-
In advertisements for jazzboxes I see width of the guitar mentioned a lot 15 inches width 16 etc. But the depth of the guitar is not really mentioned. So in your opinions, does the depth of the guitar (front to back to clarify) matter? Or is it just aesthetic?
If it does matter, what does it affect?
Thanks for your thoughts.
-
05-26-2021 11:51 AM
-
It matters quite a bit in the acoustic presence of an instrument...it's less noticiable in the plugged in sound.
-
+1
-
Absolutely it matters. Don’t you think there’s a sonic difference between a Super 400 vs a Heritage Sweet 16?
-
True, but I’ve experienced quite shallow archtops that are louder and deeper than much fatter ones, so there are a lot of variables in how a guitar, one of them being it’s depth. Hard to say how it will affect the rest (carved vs laminate, thickness of the top, whether the back is solid or not, etc)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
A better comparison would be a Super Eagle and a Super 400, as they are the same width, no?
Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
And to Xavier's point, really the only certainty is DIFFERENT.
-
Absolutely. But even plugged in a S400 will have a different sonic signature than a SE. Acoustically a S400 with pickups is dead, while an SE with pickups has a very respectable acoustic tone. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
This too is the philosophical differences between a thick top and a thinner top.
-
If it didn't matter, we would see thinbody acoustic flattops. Samick made one about 2" thick which was surprisingly loud and sound, but others never followed.
-
I've just received and read "Gibson's fabulous flat-top guitars - an unofficial history" which at different point goes into some detail on the impact on sound of width, length, depth, different woods, bracing etc. What comes out regularly with respect to depth is that the deeper body allows for more movement of air at lower frequencies which appears to have a double effect - more volume, more bass and mids. One of the authors is Dan Erlewine for whom I have a lot of respect.
In terms of an effect on electric playing, I would imagine that for a deeper bodied guitar the resonance will be different in terms of the harmonics that are encouraged or supressed, and also perhaps a higher propensity to feedback. I may be completely wrong of course!Last edited by Ray175; 05-27-2021 at 03:20 AM.
-
I don't think depth is an aesthetic issue at all. It matters to me for ergonomic reasons. I find anything deeper than 3" uncomfortable to play (on account of a bum shoulder + a frontally mounted adipose aerodynamic enhancement device), and don't consider bodies deeper than this (or maybe a hair deeper). Ditto for width (17" is uncomfortable, too). In terms of sound, I'd say all else equal a deeper guitar will have more bass response (which may or may not be a good thing) and greater susceptibility to feedback (usually not a good thing). But all else is rarely equal (i.e., there aren't many guitars that are identical except for depth), so one deeper guitar might be bassier and more feedbacky than a shallower one, or vice versa. Originally Posted by Fat Fingers
-
It's really hard to make a definitive statement, because you would have to say "all other things being equal"- and they rarely are.
Having said that, I would expect better bass in a deeper guitar, as well as one with more inner volume. A Byrdland has less bass than an L5, which has less bass than a S400- or so I would expect. It is borne out generally in Martins as well, smaller bodies have less bass, more mids- but again, they also often have shorter scales which also affects bass. An OM to a D size would be a true comparison. I have a D and a 000 from similar years and the difference is just that. Whether it's due to depth, volume or scale length I'm not sure, but as a result the guitars are suited to much different purposes.
Mark Campellone is one who makes otherwise identical sized guitars in 3" and 2 1/4" depths. He would probably have an opinion on that.
I have heard it said that once you get to 3" going larger doesn't make as much of a difference- a custom luthier told me that when I was researching custom builds. But I don't know if that's true.
-
I'm assuming the OP is asking about the electric sound only. The effect of body dept on the acoustic amplification is not controversial.
Deeper body, I think, (aside from the bigger, bassier sound) produces more dynamics (all else being equal). There is a more explosive quality to deep body guitars when you dig in. Again, I'm talking about the electric sound.
There seems to be an inverse relationship between the dynamics and the sustain of electric archtops. With the deeper body, you get more dynamics and traditional airiness. Shallower guitar will likely sound more modern.
However this might all be due to the resonance, not the debt of the guitar. It would be interesting to compare a shallow depth but very resonant guitar vs deeper body but stiffer, heavier built guitar.
-
frontally mounted adipose aerodynamic enhancement device... I like that lol!!! Originally Posted by John A.
-
I agree with the "different" rather than "better" observations (and "acoustic" and "plugged in" are completely different, as well). Just like with speakers: an 8" will sound different than a 12"; which you prefer is another thing.
Here's the Marchione, played often by Mike Moreno; very thin, but still a cool sound [IMO] (playing starts around 10.00):
-
There must be someone in this herd with a collection of ES-125s of different depth and body volume (cutaway or not). Here's a lightly built, aged guitar, still plentiful and perfect for tone comparison. Comments on electric sound only, please.
-
Great question Markku! Thanks for pulling us into focus Originally Posted by Gitterbug
-
Having owned several electric Super-400 models, an electric Super Eagle, several Johnny Smith, an acoustic Super-400C and Super-300, an L-7C I can say this re the similarities/differences :
The SE had a clearer acoustic tone, not louder than the S400.
The el. S400 has the deeper plugged-in tone .
The Johnny Smith models were uninspiring when not plugged in.
The ac. S300 (1953) was the loudest of the bunch, then came the L7C (1956) and the S400C (1962)
The larger top TOGETHER with the somewhat deeper rims make an 18" guitar louder and emphasize the lower frequencies. This doesn't mean that a smaller guitar has less "cut" in a band situation - this depends not on the lows but how prominent are the mid-frequencies ?
Re the "depth" of the electric tone I think the stiffness of the top has a major influence - the acoustic S400C (with a DeArmond 1100 pickup) plugged in had the deepest and lushest sound of any guitar I ever owned, at room volume-level. Unfortunately it was unusable on stage and I could not justify keeping it just for playing at home. The stiff and thick top on my Super-400CES make it very stage-worthy and I very rarely have feedback issues with this guitar while it still delivers a fat, plummy and nicely balanced tone at a volume level that gets me heard above the din of drums and a bunch of horns ...
Last but not least : the aspect "depth of tone" is only of importance for me personally when I play at low volume in a chamber-music situation or at home. As soon as drums and other instruments join in this looses importance as the acoustic window for the guitar gets smaller. At home I can really enjoy all the little details in tone but at the gig it's a different story altogether....
-
It is shocking just how thin that Marchione is in the video. I always knew they were, but never really seen it from those angles in the unboxing. Originally Posted by marcwhy
I have 4 fully hollow instruments. All are pretty different wood wise, so it is hard to do a direct comparison but the larger width and depth do have exactly what is described here. More bass, lower mids, etc. The smaller you go in size for archtops, the more the tone does tend to sound "modern" and "electric" to my ears.
-
from an acoustic engineering pov ....
the fundemental measurement affecting
the primary resonant fez and consequently amount of bass you get in a guitar
design would be the Volume in Litres of
the inside of the body ....
so so yes the rim thickness will affect
that directly ....
-
Here's what I posted in a previous thread about this very same subject:
Hollow Body Depth and Influence on Tone
I've owned a number of Gibson L-5 guitars in various body depths: 3.375", 2.5", 2.375", 2.25", and 2".
For the most part, they sound quite a bit the same except for the bass response; however the 2" deep one sounded surprisingly robust and my 15.5" x 2.675" L-5 Signatures sound fuller, albeit less open, than the thinlines. On stage I doubt that any of it matters, except that the thinner ones and the smaller ones are all less likely to feed back than full-depth ones. Since I always gig with a bass player having somewhat less bass is a good thing.
Danny W.
-
Danny, You wont find a more well thought out answer than that one, Based on real life experience and years of gathering FACTS.
Your picture shows the absolute best of the best of the best!
Thanks for your contributions to this forum.
I will concur with something said in this thread, that the increased depth does contribute to a better, deeper ACOUSTIC bottom end. The end result depends on some other factors (most importantly, strings, picks and picking style), but the deeper body on my 165 had a luscious acoustic sound.
Joe D
-
Thank you, Joe--I appreciate that. It also comes from owning too many guitars. Originally Posted by Max405
I do disagree with the premise in the OP that depth is rarely mentioned. Many archtop listings that I've seen have depth listed, assuming there are any specs at all.
Danny W.
-
I owned an Eastman T145, carved spruce top, 1.75" deep, and it was as loud acoustically as any archtop I've played. Not much bass, but lots of volume. I also find deep bodies uncomfortable, and now 2.75" is about as deep as I can stand for long. I have a Wu that is ~2.5" deep, and it has plenty of bass for me. I'm waiting on a 17" x 2.75" model that should be plenty bassy, at least for me. I already turn the bass down on the amp most of the time, so I'm not interested in having a bass-heavy guitar, nor heavy in any other sense. I think the bracing has as much, if not more, effect on sound than the depth.
-
Good comments, BJB, and given that (as you noted) there are always variables, your comments are generally correct. Below, I've pasted in my response to another post on the same subject: Originally Posted by bluejaybill
"2B, as an aside to your comment, there are some interesting things to note about how body size affects a guitar's sound. I've built a number or 16" thin-line (2.25" rim) models, and I'm always surprised at how good they sound acoustically. The human ear is normally less sensitive to extreme high and low frequency sound, and more sensitive to mid-range frequencies - the smaller body guitars tend to have strong mid-range presence, so even though they lack the deeper bass resonance of larger body guitars, they can sound just as loud or even louder to the human ear."
And I would add that body size is only one factor in determining the depth of bass resonance - on an archtop guitar, you can also affect bass resonance by how thickly or thinly the top and back plates are carved -
-
Considering what Maestro Campellone says, i played many thin lines archtop and i always thought that they really sound louder comparing to the bigger 17¨ and 3,25 depth of my L-5 (i know that the CES version or even the Wesmo are heavy built and not intended to be acoustically loud). I was amazed by the sound of a Byrdland i remember (also how easy it feedbacks).
But, that being said, probably there is not a possible compromise between the fatness in the amplified sound and the best acoustical sound: while thinner and smaller ones sounds great and bigger one sounds like a violin string fit into a cello body (like the box doesnt react to that thinny impulse), but the amplified sound is a different thing: i think (maybe i am wrong) that a nice acoustic sound doesnt transalte to a great amplifed sound directly. The bigger boxes gets a fatter amplified sound.
Dont blame me: it is a reason to buy more than one guitar!!
Originally Posted by MCampellone
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions