-
I have a Loar acoustic archtop. It is very loud and bright sounding. I am trying to find a string which will cut out
that over the top brightness ('Dumb' it down a little) of the guitar but will still maintain a good acoustic tone. Perhaps try a string that is made for an electric guitar?
Have you tried a string that is made to suit an electric guitar on an acoustic archtop? Did it work for you? If so what make of string?
As an example I have tried phosphor bronze strings and 'It will peel paint off the wall'--as they say!
Your suggestions welcome.
-
12-07-2018 03:32 AM
-
Hi, it would be helpful to know what strings you have on already – otherwise it will be difficult to say what strings could be brighter or darker. I have monel strings on my Loar (Martin retro light) and I like what I hear, but I suspect that if you have bronze strings on mine might actually be brighter than yours…
-
Originally Posted by swingtoneman
Nickel electrics sound good but are quieter which might suit you, esp if you want to use a mag pickup, but the loudness is kind of the point of this axe imo
This is not a bedroom guitar. I picked up mine the other day after ages and quickly remembered its ability to leave my ears ringing after a bit of enthusiastic chording.
-
Martin Retro 13 was my choice on my Loar.
-
When I had a Loar, I liked 80/20's the best.
They start off ridiculously bright, but after a few good hours of hard play, they mellow out in a way Phosphor Bronze never does.
-
I prefer pure nickel strings. I don't notice a huge difference in volume, but they do sound mellower, not so in-your-face bright. Monel and nickel-bronze are ok, but I find the nickel-bronze strings priced too high for their value. The Martin Retro monel strings are good, but I still prefer nickel by a small margin, because the monels are still just a little brighter. Try a set of each recommendation above, and see what works best for you.
-
I have used eletric strings on an acoustic eletric Guitars. The steel are to bright for me Pure nickel was less Bright then chromes where even less Bright. Strings are the first thing I suggest for changeing how a guitar sounds.
-
Maybe D'Addario NBs or DR Zebras? I tried the NBs on an a/e flattop only because I wanted a set that would last longer. But I ended up really liking the sound too.
D'Addario NB1253 Nickel Bronze Light Acoustic Strings | Musician's Friend
DR Strings Zebra Medium Acoustic-Electric Guitar Strings | Musician's Friend
Last edited by Woody Sound; 12-07-2018 at 12:49 PM.
-
I’m one of the outliers it seems, but I love Thomastik Jazz Swing flatwounds on most acoustic archtops, either JS112 or JS113.
-
Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
Try Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Bebop round wound strings. The .12-.50 or the .13-.53 gauge strings are great.
These are electric-acoustic round wound strings. They are plenty loud and singing for archtop guitars, but are less bright and zingy than are the typical medium-gauge acoustic guitar string.
This string makes my 17" carved body archtop guitar sound GREAT acoustically, and GREAT electrically.
-
Depends on one’s playing style. I like the way the bebop’s sound but live my rhythm playing destroys the winding on the D string, which is expensive so they aren’t an option for me personally - I play HARD. (This for .13s I think.)
(The first rule of swing rhythm guitar is the D sting is EVIL and must be punished.)
I would imagine that’s prob not so much of a concern for most. I love TIs gauging and they sound great.
-
Usually guitars that are very bright and bright sounding have thicker tops, this is espeically the case if the guitar has diminished bass response.
-
I have found that with archtops the size of the body matters. 14-16" bodies have less bass response on average and have pronounced treble. 17-19" bodies. ..and I am talking lower bouts, here...have great bass response, all else equal.
-
I think perhaps depth also has some influence on it. Deeper bodies seem to have more bass than thinner ones. Not as much influence as body width, probably, but some. And always, everything influences everything else to some greater or lesser degree.
-
Originally Posted by Greentone
Also, the OP didn't specify whether he was complaining about wound or unwound strings. So it might be worth noting that all the options listed in this thread will only affect the wound strings, since plain strings are all the same.
John
-
The Loar is really a very specific thing. It’s not going to sound like a Benedetto...
But yeah the monels give a good midrange cut.
Flats on acoustic archtop? I’m puzzled as to why some people bother with acoustic archtops if they want to put flats on them. Why make a guitar whose sole reason for existing is to be loud and cutting, quieter? Takes all sorts.
That said the Beatles had flats on acoustic guitars, so my opinion is null and void.
-
Originally Posted by John A.
(My excuse is I wanted to Bernstein a set of strings with a different top to feel like the TIs without running into the winding problem. Worked great, but the Daddario balanced tensions make that unnecessary now.)
-
I tried monels on my L-7 and took them off really soon.
They were thin sounding -- did nothing for that guitar.
Phosphor Bronze were better by far.
I've now got Curt Mangan flatwounds on that guitar and I love 'em.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
... Never seen "Bernstein" used as a verb before, and curious as to the meaning ...
John
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by John A.
-
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
Bear in mind my perceptions are super subjective...
Sustain, evenness, response. Loars are brassy, obnoxious cannons with a quick decay - they can do other stuff, but I think that’s their ace in the hole. It’s not a modern jazz tone- although I can get a passable one with a floating pup, I could never dial out that character.
Benes are beautifully balanced and have a nice sustain that you know is going to amplify fantastically, good dynamic response and plenty loud enough to play quiet music with a bass and another guitar but you aren’t going to be chugging out a heavy chunk with a swing band on it without an amp; although amplified it would give a great rhythm tone.
Having heard Peter Bernstein’s Zeidler unplugged and up close I would say the same for that guitar. I played my Loar alongside it and was able to balance though....
So I estimate played with a heavy old school technique, the Loar is quite a lot louder the Bene I tried..... I didn’t play them side be side. Bit it’s not like you can’t balance one. It’s not like playing with an unplugged 175 lol.
Bass isn’t the strong point of any archtop I’ve heard tbh. Some people who own archtops as well, I think they want the flattop sound with archtop looks. Pre war archies are all about that midrange to sit in the band sonically, not necessarily an all enveloping solo sound.
Modern high end archtops seem designed to work as semi amplified guitars. They can have an extremely attractive acoustic voice but they aren’t built for sheer volume.
Maybe the experts can tell me I got it wrong though :-)
-
I think that's pretty much right. Modern archtops don't need the sheer volume that was necessary before amplification. You don't find many guitarists in any type of band playing unamplified now. With current amplification methods, it's possible to get almost any sound you like, as loud as you like, so the current luthiers go for a nicer, more rounded sound without worrying about building something loud and brash. Using an amp is the norm, and expected. Things change.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Bass isn’t the strong point of any archtop I’ve heard tbh. Some people who own archtops as well, I think they want the flattop sound with archtop looks. Pre war archies are all about that midrange to sit in the band sonically, not necessarily an all enveloping solo sound.
I want an archtop because it does not sound like a flattop. I do not particularly like the sound response of a flattop. For jazz they ring too long and do not have the definition of sound to my ears. I not a fan of Martin D guitars give me a nice Martin 000 any day for sound. Flattops guitars for my style of playing just do not work and produce much less individual string response. They tend to ring together as such a archtop will bring out the moving lines on chords for chord-melody. Finally if I played in a bluegrass band I would still prefer my archtop.
Modern high end archtops seem designed to work as semi amplified guitars. They can have an extremely attractive acoustic voice but they aren’t built for sheer volume.
I suppose this is probably true to a point but you need to ask individual makers. I know Hollenbeck always built his carves tops with only concern for the acoustic sound. I believe that if you go to the good makers and say voice this guitar for acoustic playing they would.
Also an individual maker can do things like vary the body depth and even the f hole sizes. Just yesterday Hot Ford Coupe and I were discussing the D"angelico's with the smaller shaped F holes. These are from usually the earlier guitar he made and they are different. I think those particular D'angelico's have an edge in sound. There is always a balance in making a acoustic archtop. It is possible to make one very loud but at the expense of tone. Simply making the guitar 19 inches can be boomer but getting that big top to be carved to produce nice quality sound is a challenge. As the guitar gets bigger more issues enter into the equation. More top to consider when bracing and structural issues. The pinch at the waist can also be a factor.
Maybe the experts can tell me I got it wrong though :-)[/QUOTE]
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos