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

[Tal_175]

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.”

I wonder if it's easier to add some of the archtop qualities to flattops than to go the other way. A flattop with more mids (ie less top end zing and low end boom) and more punch with less sustain maybe easier to build than a fully carved guitar with a trapeze bridge mechanism with some flattop qualities. Or has it already been done in the form of Gypsy guitar?

[burchyk]

In this case I prefer Parker as I like "vocal mids".

The Martin recording accentuates the metallic zing and pick attack too much for my taste. BUT I'm sure if the microphones were chosen and placed differently and the player used fingers or a thick nylon pick and adjusted the technique it could have been a different story.

While Martin sounds like a decent and somewhat generic flat top to me, Parker has something very special going on. It seems to have an interesting combination of sustain, clarity, fullness and responsiveness across the spectrum that is quite unique. Suspect Ken's design, build quality and tons of experience are the reason.

[Klatu]

I thought if anything, these tone were different enough that one could easily pick the preferred one. People don't usually like apples and oranges equally either.

Good point. I love me some oranges, but will only eat apples with lemon and salt.

[pdfiddler]

In this case I prefer Parker as I like "vocal mids".

The Martin recording accentuates the metallic zing and pick attack too much for my taste. BUT I'm sure if the microphones were chosen and placed differently and the player used fingers or a thick nylon pick and adjusted the technique it could have been a different story.

While Martin sounds like a decent and somewhat generic flat top to me, Parker has something very special going on. It seems to have an interesting combination of sustain, clarity, fullness and responsiveness across the spectrum that is quite unique. Suspect Ken's design, build quality and tons of experience are the reason.

That explains the large sales.

[WilliamScott]

They are both very nice sounds. The archtop could be matched or surpassed by any number of classical guitars. Very few guitars could surpass the Martin for what it is doing. That's why I voted for the Martin.