-
The between 2"- 3" zone specifically. The size is pretty attractive; seemingly sufficiently hollow for a nice archtop tone, but still comfortable enough. The several I've played though just seemed to sound tonally boring. Almost like it might as well have been a thin line at that point since the tone just didn't seem to develop. Hopefully it was just the fact that they happened to be lower quality guitars, but still curious since the majority seem to be full depth or thin line.
Last edited by arielcee; 11-02-2020 at 05:05 PM.
-
11-02-2020 06:10 AM
-
My Gibson 1965 Johnny Smith is 3 inch compared to my 1941 Stromberg and 1990 Gibson S400 CESN at 3.5inches
To be honest I feel the GJS has a far more complex Acoustic and Electric tone
Maybe its the bracing or something else.
At 3 inches it is a very comfortable guitar to play.
-
Nothing "lower quality" about a 2-3" depth guitar in general; historically, archtops were acoustic instruments, whereas nowadays many (most?) are being designed for electric use, so the depth is less important for the overall sound. Lots of boutique builders have models in that size range.
-
What marcwhy wrote : when you're looking at the purely acoustic qualities of the instrument such as volume, bass , balance, sustain etc. then the depth of the rim plays a definitive role. I've once owned an 18" archtop with a 3 3/4" rim which was huge both in size and volume, so much so that I couldn't really use it outside my studio. Too large for comfortable playing standing up, too low a threshold for feedback, too much bass, too much guitar ....
The larger, deeper box of my Super-400 CES makes for the noticeable difference in tone compared to the smaller archtops, no contest. I've found that anything below a rim of 2,5" does not give me the desired punch and response I want and need from a fully hollow archtop.
-
Everything on an archtop guitar is a compromise of some sort. I prefer compromising on body depth because deep bodies are uncomfortable for me. I prefer somewhere around 2.5" to 2.75". My main guitar is in between these, and it has as much volume to my ears as my 18"x3.75" big box. They don't sound quite the same, partly because one is parallel braced and one is X braced, aside from the obvious size differences. But the 18" mostly lives in the case, and the 16" thinner model gets played every day. If I were playing strictly acoustic rhythm guitar I might prefer the bigger one, but I don't, and I don't.
-
Some of the Peerless models are slimmer, I think, as is the Robert Conti branded (Peerless made) guitar. The Epiphone Casino is also an attractive full-hollow slim-line. Maybe also the Gibson ES135 and the ES125T.
-
My 15.5" x 2.675" L-5 Signatures are fabulous.
Danny W.
-
Whoops, I think I made a typo... meant the ones I was playing happened to be of a lower quality.
Originally Posted by marcwhy
-
It has been my impression that thinner boxes were becoming much more common over the past 20 or so years. I think virtually all the Benedettos are 2.5 or 3", and the 3" size seems increasingly popular in the boutique market - probably related (again) to Benedetto since he recommends that in his Making an Archtop Guitar book.
Then again, there is also an increasing tendency for makers to build instruments with less than a 16" lower bout. I am guessing this as all related to the sound of an amplified instrument increasing becoming the "typical" archtop sound, in place of the 17 or 18" models from the mid 20th century.
-
most of the ibanez AF size are
about 2.75” at the rim
i find mine very comfy and sounds good
with enough warmth (electrically speaking)
unplugged they’re not that big
sound but they’re
built to be plugged in mainly
i do practice unplugged a lot
and they’re ok/good for that ....
they’re very solid built and cheap too
-
I've had a bunch of deeper ones 3.5" +- from samick, matsumoku, Chinese built, etc and for the most part they were all nice and resonant compared to Ibanez AFs and epi Joe. Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Remember usually the better it sounds acoustically, the more prone to feedback they are. That’s why smaller guitars like Danny W’s
L-5Signature models are a good compromise.
-
Love my byrdland, love my thinner gretsches. Would gladly stockpile more. Depends what you do and how you do it, but if nothing else, they are pretty comfy.
-
Benedetto has made their Andy model a permanent offering. It's 3" deep, 12" lower bout, 23" scale length, carved spruce top and carved maple back. Too small for me, but if you're looking for a well-made small guitar, it's available.
-
so they are in fact quite common ....
(for a good reason)
-
I believe that Johnny Smith got there first. (He became a “Benedetto Player” btw.) Originally Posted by dazzaman
But Bob’s designs are a big influence in the Archtop world, as were D’Aquisto’s before him. And then we had D’Angelico, and have Monteleone.
But it all goes back to Gibson and Loar.
-
I just learned they made them this size and they are on my wishlist. One day... Originally Posted by Danny W.
My 15.5" x 2.675" L-5 Signatures are fabulous.
Danny W.
-
Echoing what others have said here there are a lot of great archtops in the 2.5" - 3" depth range. I personally am only really interested in this size for a few reasons, but mainly comfort for my shoulder and feedback resistance. I am mainly interested in amplified tone, so there is less of a tone sacrifice in the smaller size
-
I've had 3", 2 7/8", 2 1/8" and now 2 1/2" depth. All were 16" lower bout. They all sounded pretty much the same in terms of woodiness/fullness of tone except the 2 1/8" which did sound thinner. 2 1/2" is my current guitar and I'm very happy. It's much more comfortable than my 2 7/8".
I also still have my thinline 15" x 1 1/16" Collings Eastside Jazz which sounds smaller, of course, but still sounds great and is insanely comfortable.
Reply With Quote
Best Telecaster for Jazz?
Yesterday, 10:16 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos