-
The other thing is beyond a point action definitely affects volume. But - this will be moot point I think with most players here who don’t want to play acoustic early jazz, and who use a standard right hand technique.
-
10-13-2019 07:44 AM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
About everything else: You are spot on. I've been playing a GB200 as an eletric guitar and a Peerless Imperial as an acoustic to study/reherse a duo. Both with 13 Rounds. The guy on the duo uses a nylon string classical guitar.
Originally Posted by JazzNote
I know the guitars play a big role on the sound, sometimes I'm afraid of killing my guitars voice with strings too low.
I used to have 1,2mm... 1,4mm... somehow now when I pickup any guitar like that it's "too low" for me.
Some guys around me said "as low as possible it's perfect, amp does the work"... others are like "the guitar must sound amazing acoustically" (like you should be able to record it without an amp like mighty Joe...)
After noticing it's easier to dig in or to do certain legatto stuff with a bit more height, I started trying to push it higher and higher and got lost with it... I believe my Peerless is almost at 3mm atm... wich somehow let's spend a lot more energy hitting the strings and I don't even get that "slap" sound agaisn't the frets unless it's an insanely powerfull attack.Last edited by Carloscepinha; 10-13-2019 at 12:39 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Carloscepinha
-
Sorry about the lack of para breaks.
-
To fix the formatting, you have to use Firefox or perhaps something else. The forum software is at least partially broken with Chrome. I know of a few other sites with the same sort of problems. I've mostly abandoned Chrome.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Initially i intended to play it with a higher action, but kept it low in order to avoid physical left hand problems which occurred to colleagues who overstrained there muscles by combining heavy strings with high action. As it turns out, the heavy string gauge works well with a low action and so i intend to leave it that way.
-
Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
Originally Posted by JazzNote
Last edited by christianm77; 10-13-2019 at 04:54 PM.
-
If you really want to project, get a SelMac, and ignore archtops. More bang for buck. Better for single notes IME. You can play with a gauge .10 top... OTOH that's a whole can of worms stylistically haha, because literally everything you play will now sound like Django whether you want it to or not. Prepare to spend the rest of your life saying 'now, I'm not really a Gypsy Jazz guitarist....'
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by JazzNote
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
It's hard to beat even a cheaper Selmer style guitar for sheer volume
I have an oval hole Gitane DG300, I don't really love the tone of it honestly, but it's great if I'm in an acoustic situation where I need to be heard. I also have a 1958 Hofner Senator that projects like crazy, that gets used for similar situations too.
I guess that's where a nice carved top acoustic is great - they don't always have the sheer volume of a gypsy guitar but have a much more sophisticated sound.
After years of playing archtops, I really don't like flat tops much, particularly dreadnoughts. As said above, the trebles are really thin, and the bass can be boomy and indistinct....
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
About the balanced tone, I've been noticing that each guitar has it's own voice, but when plugging to an amp, the pickup and pots also play a good role and that is something to consider. Sometimes when amped things won't sound as we would expect.
I've played several Gibson ES-175 that confirm exactly what you've said, I've had a Japanese ES-175 copy that was like a "VOS" copy, and with the lighter top it was a bit more resonant acoustically even with lighter strings. The Imperial surprised me when I noticed it also had a heavier build in terms of top thickness (around 4,5mm 5mm), neck is also built in the same fashion. Surprisingly confortable for it's size.
The Eastmans I wanted to try some but never had the chance (it's really hard to find any of those expensive 800s 900s models to try around here)
I've heard some ocasional feedback in some videos of Peter, wich I found surprising. He was able to manage through that with his playing unaffected like it was nothing.
Originally Posted by JazzNote
Originally Posted by Everyone
When trying some Selmer or Gitane, I've noticed they produce very strong treble frequencies on every note. Wich is something that can fool the human ear into thinking it's hearing more volume. Of course these are designed to be loud for soloing. We can also compare volume on chords and lower notes aswell. etc...
I've experienced some trouble trying to "play too loud for a certain guitar" but ended up looking at it as my fault, as I had never prepared for that kind of volume. We as guitar players do not think of rehersal places like studio rooms as ofter as drummers for example. Recently I've been able to put a Twin Reverb on 7 with the Imperial with barely any feedback. It really depends on context. About the acoustics as Christian said, I had forgot about some guy I've seen running a parametric EQ with great shape control to fix the feedbacking frequencies there.
It's really amazing how much new information and new stuff to think about I got with some of your posts guys. I was messing around thinking, should I go up a bit more, a bit more, get more headroom? Do I get more overall volume? (depending on average right hand attack) (how will it scale up with the legatto stuff? etc...).
Of course this all started with the string action height becase there should be some scientific "textbook" guideline with all the "maths" done, regarding where one should look for the best energy efficiency. The most "average, normal and simple" setup guideline.
Maybe someday hahaha...Last edited by Carloscepinha; 10-15-2019 at 08:36 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Carloscepinha
But I wouldn't say treble, I would say (to my ears) the upper mid range 400-800 Hz (I suppose I could check it on my DAW). This is 'cut', so to speak... Once the strings are settled in on a SelMac you shouldn't get too much top end, but you get a lot of 'nose.'
Back in my classical singing days we used to talk about 'blade' in the voice. Blade is a certain formant or frequency in the voice. You aren't producing more sound necessarily than a competent amateur singer, but you are focussing it. This is what you need to sing Wagner, Verdi, heavy opera. Bladey singing while impressive, is quite horrible to be next to, but cuts through in a massive opera house over an orchestra.
Often there's not much richness of tone, depth to it - it just fizzes and rings. On stage, it doesn't need to have depth. That's what the orchestra is for, right? This idea would make sense to an experienced record engineer or producer, too.
Musical Theatre singers do something similar in a different way, using 'belt' or what Jo Estill calls vocal 'twang' IIRC. It's basically weaponising the American accent. Think Ethel Merman, back in the days before mics became standard in theatres.
Think also of the changes in jazz vocal style, from the early days of bluesy belters to the revolutionary mic-focussed style of Nat Cole and Frank Sinatra. You don't make the same noise if you need to sing some nice lieder or lute songs. Or to croon standards on a mic. Then you want less overtones and more fundamental.
The equivalent on guitar to adding more 'blade' or 'twang' (lol) is simply playing nearer the bridge. That creates more upper harmonics, right? Physics. Macaferri's are particularly good at creating this sound. They are not necessarily pleasant to listen to in isolation, but they cut through. Django's style was focussed on a certain range. too.
The rhythm guitars in the Hot Club lived in a different place spectrally, which is why I think it is better to play rhythm more towards the sound hole, give the soloist a chance to cut through....
The extreme of this type of sound is, of course, the banjo. Anyway, archtops don't seem to do this job as well, at least the one's I've tried. Modern ones aim for a balanced sound, early ones really live for chordal playing. Perhaps you've had different experiences? On archtop you often seem to want to play over the neck almost.
Hopefully you can also see why drums are key. Drums are a whole panoply of different instruments with their own spectral characteristics.
-
Wow that's a lot of depth into this topic, wich I thank you for. Some stuff I've never really explored much.
Well I didn't say the guitar wasn't loud, but that the tone it produced made it seem even louder than it could actually be... Looking at the low E string, wich on other guitars like an archtop you might not get that overwhelming cut but the bass and lower frequencies can be heard with more prominence, the richer sound you describe.
Your description seems more acurate than mine. My friend was very displeased with the guitar sometimes, he complained it sounded too harsh... I replied the guitar was sounding exactly as it was suposed to, and to comp with it could be hard, specially without double bass.
On that video I was impressed that sound somewhat worked out and the AJL archtop surprised me because I expected it to have a less powerfull sound, but it was a very informal context ofc it's hard to really judge. I thought that some archtops could be almost as loud as a gypsy jazz guitar, while keeping some of that tone they are known for.
It's the very first time I've heard about "blade" but it makes a lot of sense.
I've met a guy came to jam in a bar with a friend that had his digital piano and a quality PA in his bar (room for 50 to 70 ppl?) and when the guy starting singing Georgia on my mind without microphone while playing his own arrangement, he could sing over the PA. I was totally floored with it. It sounded really good and I was impressed by his tecnique.
-
Originally Posted by Carloscepinha
-
This is a recording of me playing the Loar (unplugged) with bass and vocals with more of a single note solo. I think it sounds a good level, but bear in mind I am playing heavy right hand and the sound is somewhat 'django.' I wish I had a recording of me doing something a little more modern with this set up, but my right hand always creeps back to try and get more cut in these situations. Anyway, I think any decent archtop with an acoustic sound would work well here, but I think basically I am trying to play the guitar somwhat like a Maccaferri and that type of guitar would do the same job better....
-
For comparison, here is the Loar plugged. My perception is it has a more modern tone (obviously) but it still has a brightness and 'nasalness' that comes through the pickup.... It doesn't sound like Jim Hall or Jimmy Raney's tone even though I'm using an Atilla Zoller pickup. I think this might have something with bracing etc. More modern archtops are aiming for a mellow amplified sound.
-
Is that Nat Steele on vibes? I saw him last week playing with pianist Alan Broadbent.
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
I agree with this.
For me I like to straighten the neck so it’s nearly dead straight. It makes the guitar sound and feel better. It forces you to raise the bridge because the action is lower at the 12’th fret. In order to have at least the same action you had at 12 fr when the guitar had relief, you have to raise the bridge. I think raising the bridge will actually put more pressure on the top, so the guitar will have a snappier tone. I also find that with too much relief the guitar sounds too dark and muddy when plugged in. For me the secret setting is little or no relief and 4/64 low e action and 3/64 high e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I actually like the tone in T-4-2. And the Loar does sound like a Macaferri, and the Macaferri sounds like an archtop. Technique does make a difference, as does bracing. The difference between X and parallel bracing can be dramatic.
Why is the internet out of tune, and what can you...
Today, 03:07 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos