-
Lately, I have been thinking about the impact of a cutaway on the tone and volume of an archtop. I have owned many guitars over the years and it seems to me that the non-cuts always seemed to sound a little better acoustically, to my ears. It makes sense that removing some of the top and body would affect the tone and volume in some way. I believe I have read that John D’Angelico preferred non-cutaway guitars. The problem is, every guitar is different and there is no way to compare the same instrument with or without a cutaway. I realize that tone is a subjective thing. Still, I am coming to the conclusion that a non-cut often seems to sound better to me. Any thoughts or observations on this?
Keith
-
10-09-2018 11:01 AM
-
I'd agree that in general they sound fuller, but as you said it's a case by case basis.
For example I've heard some cutaway DA's that blew away their non cut counterparts.
-
It’s a matter of design, in my opinion. A talented builder can make a guitar with a cutaway sound as deep as he wants. However, some cutaway guitars don’t sound nearly as good as their non cut counterparts. For example my Eastman 810ce never had the depth of my 910. The Florentine cutaway of the Gibson L4C seemed like nothing more than an afterthought, and I’ve never heard a 175 that sounds as good acoustically as a 125.
On an electric guitar, of course, this makes no difference.
-
Although I was thinking about solid/carved acoustic archtops, you raised a good point about the ES125 vs. ES175. Essentially the same guitar other than the cutaway. Both laminated, so probably little variation in the actual top, back, etc. As you said, ES125’s always seem to sound better acoustically. I think it has to be the lack of a cutaway.
Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
Keith
-
Yes, with so many other variables, it is really hard to isolate the impact this one thing. Originally Posted by wintermoon
Keith
-
And the top thickness, Originally Posted by floatingpickup
and the bracing,
and the pick up mass attached to the top
and ....
as stated above, so many variables interacting !
-
I've built cutaways, and non cutaways. Always with a tuned top and back for either design.
Let me preface this by saying I've seen retrofitted or "executed without much forethought" cutaways too, they do NOT have as full a sound throughout the range. That being said, if a guitar is designed so the area of the cutaway retains the ability to vibrate in concert with the rest of the top, I can get an equally great sound with a cutaway.
A good builder will be able to do this and the loss of air resonance is, in my opinion, minimal or even just marginally noticeable.
I notice a much greater difference from shifting a bridge from a 12 fret 000 to a 14 fret than I do from a non cutaway to a cutaway. That's me and because I play so much 10 fret and above, it's not even a choice but a necessity.
Designing and regraduating a florentine vs venetian cutaway is also an issue. Again knowing how to compensate graduations to take into account the increase of rigidity in the tops from these designs is the trick. The rounded venetian cutaway is easier to graduate smoothly IMHO than the sharp florentine. The Florentine is easier to retro-fit though and it gives a larger area of fret clearance.
Right?
David
-
I agree with David. The 12-fret flattop vs 14-fret flattop guitars are positively dramatic, in comparison with the cutaway vs non-cutaway archtops. In general, though, for _production_ guitars (e.g., Gibson) you will notice the difference in sound of, say, a non-cut L5 and a L5C pretty easily.
It won't jump out at you, though, like the difference between a D-28 Martin and a D-28 Martin 12-S.
-
If everything is equal I generally think you get a bit more sound out of a non-cut. Since everything is not equal it really has to be done on a case by case basis. I have played huge numbers or Super 400 guitars and to my ears the loudest and generally the most lively are the non-cuts from the late 1930's thru even the mid 1950's. Cutaway Super 400s to me do have a bit or a different sound but that could be the way they are carved.
How the top is carved and braced, along with the graduations are the main determinate of the sound of the guitar. Hollenbeck did not make a non-cutaway but carved the tops as if they were a non-cutaway. Another overlooked item is how the top and back are glued on the rims. It is possible to glue the top and the back in such a way that there is a bit of tension on the top if the builder wants to create a bit of uneveness. Some makers think that is actually adds to the sound as it puts the tension on the top initially as it is glued to the sides. Hollenbeck did not embrace this he wanted the top to sit perfect on the rims before the gluing. He wanted to be sure that nothing got in the way of the spruce being free to vibrate based on the carving and baces. The braces then become the point of tuning after the top is glued on.
I too have played D'angelicos that were cutaways that clearly had more sound than the non-cuts. Also I have played 17 inch D'angelicos that had more power and sound than an 18 inch. One in particular was Freddy Rundquist 17 inch Johnny Smith New Yorker is is serial number 2005 and is a powerhouse guitar. This 17 inch just had the ring and was open wide. My 1937 non cut is brighter and possible louder that my 1949 cutaway. I am not sure because frankly they sound pretty different in many respects. The 1949 is actually 18 1/4 inches. It again reinforces the thinking that too many variable to really make an accurate generalization.
On the other had the very loud Epiphones and Strombergs are mostly all non cutaways. I am personally not a huge Epi fan they sometime thud pretty good but just do not have the character of an L5 of Super400. Again this just goes back to maybe how they are built. All the L5's I have played I can say I think the non cuts are a bit louder. One unknown is how the player actually plays the guitar. I think this can have a huge effect on the sound of the guitar. A guitar that it used for rhythm and played pretty hard in my opinion can effect how the guitar sounds as it ages. This brings me up to what some might say is crazy but I believe even an old guitar if it has not been play in awhile, and you start playing it all the time will change in sound.
I swear that if I pull out an archtop that I have not played in a long time and starting working it for hours on end, the sound actually changes and will open up. Call me crazy but I can only say I have experience this many times. I had and Albanus guitar for about 10 years in the 1990's and I play it quite a bit one year as it just happen to be the one.......I tell you that after about 3-4 months the guitar seem to just start glowing.
There is a bit of trend in makers going back to a non-cutaway. Frankly for me it does not make too much difference I am not in the nose-bleed section much. The cutaway tends to help with certain chords and they way my hand and arm are positioned. That said I sure would love to have an acoustic super 400 non-cut that just look cool and sound great mostly .
Stop, touch, look, and listen.
-
Mark, Originally Posted by deacon Mark
You definitely aren’t crazy. A really great example of mine is a 1946 Epiphone Emperor that I have. It had been in one family from the time it was new, until I purchased it.
It had passed from one brother to another and then to the son of the second. While the son is a guitar player, he was an electric player. The Emperor had been put away in a closet for most of the last 40 years unplayed.
When I first got it, it had almost no voice at all. It was quiet and lacked character. I really feared that I had made a mistake in purchasing it, but I kept playing it day after day. I soon began to notice that the sound coming from the guitar began to change little by little every day. After about 3-4 weeks it had settled into most of its full voice. It was like a completely different instrument. Today, I would say it was one of the best sounding archtops I’ve played, and I’ve played many. Strangely, it actually seems to share a lot of tonal character with my 16” 1933 L-7.
Suffice it to say, I agree with you completely.
-
Mark and That Rhythm Man are definitely describing a phenomenon that I have encountered many times. My friend/vintage collector/dealer used to drop guitars by my house for evaluation. In retrospect, I am confident that he really dropped them by to get me to open them up. I would play each one to the point that the voice re-appeared--especially after such instruments had sat in inventory, or under someone's bed for years at a time.
Playing reveals the instrument.
-
I am talking about acoustic archtops, so we can remove the pickup from the equation. Also, I am talking scout the same design, i.e. an non-cut acoustic L5 vs. an L5C. These are the types of guitars I have been comparing, so most other design features are the same. Of course, wood is different from one to the other. Originally Posted by 339 in june
Keith
-
This is what I am getting at...L5C vs. L5, L7C vs. L7. I haven’t spent much time with Super 400’s, but would probably find the same thing with them. Originally Posted by Greentone
Keith
-
Greentone, Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
I sure would like to try your Emperor I would imagine it really has the sound. Gibson's and Epi's clearly sound different but yours sharing the character of the L-7 tells me yours might be a real winner. Combine the tonal quality of a Gibson with the power of an Epi. that would be THE GUITAR.
Bright guitars tend to cut better but lack some of the warmth of the bass that I like playing chord-melody. I still like to hear the bass stand sound stand out and I really think if you can get to the right builder they could carve that sound. One of the things I recall about playing D'aquisto guitars is that they all seem to have it at both ends. The treble would ring nice and the bass was round sounding. Many makers go for what in effect is even playing up and down the neck.
Some makers also tune tops to a specific note I am not sure but I have heard that mentioned. Hollenbeck avoided that because he claimed that if you tune to say A then when you play A it will either ring louder or actually cancel the note. He is goal was to tune between Bb and A since that is the middle of the neck.
When Heritage talks about tapped tuned or other makers I really would like to know exactly what there take on it is. In this case if the guitar is a cutaway verses and non-cut the tap tuning would be different. I think those old Gibbys and Epi were carved and maybe different every time. They sure did not have CNC machines.
-
Mark: Originally Posted by deacon Mark
I appreciate your insight into this because you have had direct experience with some of the best guitars on the planet, plus your time spent with Bill Hollenbeck. It seems that you and a few others have noticed the same phenomenon that I have observed; that non-cuts often have a bigger voice than an otherwise similar cutaway model. I find it isn’t a huge difference, but the non-cut is the guitar is often the one that delivers that big chunky rhythm guitar sound.
On your other observation, I agree with you to a great extent. Guitars seem to change (for the better) when they are played a lot. It makes sense that wood can loosen up and become more lively. I don’t really understand how they can lose that when they aren’t played, but I guess it’s possible. Having said this, I haven’t noticed huge changes after playing them a lot. A subtle improvement, but I have never seen a weak instrument become a great instrument.
Keith
-
I’ve had many conversations with both Jim D’Aquisto and John Monteleone about guitars opening up- especially if it’s a case queen. I recently played an early nineties non cut DAquisto that was known to be very quiet when new - now it’s a Canon after being regularly played.
Jim use to say if you play with a light touch the guitar will remain quiet. In fact, when I picked up my 91’ D’Aquisto Excel - Jimmy gave me a lesson on the use of his heavy white picks and told me to strum the guitar hard using Rhythm chords- up and down the neck for a few minutes each day. After doing this for 6 months the guitar completely changed. I subject all my new guitars to this process - and it works.
I’ve read studies on Stradivarius violins and they concluded that once the finish broke up microscopically - the top was liberated to vibrate freely. Same concept with guitar finishes. Once the lacquer hardens - you need to break it up.
John Monteleone strings up every guitar in the raw and the sound is somewhat different after the finish is applied. That raw open clarity is slightly dampened by the affects of the lacquer. But John is such a master builder - all these variables are considered , anticipated and the necessary adjustments made during the final voicing.
Some guitars have more openness and responsiveness immediately - others require a break in period. The consistently best guitars I’ve played have usually been non cut - late 30’s - 40’s DA’s and Gibsons with parallel bracing and no finish on back of neck. My 35 ‘ DA snakehead was played by a professional player and the openness is just remarkable and it’s always ready to go. My Trenier Broadway has this open magic from day one- yeah ....it’s that good.
The best guitar I ever played ( in my life) was Ed Bensons ( founder of Just Jazz Guitar magazine ) Blonde D’Aquisto - the tone still haunts me to this day - and if the guitar ever became available I would buy it.
All great points and experiences from all.
-
I have some guitars that sound good as soon as you pick them up after sitting around for awhile, but for the most part they all sound better after waking up. There's some I own that really, really change after being asleep for awhile.
I guess if you get to the point of having sleeping guitars you probably own too many...
-
Some of mine refuse to go to sleep.
Others are used to brief naps to interrupt their regular beatings.
Er, ah, we're talking about archtops, here...
-
Acoustically, I think non-cuts sound better in general. Plugged in there is little difference.
-
When designing for the best perceived tone, the cutaway model will be at a disadvantage due to the loss of symmetry in the design. That is not to say all non cutaways sound better. Better symmetry of the top and back simplifies the shape. This is one reason why the bowed instruments are symmetrical in shape. There are exceptions to the rule of symmetry. The F style mandolin comes to mind. The F style mandolin has a sound that differs from the symmetrical A style and that only verifies that symmetry can effect tone. Most guitar players like the extra fret access so cutaways are now the standard guitar design.
-
There are ways around this Originally Posted by Matt Cushman
-
I think it's possible/plausible that a guitar undergoes physical changes after it has been played over a period of years, but until I see it demonstrated in controlled experiments and measurements I'm skeptical. The chief problem with the way the phenomenon of "opening up" gets reported is that it comes from someone who has been playing the guitar over a period of time, and there's no way to tell whether the guitar has changed or whether the person's perception of the guitar has changed, or whether the person's memory of how it sounded in the past is reliable. There's also a core conceptual problem with the idea that the guitar undergoes some sort of permanent improvement under playing -- no one ever seems to report that a guitar gets worse. If there actually is some sort of physical process at work, the idea that it only goes in one direction (better) strikes me as completely implausible. At a minimum, there's some sort of selection bias at work (i.e., people only talk about the guitars that have positive break-ins, and don't talk about the ones that stay the same or get worse). Originally Posted by floatingpickup
John
-
Wood also hardens as it ages, as a general rule. Old pine boards that have been in a building for decades can become so hard you can't drive a nail into them. I believe, but can't objectively prove, that this has a positive effect on tone.
-
I'm right there with you, as a skeptic. Since we are talking about instruments owned by people who want to play them, it's very unlikely that a player will give up their instrument for an experiment of this sort, and it's very unlikely that a lab will fund research into something like this. Moreover, to actually demonstrate any statistically significant results, the experiment would have to be conducted on a large enough sample of distinct guitars. The more degrees of freedom and confounding factors (which there inherently are in this type of experiment), the larger that sample would need to be. If anyone should have an incentive to fund the research, it would be companies like ToneRite. However, ToneRite has yet to publish the results of a scientific study. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient to convince customers. Originally Posted by John A.
That doesn't mean I don't believe it. I just know I don't have the evidence to back it up. I have heard master luthiers describe the process of opening up through playing, I have heard very well-educated shop owners that use tonerite on new guitars and vintage guitars that have "gone to sleep". These shop owners report noticeable improvement, though I have not been there to evaluate.
I want to believe, and therefore I kind of believe. It's like Catholicism for me. After reading this thread last night, I stuck a Tonerite on my 35 Epiphone Broadway and made the sign of the cross. Ave Maria, gratia plena...
-
As I said, there are plausible hypotheses. This guy agrees with out about pine, and makes guitars out of old pine boards (solid bodies, though, not the tops of acoustic guitars). Originally Posted by sgosnell
John
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions