thunk that I have found hadn't been mentioned.

With archtop's, I have occasionally found it necessary to 'stuff' the guitar in someway for louder volume gig situations to control unwanted feedback.

I use a kids party balloon which I semi inflate inside the guitar through the bass F hole. As well as preventing feedback, adjusting its position in relation to the F hole changes the tonal qualities of the guitar.

However I have also noticed the guitar becomes a lot 'thunkier' too. Sounds great in fact. If you cover too much of the F hole the guitar starts to sound dead, but say half covered or less..... lots more thunk! Takes away some of the range of tone but leaves that dry, woody thunk on all the laminate archtops I've tried it with.

This has me wondering ... Joe Pass, Tal, Burrell etc. quite possibly had their guitars stuffed with something when those recordings were made if they were gigging all the time in noisy clubs and with horns. Perhaps the dry 'thunk' we are hearing is partially due to this factor?

**Ray175** · 02-13-2018, 06:17 AM

Never had big feedback problems so I've never needed to stuff my 175 in this way. This weekend, when I have a couple of hours free time I'll give this approach a try and see what comes out of it.
Always open to an experiment !

**jzucker** · 02-13-2018, 07:01 AM

I stuffed my guitars at Pat Martino's suggestion when I studied with him. Over the years I've stuffed an L5, Johnny Smith, Ibanez Metheny, etc. As you know, playing with a loud electric keyboard, organ trio or saxophonist and the accompanying loud drummer knows that the sonic properties of the other players reflects back onto the guitar and can easily induce feedback much more than if you were just playing that volume by yourself.

In any event, I never noticed any contribution to thunk in those cases. Yet, certain 175s and my 63 Kessel have it in spades. (Not stuffed).

I'd have to try it again to be 100% sure though and currently, i'm not playing in those louder situations with those guitars. I bring my semihollow when i'm playing that loud these days.

Dutchbopper · 02-13-2018, 07:45 AM

Yet, certain 175s and my 63 Kessel have it in spades.

Jack, do you think the 80s mahogany ES 175s thunk harder than the average ES 175, say from 70s and from the 90s, 2000s and 2010s?

And do vintage ES 175s thunk harder than contemporary ones from the 70s until now? Maybe with the exception of the maho 80s 175?

What about 50s (P90 equpped) ES 175s against early 60s ones? Any difference in thunkness there? We both share the same love for Joe Pass' sound on the early 60s recordings ...

DB

**Burrellesque** · 02-13-2018, 08:11 AM

On the stuffing.... I've only used the balloon method which is really just a pocket of air I guess. It does fix feedback issues, and in my experience it added thunk. I'm not sure what other stuffing materials would do? I've tried a balloon in each F hole and the guitar sounded lifeless. Also when I've had the balloon covering more that say half the bass F hole the guitar started sounding dull rather than that nice dry woody thud.

The balloon touches the front and back surfaces of the guitar so I guess it is dampening the resonance of the front and back plates a touch.

I've tried it on 3 different 17" laminate guitars. It added a good deal of thunk to 2 of them, which I guess had a fair bit to start with. The third guitar it just made sound a lot duller but did add a touch of thunk.

The mystery of thunk continues......

**jzucker** · 02-13-2018, 08:27 AM

The guitar used on this recording was stuffed with 5lbs of cotton. Think about how much volume of cotton that was. Doesn't sound the least bit lifeless to me. When I stuffed my L5, everyone loved the sound. It was anything but lifeless. Now, yes - playing acoustically in the practice room may have sounded lifeless...

Originally Posted by Burrellesque

On the stuffing.... I've only used the balloon method which is really just a pocket of air I guess. It does fix feedback issues, and in my experience it added thunk. I'm not sure what other stuffing materials would do? I've tried a balloon in each F hole and the guitar sounded lifeless. Also when I've had the balloon covering more that say half the bass F hole the guitar started sounding dull rather than that nice dry woody thud.

The balloon touches the front and back surfaces of the guitar so I guess it is dampening the resonance of the front and back plates a touch.

I've tried it on 3 different 17" laminate guitars. It added a good deal of thunk to 2 of them, which I guess had a fair bit to start with. The third guitar it just made sound a lot duller but did add a touch of thunk.

The mystery of thunk continues......

**rio** · 02-13-2018, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by jzucker

The guitar used on this recording was stuffed with 5lbs of cotton. Think about how much volume of cotton that was. Doesn't sound the least bit lifeless to me. When I stuffed my L5, everyone loved the sound. It was anything but lifeless. Now, yes - playing acoustically in the practice room may have sounded lifeless...

Wow, really 5 lbs? That’s crazy - do you know why he chose that instead of foam or something lighter? Maybe that could be a new product for gear heads to sell, “Pat Martino’s Tone Cotton”. The finest organic cotton picked specifically for a killer tone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

**rob taft** · 02-13-2018, 04:27 PM

Can't speak for Jack or Pat for that matter but I suspect it (cotton batting) was chosen because it was readily available. This recording was done in 1966 or so and foam didn't really become commercially available until the late 50s when it started showing up in residential furniture. Up to that point most furniture was stuffed with cotton, animal hair, straw, moss, seeds or combinations of all.

**jzucker** · 02-13-2018, 05:20 PM

He chose cotton because it can be packed very tightly. I suppose you could do that with foam pieces but it would have to be torn up into really small pieces and then there would be air pockets. It was 1979 when I studied with him and he told me to use upholstery cotton. He had me pack it in so tightly that when you pressed on it through the F-Hole it felt as hard as a rock.

Originally Posted by rob taft

Can't speak for Jack or Pat for that matter but I suspect it (cotton batting) was chosen because it was readily available. This recording was done in 1966 or so and foam didn't really become commercially available until the late 50s when it started showing up in residential furniture. Up to that point most furniture was stuffed with cotton, animal hair, straw, moss, seeds or combinations of all.

**Tales** · 02-13-2018, 06:16 PM

I was thinking to do something similar the otherday with my Washburn J5. I like the hollowbody tone but I don't like to hear the acoustic sound when I play with an amplifier. If I just put some tape on the F-holes it will give me the same sound as thunk the guitar?

**TedBPhx** · 02-13-2018, 07:11 PM

I think the f holes on my 2016 175 look skinny. Is that why it thunks? No direct experience to know if mine is smaller than others. They just look skinny compared to my Washburn or Ibanez and they don’t begin to thunk like the Gibson.
i thought it was the weird neck pickup placement.

**Burrellesque** · 02-13-2018, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tales

I was thinking to do something similar the otherday with my Washburn J5. I like the hollowbody tone but I don't like to hear the acoustic sound when I play with an amplifier. If I just put some tape on the F-holes it will give me the same sound as thunk the guitar?

I'm not sure if it would? I'm beginning to think that lightly dampening the resonance of the top and back plates may be what worked for me.

The Pat Martino story is interesting. It could be that a lot of great jazz guitar tones we have listened to on recordings over the years were with guitars stuffed with cotton

.

**jzucker** · 02-13-2018, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Burrellesque

I'm not sure if it would? I'm beginning to think that lightly dampening the resonance of the top and back plates may be what worked for me.

The Pat Martino story is interesting. It could be that a lot of great jazz guitar tones we have listened to on recordings over the years were with guitars stuffed with cotton

.

I don't think so. I'm not aware of anyone else doing it. There were a few guys in Philly doing that though. Benson, Bollenback and many others use packing tape on the F holes but you won't get thunk that way. I'm not sure you get thunk with the cotton either and it's too heavy to try it, lol.

**pingu** · 02-13-2018, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Burrellesque

I'm beginning to think that lightly dampening the resonance of the top and back plates may be what worked for me.
.

I think you're right ...
Don't know why , it just feels correct to me
(my Jazz box is half stuffed , foam)

I sometimes semi damp the strings too
Rh slightly on the bridge
gets more ' thunk 'on the note
If that's the correct use of the word .... I dunno

Its a nice thick sound tho

**Herbie** · 02-13-2018, 10:21 PM

A balloon? Simply and clever!

And if You use helium, You can make You guitar lighter!

**Burrellesque** · 02-14-2018, 01:35 AM

Helium could work. Just don't use hydrogen like they did in the Hindenburg.

**Burrellesque** · 02-14-2018, 01:40 AM

I just found this on the Seymour Duncan Forum in 2006 on a thread about archtop feedback solutions........

'Tal Farlow told me about a trick he used to use where he'd blow up a toy balloon inside the f-hole. It works up to a point, but not if you're playing real loud.'
Posted by someone called 'ES350' (which wasn't me by the way).

If this is true, I might be onto something after all and not as crazy as I think I am sometimes.
Tal certainly had thunk.

Heres the link...
Feedback in hollowbody

**grahambop** · 02-14-2018, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Burrellesque

Helium could work. Just don't use hydrogen like they did in the Hindenburg.

You might just get the biggest 'thunk' of all time...

**jzucker** · 02-14-2018, 05:47 PM

The mahogany 175s definitely thunk more than the typical maple 175s but I'm not sure it's due to the mahogany. I think it may be due to the more robust construction. I think the top and possibly bracing being thicker may contribute to it. I briefly owned a '57 and '62 175 and neither of them had much thunk whereas the '63 Kessel I have (spruce top) has a ton of thunk.

And Joe Pass' 175 was a '60s with maple back/sides and mahogany neck.

So top thickness and material play into it but there are so many variables it's hard to sort out...

Originally Posted by Dutchbopper

Jack, do you think the 80s mahogany ES 175s thunk harder than the average ES 175, say from 70s and from the 90s, 2000s and 2010s?

And do vintage ES 175s thunk harder than contemporary ones from the 70s until now? Maybe with the exception of the maho 80s 175?

What about 50s (P90 equpped) ES 175s against early 60s ones? Any difference in thunkness there? We both share the same love for Joe Pass' sound on the early 60s recordings ...

DB

**Philco** · 02-14-2018, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

The guitar used on this recording was stuffed with 5lbs of cotton. Think about how much volume of cotton that was. Doesn't sound the least bit lifeless to me. When I stuffed my L5, everyone loved the sound. It was anything but lifeless. Now, yes - playing acoustically in the practice room may have sounded lifeless...

One of my fave recordings and I'm sure many people feel the same way.

Apart from the incredible playing......the sound......the sound.....the most beautiful, round, powerful and sweet tone.
With just the right amount of distortion!