Which one of these two guitar tones is more pleasant to your ears?

[Tal_175]

Here is the same player, same tune, different guitars (different keys, the first one seems to be tuned down a whole step):

[Stringswinger]

Today I liked the archtop. Tomorrow I might like the Martin. I think it's possible to love many different qualities of guitar sound.

That is why my collection consists of:

Acoustic arctops (4)
Carved electric archtops (3)
Laminate electric archtops (3)
Solid Bodies (5)
Gypsy guitars (2)
Nylon string (1)

Variety is the spice of life (or so they say) and my guitars are my art collection. I enjoy looking at them.

[ccroft]

Here is the same player, same tune, different guitars (different keys, the first one seems to be tuned down a step):

I still prefer the arch top. Today anyway.

[mr. beaumont]

Here is the same player, same tune, different guitars (different keys, the first one seems to be tuned down a step):

The nylon wins.

It always wins for solo guitar.

[Tal_175]

The same tune with a flat-top. This might be my favorite:

[StuartF]

I wonder how many of our responses are affected by the word “archtop.” I mean, this is JazzGuitar. If “archtop” is an option, it’s the answer!

Maybe I just liked the piece better, but I much prefer the Martin in this example. It has treble tones at the limit of my hearing, along with bass tones that are present but not too boomy. Does that constitute “scooped mids?” If so, I like it.

[Vihar]

The same tune with a flat-top. This might be my favorite:

That's a responsive guitar. Most steel strings usually don't sound like that without some kind of picks (regardless of chops, and Chapdelaine's got loads).

[Tal_175]

The Parker sounds very compressed to me. That's why I thought maybe there was some humbucker involvement in the sound or maybe compression was added after the recording. But according to a discussion I saw in the comments there is no compression. It must be the shallow body.

[Vihar]

A good studio optical like an LA-2A or TLA-100 (or their better plugin variations) can be hard to detect if not being pushed too hard.

[John A.]

The more I listen to those versions of the same tune with different guitar, the less I’m able to pick one.

I actually wasn’t crazy about the nylon string tone, but I think maybe with a bit more reverb or more room sound I’d like it more.

The steel strings all have their charms. The Parker has it’s own thing going that catches my attention and cuts through; the flattops have a more overtone-rich tone that sounds great on its own, but probably would get lost in a band mix.

If the premise of the thread is to try to confirm Vihar’s view that flattops sound better than acoustic archtops, it hasn’t done that for me. I can see why people might prefer a flattop for solo acoustic playing (heck, I do, which is why I just bought one). But in the right hands some acoustic archtops sound great in their own way. Variety is the spice of yada yada.

[Vihar]

Anyone who's interested, check out Part II.: Pick the guitar tone you prefer - Part II.

[Archie]

The more I listen to those versions of the same tune with different guitar, the less I’m able to pick one.

I actually wasn’t crazy about the nylon string tone, but I think maybe with a bit more reverb or more room sound I’d like it more.

The steel strings all have their charms. The Parker has it’s own thing going that catches my attention and cuts through; the flattops have a more overtone-rich tone that sounds great on its own, but probably would get lost in a band mix.

If the premise of the thread is to try to confirm Vihar’s view that flattops sound better than acoustic archtops, it hasn’t done that for me. I can see why people might prefer a flattop for solo acoustic playing (heck, I do, which is why I just bought one). But in the right hands some acoustic archtops sound great in their own way. Variety is the spice of yada yada.

If you walked into a Hi FI shop and the salesmen said

"we have two systems.
Sytem A sounds like an archtop. Mid heavy, slightly boxy tone.
System B sounds like a flat top. Super wide frequency response, rich detailed bass and extreme clarity".

Which one would you buy?

Everyone would buy system B.

We're talking about acoustics. As in the ability to produce the richest sound without amplification.
Or at least I thought that was the OP's question.

Flat Top first. Then Classical Guitars, then Archtops. Otherwise why don't classical musicians play Archtops? They're even styled on classic instruments, unlike the classical guitar.

[KirkP]

I’m sure I’d like guitar tones equally well in person, but they seem to be mic’ed and processed much differently. I prefer how the Martin was recorded as the Parker has a bit too much bass boost for my tastes. I think you are trying to judge the guitars though, so I won’t vote.

[Vihar]

I’m sure I’d like guitar tones equally well in person, but they seem to be mic’ed and processed much differently. I prefer how the Martin was recorded as the Parker has a bit too much bass boost for my tastes. I think you are trying to judge the guitars though, so I won’t vote.

I'm curious about your opinion regarding the guitar tones...

[supersoul]

I prefer the tone of the Martin over the tone of the Parker.

The Parker is not a conventional archtop. To my ears it sounds like a hybrid between an archtop and a flattop. This could be because he (I think) uses bronze strings, so perhaps I'm hearing that. But perhaps it's the larger soundboard area, since he doesn't use f-holes. I dunno, I ain't a luthier.

I also like the sound of the plectrum on the Martin over the fingerpicking on the Parker. That's just pure taste on my part and I think both examples sound marvelous.

[John A.]

If you walked into a Hi FI shop and the salesmen said

"we have two systems.
Sytem A sounds like an archtop. Mid heavy, slightly boxy tone.
System B sounds like a flat top. Super wide frequency response, rich detailed bass and extreme clarity".

Which one would you buy?

Everyone would buy system B.

I wouldn’t buy anything based on a salesperson’s characterization. I don’t know how he hears things or defines those terms, or which gives him a higher sales commission. In the case of an amp/receiver i’d buy mainly on the basis of specs, # of inputs, which control panel annoys me least, and price. Speakers I’d listen then choose. Other components mainly on specs, features, and price. Not clear to me what that has to do with picking a guitar.

We're talking about acoustics. As in the ability to produce the richest sound without amplification.

Or at least I thought that was the OP's question

I think the OP wants to how many agree that flattop sounds best because he thinks axiomatically that it does. "Rich” is inconsistently defined, subjective, and normative. We all want the richest sound, but we don’t all agree on what that is.

Flat Top first. Then Classical Guitars, then Archtops. Otherwise why don't classical musicians play Archtops? They're even styled on classic instruments, unlike the classical guitar.

Because steel strings shred their fingernails? Because classicals are louder and have a frequency profile that sits better in classical music ensembles and acoustic environments? Because Segovia did?

[Archie]

I wouldn’t buy anything based on a salesperson’s characterization. I don’t know how he hears things or defines those terms, or which gives him a higher sales commission. In the case of an amp/receiver i’d buy mainly on the basis of specs, # of inputs, which control panel annoys me least, and price. Speakers I’d listen then choose. Other components mainly on specs, features, and price. Not clear to me what that has to do with picking a guitar.



I think the OP wants to how many agree that flattop sounds best because he thinks axiomatically that it does. "Rich” is inconsistently defined, subjective, and normative. We all want the richest sound, but we don’t all agree on what that is.



Because steel strings shred their fingernails? Because classicals are louder and have a frequency profile that sits better in classical music ensembles and acoustic environments? Because Segovia did?

That's a fair comment. Let's remove the salesman from the equation but each systems sonic profiles remain the same.
I have no doubt that system B would outsell system A.

I suppose you could put nylons on an archtop?

Again I'm not 'right' but if you designed a guitar for maximum acoustic performance, you would end up creating what we already have; a Guild D55
I understand the need to make the perfect acoustic archtop. Wh doesn't want to push an idea to its limits. But there are limits. (imo).

[John A.]

That's a fair comment. Let's remove the salesman from the equation but each systems sonic profiles remain the same.
I have no doubt that system B would outsell system A.

I’m not so sure about that. People who listen to music carefully with an awareness of what flat vs colored frequency response and wide dynamics vs compression sound like probably would. But people like the sound of coloration and compression. Ever rent a car? Ever notice how the previous renter always cranks the bass and the mids?

I suppose you could put nylons on an archtop?

Vernacular alert: yes, but not sure how to attach the garter belt. Slaman was no help with that.

Again I'm not 'right' but if you designed a guitar for maximum acoustic performance, you would end up creating what we already have; a Guild D55
I understand the need to make the perfect acoustic archtop. Wh doesn't want to push an idea to its limits. But there are limits. (imo).

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “maximum acoustic performance” in isolation from stylistic requirements. Pre-electric rhythm guitar, Gypsy jazz, 70s singer-songwriter accompaniment, bluegrass, delta blues, etc., all have different tonal conventions.

If the goal is to make an archtop that perfectly emulates a Martin dread that strikes me as silly because you can make a remarkably good sounding dread for a fraction of the cost of an OK sounding archtop. But if the goal is maximizing the quality of some other aspect of archtop sound, or experimentation, why not? Some of these (granted, ridiculously expensive) archtops sound really good in their own way.

[ragman1]

No fair comparison, two different things.

[sgosnell]

It's not a comparison, the OP just asked which is more pleasing to others. I could ask whether you prefer coffee or tea, or strawberry or chocolate.

[iim7V7IM7]

A couple thoughts:

Having auditioned both Ken's archtops and Rosie's flattops at luthier exhibitions / guitar shows I am always fascinated to hear people evaluating guitar tone by listening to YouTube videos. What I can share is the guitars played by YOU with your attack/technique likely sound completely different from a classically trained Michael Chapdelaine or a fingerstylist like Michael Watts. Also, acoustically what you perceive from the player's perspective holding an instrument and what you hear on a microphone followed by signal processing/internet compression can be wildly disparate.

The internet is a marvelous thing. It allows us to see and hear things from afar. It supports our ability to talk about topics where we share common interests (like this forum!). I do think that judging guitars based on videos can be a folly. What I have come to the conclusion is you need to play a guitar yourself to know whether you like it. Together a player, a guitar (sometimes an amp) are a system. Guitars don't make noise by themselves. I cannot tell you how many times someone attending one of these exhibitions tells me check out XYZ guitar at ABC's table. It is amazing! After I do, I don't perceive what was so special about it. The thing is, the person that recommended it has a completely different playing style and repertoire from me.

Regarding Ken's guitars, I appreciate their design innovations and I admire his sense of adventure and design; but at the end of the day, they are just not the timbre that I am looking for to make music. I have played three or four over the years and I think his tonal target and mine, just aren't a good fit. If you are interested in them, I suggest that you audition one to see if YOU like them at one of the shows that Ken typically frequents (i.e., Artisan Guitar Show, Rocky Mountain Archtop Festival or Woodstock Invitational Luthier's Showcase). I also want to say that I really like Ken, his passion and perspective as a luthier and a person. He and I have had some great conversations over a meal.

Regarding the archtop vs. flattop discussion, they are BOTH great, but excel at different sonic aspects in my experience.

• Archtops excel at fast attack, string-to-string balance and fundamental tonal strength in all registers.
• Flattops excel in responsiveness to touch, extended frequency response (euphonic bass rumble and high end shimmer), overtone series and extended sustain/decay.

I am fortunate to have some luthier made guitars that have attempted to marry some of these timbral aspects of both (i.e., a deeper rimmed archtop with a ladder braced flat back and a flattop with a carved back). They both make strives towards adding some characteristics of one with the other, but in the end, they are what they are. You end up with a guitar that is 75% archtop / 25% flattop or 75% flattop/ 25% archtop in their tonal characteristics.

I have come to the conclusion that both types of guitars (archtop and flattop) are different and both are wonderful at expressing different aspects of music.

My $.02

[ragman1]

It's not a comparison, the OP just asked which is more pleasing to others. I could ask whether you prefer coffee or tea, or strawberry or chocolate.

Don't agree, the word more makes it a comparison.

[fep]

The same tune with a flat-top. This might be my favorite:

That one sounds the best.

[NSJ]

When I bought the Solomon Imperial from Roger (when he was requiring funds to buy a 1927 L5), I didn’t have the proper perspective and technique as to how properly play it and appreciate it. It required a delicate touch. Even he missed it, too, and wound up getting a new commission from Erich to build a new one.

I’m really excited to hopefully get an arch top that has flat top qualities. From the builder himself:

“I try to make archtops with the most flattoppy qualities as possible. You can’t make an archtop sound entirely like a flattop, but I try to make an archtop that retains the good qualities of an archtop, but gets rid of some of the more annoying frequencies and tonal qualities that a lot of archtops have. I value bass and sustain. I try to build guitars that bridge the line between a flattop and an archtop. My best guitars also have classical guitar responsiveness and overtones as well.”

[ragman1]

That one sounds the best.

There's quite a lot of reverb too, I think.

Incidentally, out of the first two, I think I prefer the archtop because the second one sounds a bit classical for the tune. It really needs steel strings.