-
Now that you've clicked to ream me out, allow me to explain.
I've recently purchased an inexpensive gypsy jazz guitar, a Cigano...I'm loving the damn thing (and wondering how I survived without a guitar of this style for so long) so of course it's got me to thinking...
This cheap Lil guitar does the original intended job of an arch top much better.
It's a heck of a lot louder than any big bodied arch top I've ever played. It occupies the same general tone spectrum, excelling in upper mids, but it has a fuller bottom end too. And it's loud with reasonable action (a shade under 3mm) not jacked up sky high to gain volume.
So...the acoustic arch tops all the American big band guitar players used...we're they missing out?
Now, before y'all kill me, I do like the sound of an acoustic archtop...and when you get into amplifying, an archtop is clearly superior. The classic jazz tones we all love could not have been made without the archtop...furthermore, archtop can be set up and adjusted much easier, and can be made to play (and still sound good) much easier...
So just regarding the original intent of the instrument...did the Franco-Italian connection get it right the first time?
-
08-14-2018 05:17 PM
-
I've been intrigued with them, but where to you put the neck pickup?
-
Well that's what I'm saying, Marty. The archtop is clearly the better amplified guitar. I'm talking about acoustic use.
-
The marketplace said no. If it was not for European Gypsys who slavishly copied Django, the Selmac might have disappeared entirely
The Selmac guitar was built in the classical guitar tradition neckwise and was not comfortable to Americans used to a narrower neck/fretboard and a radiused fretboard. The American acoustic archtop had more bass response and was easier to amplify than a D hole Selmac. (Django got Henri Selmer to do the oval hole model to be able to amplify it more easily and to get 14 frets clear of the neck. But the 26.4 scale was not comfortable for most American musicians).
The Selmac is louder in the high frequencies, but for acoustic rhythm guitar with a drummer, give me an acoustic archtop any day.
Where the selmac shines is for unamplified playing without a drummer, a rather small specialty, IMO.
My Dupont MD-20 (built by Maurice Dupont himself in 1993) is great for it's purpose. Here I am playing it in a drummerless, all acoustic situation (with Country music singer Ginny Mitchell):
Here I am playing my 1948 D'angelico Style B amplified with a DeArmond 1100 pickup through a Polytone amp:
If I could only have one, it would be the DA
-
Here:
Originally Posted by Marty Grass
Another example here: Google Image Result for http://www.guitares-micros.fr/images/micro-guitare-jazz-manouche_10.jpg
-
I think a D-hole model easily has more bass than any archtop.
Again, I'm not talking about amplification. There's a clear winner there, it's the archtop.
Stringswinger, sounding great in those vids, by the way.
It'd be almost impossible to prove, as drummers who play the "old way" are few and far between, but I honestly think a SelMac style would sound better with a 30''s style drummer, as an acoustic rhythm guitar.
But again, if we're talking original intent, the archtop wasn't going to be played with a drummer either, right?
-
Actually, the Dopyera bothers got it right over everyone when it comes to acoustic volume
But otherwise, yes, even a cheapo gypsy guitar will tend to overpower an archtop in a jam session. They are murderously difficult to amplify though, and I've tried close to all the options out there!
-
As someone who has been building these things for a good number of years, my answer is: define "failure". Carving a top in the manner of a cello and driving it with a plucked rather than a bowed string has its limitations.
There is no doubt that an archtop covers a timbre different than a classical guitar, which in turn is different than a Martin style dread. In general, people who like archtops like the way that they have an even tone, good string balance, and forward projection into the audience. In my experience, flat tops tend to have scooped mids and are slightly more omni-directional. Each is best suited for its task. A good archtop doesn't fail to deliver on its design. It just delivers something different.
That is not to say that it is a perfect design. Far from it. The drawback to archtops is that the tops are much more massive. Typical flat top might have a top in the 200g range, whereas an archtop might be closer to 450g. Yet both are being driven by the same strings. On an archtop, string energy decays quickly and doesn't do as good a job driving the top. Poor examples have a characteristic "plink" and little acoustic tone. They had to be made giant to be loud enough (18", 19", even 20"). It is a very difficult challenge to make a guitar strong enough to hold up a century of 20-30lbs of down force, but light and stiff enough to translate string energy into complex overtone rich tone.
Can it be done? I believe it can. Unfortunately a solution was found to the problem starting in 1938 by adding a pickup. By the mid 50's an archtop was mostly an electric guitar. On the main archtop's acoustic properties stopped being developed by then. By contrast, the archtypical Dreadnought has had every nuance of its acoustic qualities analyzed, tweaked, and obsessed over since 1916.
Today, most archtop buyers want a faithfully recreated '50's era Gibson guitar. There is little taste for new developments. These are not great acoustic instruments. It is hard to push the needle if there is no demand.
That's not to say no one is trying. Ken Parker's guitars are rumored to have great acoustic voices that still capture what sets archtops apart. Nigel Forster is know for his experimentation as well. At three or four guitars a year, I'm not going to set tastes or move the needle. But the whole reason I build with Carbon Fiber soundboards is for the tone and acoustic volume -- not because it can double as a boat paddle.
So is it a "failure"? I think no more than a 1940's P-51 Mustang is a failure as an airplane. If you want the experience of a WWII fighter pilot, that is your plane. But if you need a fast, efficient, reliable aircraft to get you from A to B, you might want to consider a modern Cirrus SR22.
-
Acoustically yes a design failure 100% agreed. Through dumb (and seemingly still dumb) luck, archtops sound great with them there amplifier things.
But definitely a bad idea acoustically vs. the Maccaferri guitar, which does not have to sound so raspy, unless you want to go all Django.
My grandfather could play a guitar just fine, but chose the tenor banjo to get the job done from about 1928 until he had kids and needed a real job. The guitars he could get just could not hit the back wall of the dance hall the way the banjo could. Maybe if he could find a Maccaferri when he was 18 things would have been different.
Great thread.
-
I'm not up to speed on gypsy guitars but I find their lead tone (is this just la petite bouche?) too plinky to stand. I prefer the late electric recordings of Django, so I must be an outlier.
-
Most people haven't played the archtops that were in use before electronics changed all the equations.
Like Stringswinger and some others on the forum, I have had the great good fortune to play a fairly large number of Gibsons, Epiphones, D'Angelicos, Stromberg (only one), and Vegas from the 20s and 30s.
There is a reason that these guitars displaced banjos in dance bands in the pre-amplification era. Originally, the banjo, not the guitar, was the string instrument in the rhythm section. Reason: it was louder even than the resonator guitar. When Lloyd Loar came out with the L-5 series Gibson guitar, however, BOOM! A guitar loud enough to be heard in a swing band rhythm section was born. It became the darling of the dance bands, soon to be joined by Epiphone, D'Angelico, and Stromberg "me too" archtops.
Loudest? IME the Epiphone Deluxes and Emperor guitars from before WWII are about as loud as a guitar can get, although I once played a 40s blonde Sherwood non-cutaway that might be the loudest guitar I ever played. The Epis and the Sherwood are louder than any "Django" guitar I have played.
Bass? The 30s/40s Gibson Super 400 is the Bosendorfer of guitars, when it comes to ample bass. Strung well and set up right--and picked/strummed effectively (see some of rpguitar's YouTube clips for acoustic archtop picking technique), the 400 is a real battleship.
Design failure? Hmm? I think Lloyd Loar really had a very practical solution to a design goal: make a great sounding guitar that is louder than a banjo and can be used in dance bands.
Although the post-War archtops look like their pre-War brethren, they are made with different carves and different bracing. They support electronics and are very viable instruments. They are not at all, however, the sonic equivalents of the pre-War archtops.
-
That's just not right though. A resonator is much louder. But it doesn't have a pleasing tone. Archtops do.
I've played old Epiphones, they're awesome, and quite loud. And a $500 selmac copy would drown them out.
Volume is not everything, though...
-
I generally agree with this, except for one thing. I’ve played many post-war Epiphone acoustic archtops that are absolutely on par with the best pre-war examples, some clearly superior to the vast majority of pre-war examples and among the best acoustic archtops I’ve yet played. The percentage of Gibson post-war archtops I can say the same about in my experience is smaller, but there is still an occasional example. Originally Posted by Greentone
-
sway me with a vid
-
Yes, there's nothing louder than a reso in guitar family. Next one up is only banjo. I have both and I played both with other guitarists using Gypsy and archtop guitars in acoustic settings. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
The tone is not as pleasing, maybe, but it's subjective. It's between acoustic guitar and a banjo somewhere. The playbility though, that what sucks compare to archtops and Selmers.
-
-
Remember, the banjo guys in dance bands gave them up when f-hole archtops appeared that could be heard. They were competitive with banjos. That's loud.
-
Different kind of loud.
I'd argue the arch top found its place in a big band, versus the banjo which would clang and bang above other instruments. And they sound like banjos.
Re: bass, I'm telling you, I've played an old acoustic Super 400, old Epiphone Emperors, and I own an old Kay which is louder than any flat top...but bass? Seriously, a short scale D hole SelMac has waaaay more.
-
I think it maybe has more with style changing? Tenor banjo cut through like nothing else, there is no competition. But it doesn't have that thunk thunk sound of archtop for swing, that's more felt than heard. And let's be honest, the sound of banjo annoys a lot of people! Originally Posted by Greentone
That's my theory anyway, could be wrong. I don't claim I know it all, But I gained some practical experience here in NYC being on a trad and Gypsy scene for a few years.
-
The acoustic arch top is a much more refined instrument, with a greater range as well...I mean, think of the choice, if you were an instrumentalist...I mean, you might gig playing rhythm with a large ensemble, but for enjoyment at home...banjo?
-
Please don't say the "b" word
Think of the children!!
Heh. It's true if you don't hit a manouche guitar right, they sound pretty horrible and thin.
One of my favorite players:
-
I don't think it is a design failure as such and a one-size-fits-all guitar does not exist to me. Having played I think almost every archtop maker and production guitar I think I have some experience but again each ear is different.
For me the archtop guitar is the most versitile guitar for changing the sound without doing any structural work. The late great Jimmy D'aquisto said this and I totally agree. With an archtop you can change the tailpiece, bridge, and set the action to whatever suits your ears without any real modification of the guitar. Change the bridge\saddle to metal, wood, even bone and it produces a different sound. Change the tailpiece from wood to metal and again you get a different sound. You can make adjustments on the action whenever you want right on the gig too.
Now that said the maker can make the top thicker or thinner and change the bracing. This will effect the tone as well as the type and opening of the f-hole. To me a flatop is a one trick-pony and you can certainly build different sound holes and vary the bracing but after that you have what you have.............no changes can be done after that on the action without some serious time commitment. Flatops generally are easy to get a warm round sound due to the thinner top and the way the strings move the top.
On archtop the strings drive the top different than the flattop because a flattop rocks the strings at the anchor point behind the saddle and bridge. The distance on an archtop is that this goes all the way across the top of the guitar from a different anchor point.
In my world the archtop is the most versatile in that I can play acoustic jazz and be heard. I can also set the guitar up to work quite well in a blue grass band. The sound I cannot capture in that case will be the deep bass string runs that are commonly used in bluegrass. The archtop will do this but the sound will be brighter but you will be heard.
I have played many gypsy style guitars and the good ones do the Django thing crazy good. But again you not really be able to use them in too many other settings effectively. Of course you cannot modify the sound of these without serious changes, they are flattops.
Contrary to popular belief the archtop guitar does not function like a violin either it does not have a sound post. Comparisons of achtops and violins are completely incorrect in sound production. Those gypsy guitars I actually find can be overkill in how they produce the sound and the technique of playing. Agreed up close they can bang the windows sills.
This is not meant in any way to give you the business Mr B, I am glad you like the guitar because that is what your ears tell you. It is also possible that your touch and ability make the guitar what it is, you are getting the most of your sound. I just like to point out that a good acoustic archtop is still my favorite guitar and has been since I was 12 years old an my Dad would play his Barker practicing and it would just ring out of his studio room. He never plugged in too much practicing
My Hollenbeck or the D'a if I move the action up high will move a lot of sound both 18 inch guitars. With bronze strings of say .13 to .56 I can play acoustic rhythm in a band no problem at all. But for my ears and this is how I differ from some...………….I prefer an acoustic archtop with nickel strings because they sound warmer and respond better all over the guitar. The loudest archtop I have played was a 1938 Super 400 that was at Gruhn Guitars a number of years ago. I had stopped in to see George and his crew and they had this guitar getting ready to ship out. Wow is was tremendous steely sound that just rang all over the place. It was a complete canon and felt like the top was going to blow off the guitar.
So to cover the bases...…
I need a Les Paul for electric work.
I need a Tele for that electric sound.
I need a Tal Farlow for the build-in archtop
I need a Super 400 or L5 to cover the acoustic archtop
I need Martin triple ooo for the flattop stuff.
I need one of those gypsy guitars like you have.
I think that covers this and if you send the guitars to me I will be glad to pay the shipping
-
This is an interesting topic. For nearly 40 plus years of playing and collecting - I have owned some of the finest acoustic archtops made - and constantly in "search of the sound".
I too was quite surprised when I purchased my 93' Dupont a few years ago. The volume, bass and responsiveness was off the charts. These guitars are like flat tops on steroids. However , the strings and set up are quite different then a traditional flat top, or archtop - and action is typically higher.....but what a huge voice indeed. I had my good friend John Monteleone lower the action on my Dupont which can only be done by deepening the bridge slots and or shaving down the bridge ......a bit inconvenient for most of us. This is a fun guitar , but for me it has limited use and resides mainly in its case - unless of course Im jamming out on Gypsy style tunes.
I wont get into the entire development of the Archtop guitar, its well documented. But after hanging out in Jim D' Aquisto and John Monteleones shop for decades , I can emphatically say with confidence that the Archtop design is not a failure.
I could understand prior comments herein regarding this design as a failure, thats because most archtops are tight and bright - with poor sustain and a weak non sustaining bass response, and there are reasons for this. I have handled and examined hundreds of archtops and the tight and bright sounding ones usually have these characteristics in common:
1 Neck angles are just too steep causing too much downward
pressure on top.
2 Angle of string depature from bridge to tail pc too steep.
3 Back plates carved too thick and have high a frequency.
4 Perimeter recurve too stiff on top and back plate.
5 Nut slotting too deep.
6 Flimsy bridge construction and improperly fitted bridge
bass.
7. Tops too thin and not graduated properly.
The aforementioned usually result in a disappointing playing experience.
Listed below are a few attributes I have found to be common in the better sounding acoustic archtops:
1 A projected neck plane that intersects the string entry into
Tail pc.
2 A very low frequency back which occupies more than 80%
of plate area. The pitch should not change when tapping
across majority of back. This is a characteristic of flat tops.
3.A symmetrical pitch tap tone on either side of bridge.
Antonio Torres knew this quite well.
4 Nut slots which are the depth of half the string
thickness , except b and high e string
5 Bridge notches that are shallow and let the string vibrate.
6 Flexible permiter recurve on both plates.
7 Location of arch in relationship to bridge and sound holes.
When you play a great archtop acoustic , it has a magical sensitivity and responsiveness , with a natural reverb and a rich texture to the note which is unique to the archtop design , and not typically found on a flat top design - the later of which I find can be nasally in the mid range when using a plectrum.
Every time I visit John Monteleones shop ( which is quite often) I always say " I wish guys on the forum could play and hear one of these guitars....they are phenominal......and leave you gasping for air wondering how an archtop can sound so extraordinary.
So for those who think its a poor design, go play a real D'Aquisto, D'Angelico or a Monteleone , or a pre-war loar period L5 and then voice your opinion about the design being a failure. These are standards by which all ACOUSTIC archtops are judged ....and for good reason .
Sent from my GT-N5110 using TapatalkLast edited by QAman; 08-14-2018 at 10:24 PM.
-
Again, I'm only suggesting the arch top is a design failure regarding its initial purpose.
I think the arch top found a wonderful home outside of this purpose, but if it's just being loud and occupying an upper midrange space to be heard in a large ensemble, the Selmer Maccaferri (speaking specifically of that, the SelMac "short" sCale D hole) is just plain better.
I think the archtop is a superior design overall.
All this other stuff (and not ragging on y'all, but...y'know...maybe read my original post?) Is NOT what I'm talking about.
-
Orville Gibson made good looking instruments. The archs on top and back looked pretty, but to get there he had to carve. Besides, no one could question the idea since it was proven over several hundred years. For bowed instruments. And since then guitar players like to think about guitars as violins even though they practically have nothing in common. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
When steel strings replaced gut strings, the overall tension and bridge pressure increased. A tailpiece attached to the rim creates an "imploding" force, pressing the pieces together (contrary to a Spanish guitar, where the force on the body is "exploding" in nature and wants to rip things apart). The arch resists a floating bridge to buckle the top. In theory the archtop design is more robust and as such is a mark of quality. The only problem was the sound... A couple of decades later, Lloyd Loar of Gibson corp tried to fix it. Now the guitar got f-holes and looked even more like the violin, with which it still had nothing in common.
The prime sound objective was to make the guitar louder, or as we like to say, project better. "Projection" is another way of saying "It sounds good to the audience, even though you can't hear it. Trust me."
The specific sound of an instrument is something we learn to appreciate. A blues played on one of Orville's first O-hole archtops sounds great, like a tin can. Can't touch that.
And I know a Jazz guitar when I hear it. And the sound of Django, like a 78 rpm gramophone. It sounds nothing like a violin
Anyone who ever played an L-5 felt the magic in the arches, like a cuddly puffed up balloon. Sweet. Can't touch it.
When Charlie Christian got amplified, the guitar could hold its own. A revolution. Just plug into the amp and let the magnetic pickup sing.Last edited by JCat; 08-15-2018 at 05:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
A couple of guitar center stories...
Today, 09:46 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos