Acoustic Archtop Tone

[Archie]

Archie, just to establish a point of reference, whose tone do you like?

I't's not always the player, so I probably misspoke earlier. It's more the era, studio, song, guitar etc.. There are occasions where it is simply the player; Metheny, Scofield, Abercrombie, Farlow. Yet I love and admire them all greatly.

Benson's tone is often too thin, though he is my fav player; "Aside from this gypsy in France".
I think the tone on his D'Aquisto is probably the best tone one could hope to achieve live (example below).

Otherwise, Joe Pass's tone on 'intercontinental'.
Pat Martino's tone on 'El Hombre'.
Howard Roberts on "Howard Roberts Is A...'.

I'm pretty traditional. I like that somewhat thick and punchy Polytone, Black Face sound.

My issue with Grasso's tone to date (happy to be enlightened as always), is that it's very flat (imo). There seems to be an emphasis on playing lots of notes and chord inversions but little in the way of dynamics? Please give examples if there is evidence otherwise, which I'm sure there is. He is undoubtably a great talent and excels at what he does.

[skykomishone]

There are telecaster, classical, etc threads that might appeal to member of a jazz guitar forum that doesn't like archtops, their players sounds, acoustic properties, etc.

Plenty of variety here for lots of different tastes. I like a variety myself, but especially love the acoustic electric archtop guitars.

There's a song that Maria Muldaur sang called 'It's Not The Meat, It's The Motion' that also applies here to some extent. For some artists, it doesn't matter what guitar they're playing. They sound fantastic. Slabs, Archtop, flattop, lute, it's all good, and to each listener, their own opinion.

Also, in the future, with AI, how will we know that we're communicating with a real person on these threads! It might be a bot telling us they hate archtops just to create discordant atonalities!

Anyway, acoustic archtop tone is the OPs thread. I like acoustic archtop tone.

Cheers.

[Archie]

I’m not sure whether to be more offended by the Asperger’s diagnosis or being told I should have my hearing checked by someone who strums cowboy chords on a 20k archtop. LOL

I’m just kidding of course. I actually agree with what stringswinger said. Most guitars are case by case but, as a fisherman, I feel like the proverb about the lure catching the fisherman, not the fish, definitely applies here! Or should I say HEAR.

Anyway, it’s silly to be upset when someone’s opinion challenges your’s. maybe what they’re saying is valid and that challenges a belief system you’re thoroughly invested in or maybe you just like to fight on the internet. At any rate, buy as many 10k archtops as you can afford for all I care! A cowboy chord is still a cowboy chord.

Happy Trails!

I didn't say you had Asperges. I was only asking other members to bare in mind that we do not know why someone writes or communicates in the way they do and that we should give all people a long bit of rope with which to hang themselves. Not a short one.

The being said you might want to get checked!

Sorry joking; couldn't help it

[Hammertone]

...In my case, I have a color vision condition known as deuteranomaly which means I can’t see green as well as most people. ...

At least you don't suffer from Deuteronomy. I had a terrible case of that for years.

[coyote-1]

I am always interested in this, because the natural voice of the archtop guitar is bright and cutting, with relatively little bass information and strong mids and uppers. It is intended to replace the banjo, after all, in big bands which generally have a loud and bright mix.

On the other hand, the amplified sound that we want from the archtop guitar is often dark, mellow, bassy (think Jim Hall). This is the opposite of the natural sound of the instrument, which makes me wonder why the archtop guitar remains the standard for playing electric guitar and jazz. It's actually not really suited for that tone. I think it is more the look of the thing and tradition than any practical utility.

The sound most of us seem to want from an electric archtop guitar is closer to the classical guitar than it is to the acoustic archtop guitar. I have largely given up on attempting to get that sound out of an arch top guitar, and instead have moved towards using solidbodies, which are actually much easier to shape the tone. Playing jazz acoustically, I much prefer the sound of my flattop guitar than I do the sound of archtop guitars. I am not playing in a big band, I use hybrid picking for which, as it has been noted above, archtop guitars really don't sound that good.

The materials used have some bearing on this. Solid spruce tops are common to many of the instruments. But the typical high-end archtop has maple back and sides. I played one last week; its sound was all upper mids and treble.

By contrast, my Eastman AR610ce has mahogany carved back and sides with carved spruce top… and it sounds fuller. I can strum this as I would a dreadnought, and sing Beatle songs or folk songs or whatever. And when I fingerpick, the guys in my group say it sounds somewhat like a classical.

Incidentally, I find that classical guitars also emphasize finger noise. Even the most adept players seem unable to eliminate that.

[coyote-1]

Cowboy chords??????

A lot of people, especially men, have significant hearing loss. It’s an honest question that could really affect the ability of one to discern subtle differences among guitars.

In my case, I have a color vision condition known as deuteranomaly which means I can’t see green as well as most people. So there are things about colors I cannot discern. On the other hand, I can hear sound in a higher range of pitch than most people (tested). I think this may give me an ability to hear subtle tonal differences better.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that hearing loss is almost always in the higher registers, while the ‘lost’ tone in high-priced spruce/maple archtops is in the lower frequencies. I can see where instantly questioning someone’s hearing, over YouTube vids likely heard on a phone or something, might be considered nearly as offensive as saying “you paid $10k for that??”

Which, btw, I’ve never grasped why folks get sensitive about being ribbed a bit for high spending. Heck, I’m making fun of myself for some high spending (for me, anyway) on the Eastman and ( a few years ago) on a PRS 408!! So if folks want to say “you spent $2K on those?”, it bothers me not a bit. But folks often seem to make a point of letting you know they’ve spent gobs of money on something, and then they get offended when you, uhh, highlight that spending. It’s kinda like someone who has tattooed their face, getting pissed when you look at them and angrily shrieking “WHAT ARE YOU STARING AT??”

[ThatRhythmMan]

Except that hearing loss is almost always in the higher registers, while the ‘lost’ tone in high-priced spruce/maple archtops is in the lower frequencies. I can see where instantly questioning someone’s hearing, over YouTube vids likely heard on a phone or something, might be considered nearly as offensive as saying “you paid $10k for that??”

Which, btw, I’ve never grasped why folks get sensitive about being ribbed a bit for high spending. Heck, I’m making fun of myself for some high spending (for me, anyway) on the Eastman and ( a few years ago) on a PRS 408!! So if folks want to say “you spent $2K on those?”, it bothers me not a bit. But folks often seem to make a point of letting you know they’ve spent gobs of money on something, and then they get offended when you, uhh, highlight that spending. It’s kinda like someone who has tattooed their face, getting pissed when you look at them and angrily shrieking “WHAT ARE YOU STARING AT??”

I’ve always felt that too much lower register makes a lot of flat top guitars sound muddy with little definition. Pianos can be that way too. A piano with great low end definition can be quite hard to find, especially in one that isn’t overly bright. I’ve played lots of acoustic archtops with beautiful bass with great definition.

In regards to hearing loss being in higher registers, that’s exactly my point. The overtones are all higher than the fundamental. That’s often where the magic is in the guitars that are great for solo playing. There’s a lot going on with the guitar in the video QAMan posted. It’s evident even through my phone speakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gitman]

I felt bad about the negative comments regarding the example posted above featuring Will Sellenraad playing an acoustic archtop. This post features Will playing an amp’d Trenier.

The old DeArmond pickup translates the tone of this guitar into something completely different : the finger-noises are not picked up, the acoustic presence is much subdued and
the amp with speaker is also contributing to the overall much more mellow sound. This electric archtop sound is pleasing to my ear, it's what I've grown up with, listening to
Wes, Hall, Burrell, Benson, Pass etc and what I strive for with my guitars. The only situation in which I'd employ an acoustic archtop (mic'ed up) is when I'd try to cop the Freddie Green sound, in
a rhythm section that wouldn't drown it out completely.... but then again, for the sake of pure volume and cutting power Freddie had his guitar set up in such an extreme way that it would be impossible for me to play more than
3 note chords and even these would cost me a lot of effort, not to mention the intonation issues that come with that extremely high string action ...
As much as I love the feel, shape and the idea of the pure acoustic archtop it would not serve me well without a good magnetic pickup.

[bluejaybill]

I'm wasn't sure about jumping in on this, because acoustic guitar preference is a matter of taste.

For myself, I have different guitars for different purposes. I have various solid bodies from my previous pro playing/recording life, a laminate archtop electric, and an acoustic archtop with floater.

I could see why someone would prefer the sound of a regular quality acoustic over an archtop, and I have a pair of vintage Martins that I love and have had for many years. One big difference for me is the far better playability for jazz on the archtop acoustic (Campellone). I simply could never play that stuff on a Martin, even back when I had stronger hands than now. Since I'm mostly playing jazz now, the Martins are biding their time, unless I want to switch over to the type of music that they are so wonderful for. But playability on acoustic archtops is big for me.

I consider an acoustic archtop a bit of a guilty pleasure. I would probably choose something different for a gig, a laminate or solid body. The acoustic is just for me, I really enjoy picking it up and playing it at home and especially to practice. Many more famous and accomplished jazz players than myself have done the same; back in the day they left the D'Angellico at home. So I guess it's a bit of an indulgence, and one I don't feel particularly guilty of at this later point in my life.

[Betz]

Ok; one man’s journey, your mileage may vary.

Prior to electric amplification, acoustic flat top guitars went through a development similar to the archtops in order to increase volume. The Martin 0 spawned the 00, then the OM / 000, then the Dreadnought, then the Jumbo.

in a reverse flow, I started out playing finger style on my D-28 (Kottke, Chet Atkinson, John Fahey). In an effort to tame that large-body spruce rosewood bass, I acquired an OM style guitar and then a parlor-sized Taylor with maple back and sides. Still have all three and they are wonderful, but I was still looking for, to my ear, a more balanced and subtle bass for what was now becoming a more subtle finger style. The laminate ES-175 archtop was like a lightbulb going off, and that led to the carved spruce top archtop which is the balanced and subtle tone palette I was looking for.

There will never be an across-the-board acceptance of this as a wonderful guitar tone, but it is a big tent. Some people are going to appreciate Segovia and some are going to dig Sun Ra.

Finally there are many people on this forum with a lot more knowledge on this than I, they share it freely, and it is valued and appreciated. I have also heard the discussions about f-hole instruments being designed for use with a bow and not a plucked string, so an f-hole guitar is a mistake. But in the history of music, how many times has the magic been found in a ‘mistake’? Over-driven tube amps, a 5-way selector switch on a ‘Strat, the Motown house band the Funk Brothers being all experienced Detroit jazz musicians and not blues. The road less taken.

[Christian Miller]

Despite all the innovations of Martin and Gibson, the guitar remains an instrument that primarily sits in the upper mid range. Which is where the human speaking voice tends to sit… no more so than for an old school acoustic archtop. your ability to project acoustically is dependent on the audience and venue (and band) and not on the guitar or even technique quite honestly. It can be done, and I’m a fan. It’s lovely to play acoustic.

But it is a different thing to what the average ‘jazz guitar’ fan expects of a guitar tone.

I have a cheapy - a Loar lh600 which is a bloody gorgeous guitar recorded. I’ve never got a sound I like out of it on stage. But that’s why they invented the es 175 and es 335 etc…. It’s all good. Don’t expect apples to be oranges.

as Adam Rafferty puts it, you have studio guitars and live guitars (and presumably home guitars).

[rlrhett]

FWIW, my journey to acoustic archtop was similar to Betz. For my playing the exaggerated scooped mids of a Dreadnaught lead to an OM and then to a parlor. I built six archtops until I found what I wanted, and then pushed it further with some nylon stringed archtops. In the end, I ended up playing an acoustic archtop as a daily driver for several years now, despite having a dozen flat tops to choose from. It’s always the first guitar I reach for.

That said, if I plug in I usually reach for my Tele style solid body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Betz]

I built six archtops until I found what I wanted, and then pushed it further with some nylon stringed archtops.

Nylon string archtop. I have heard of, but never heard. The concept of it sounds intriguing.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Nylon string archtop. I have heard of, but never heard. The concept of it sounds intriguing.

Cris Mirabella currently has a D’Angelico that belonged to Al Valenti. Valenti had John D’A modify it to be more like a classical guitar.

Al Valenti's 1937 D'Angelico New Yorker | Reverb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThatRhythmMan]

Cris Mirabella currently has a D’Angelico that belonged to Al Valenti. Valenti had John D’A modify it to be more like a classical guitar.

Al Valenti's 1937 D'Angelico New Yorker | Reverb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a clip of Fabio Mittino playing it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikeSF]

I agree. This clip is not an impressive example of the acoustic archtop tone I favor. Seems as though the instrument was not setup properly; the notes were not pure. Some seemed a bit buzzy.

he is strumming too close to the bridge to coax the sweet tone from his guitar,imo. i dont like hearing that either,.

[Betz]

Looks like custom / one-off is about the only option for a nylon string archtop. That’s ok; my plate is currently full . . .

[lesyeuxnoirs]

At the risk of thread drift, albeit in the direction of the original post…

what is the received wisdom, if any, re: soundholes and acoustic archtop tone? e.g. Are F-holes better than oval?

What about size and cutaway?

that Trenier Motif played by PG sounds lovely…and that seems to be quite comfortable (16”?), has a cutaway, and an oval hole

[Cavalier]

Well as to fholes and violins and being primarily a violinist my observations are acoustic archtops need to be played like violins. The attack, angle of, and where you pick are all very sensitive. How stiff you hold your pick, all give variance in tone. To me they have a broader tonal range they can produce and respond accordingly. A flat top in comparison has much less tonal variance to things like pick velocity etc....
So..... pretend you are bowing when you think about tone and see what you can coax out of it. If you whack it whacks, thunk brings thunk, to sing you need some flow. So bow.

[cmajor9]

he is strumming too close to the bridge to coax the sweet tone from his guitar,imo. i dont like hearing that either,.

On the contrary, I would say he’s strumming in the right place given the construction of the guitar, and the sound (at least considering its a YouTube video) is quite pleasing.

[omphalopsychos]

I didn't want to post here initially because of all the trash slinging, but this is an interesting topic. So here's a pretty longwinded and corksniffy post.

There are very different kinds of acoustic archtop sounds. It's not just a scale of good to bad. Different builders have different goals. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the overly flattopy sound for the reasons Chuck mentioned above. You get lost in the mix when all you have is treble and bass. The big dreadnought sound is great for strumming and flatpicking below the 9th fret but for jazz it just doesn't have the mix you need for soloing and comping. Everyone's style and techniques are different, so take that statement with a grain of salt.

Below is a clip of 3 different archtops, each with a very different sound and characteristic.

(1) Trenier. This builder models his guitars on Jimmy DA's designs. The top carve, bracing, neck angle (and even bridge break angle) are designed to create a smoothness of attack and warmth. It has a lot of sustain, like a good flat top. Compared to the others, this guitar isn't as punchy. The trenier has a smooth attack, meaning that between hitting it hard and soft there isn't as much difference in volume compared to the other two. If you hit this at full force, it tends to overdrive. As such, I think the design is more optimal for studio chord melody than loud rhythm comping. Ironically, this is Trenier's most "oldschool" oriented archtop. His larger, x braced archtops embody the D'Aquisto vibe even more fully.

(2) Gibson (Original) L5. The original L5 is unique as an archtop. Most archtops since the late 30s do not emulate its design goals. "Jazz comping" wasn't a thing when this was made. The earliest major artists playing this model were not just jazz but country musicians. If the Trenier has some of small flat top qualities (sustain and focused midrange), the L5 has a lot of larger (OM+) flat top qualities as well: big bass and slightly less prominent treble. You can here that in this clip. Unfortunately it's exaggerated by the older strings.

(3) D'Angelico. I think this guitar embodies (and perfects) the quintessential acoustic archtop qualities of the swing era. The tone is big, the low end is rich, but it is punchy and cuts through the mix no matter what register you're playing in. One thing you may hear is the very present midrange. For lack of a better word, I would describe it as "brassy", meaning that I hear a timbre akin to a brass instrument: lots of lower harmonic content that almost sounds like amp saturation. I've played some swing era archtops that require a lot of force to get a minimal response, but not this one. When larry wexer described it over the phone to me as an archtop that responds to finger picking I was sold. I don't every finger pick it, but in my usage this translates to a guitar with an enormous dynamic range. Unlike the Trenier and Gibson, you simply cannot overdrive the top. It just gets louder and louder the harder you hit, without creating any harshness.

[deacon Mark]

I didn't want to post here initially because of all the trash slinging, but this is an interesting topic. So here's a pretty longwinded and corksniffy post.

There are very different kinds of acoustic archtop sounds. It's not just a scale of good to bad. Different builders have different goals. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the overly flattopy sound for the reasons Chuck mentioned above. You get lost in the mix when all you have is treble and bass. The big dreadnought sound is great for strumming and flatpicking below the 9th fret but for jazz it just doesn't have the mix you need for soloing and comping. Everyone's style and techniques are different, so take that statement with a grain of salt.

Below is a clip of 3 different archtops, each with a very different sound and characteristic.

(1) Trenier. This builder models his guitars on Jimmy DA's designs. The top carve, bracing, neck angle (and even bridge break angle) are designed to create a smoothness of attack and warmth. It has a lot of sustain, like a good flat top. Compared to the others, this guitar isn't as punchy. The trenier has a smooth attack, meaning that between hitting it hard and soft there isn't as much difference in volume compared to the other two. If you hit this at full force, it tends to overdrive. As such, I think the design is more optimal for studio chord melody than loud rhythm comping. Ironically, this is Trenier's most "oldschool" oriented archtop. His larger, x braced archtops embody the D'Aquisto vibe even more fully.

(2) Gibson (Original) L5. The original L5 is unique as an archtop. Most archtops since the late 30s do not emulate its design goals. "Jazz comping" wasn't a thing when this was made. The earliest major artists playing this model were not just jazz but country musicians. If the Trenier has some of small flat top qualities (sustain and focused midrange), the L5 has a lot of larger (OM+) flat top qualities as well: big bass and slightly less prominent treble. You can here that in this clip. Unfortunately it's exaggerated by the older strings.

(3) D'Angelico. I think this guitar embodies (and perfects) the quintessential acoustic archtop qualities of the swing era. The tone is big, the low end is rich, but it is punchy and cuts through the mix no matter what register you're playing in. One thing you may hear is the very present midrange. For lack of a better word, I would describe it as "brassy", meaning that I hear a timbre akin to a brass instrument: lots of lower harmonic content that almost sounds like amp saturation. I've played some swing era archtops that require a lot of force to get a minimal response, but not this one. When larry wexer described it over the phone to me as an archtop that responds to finger picking I was sold. I don't every finger pick it, but in my usage this translates to a guitar with an enormous dynamic range. Unlike the Trenier and Gibson, you simply cannot overdrive the top. It just gets louder and louder the harder you hit, without creating any harshness.

Juan the last statements sums up my 2 D'angelicos. You simply cannot overdrive them at all they keep responding without any harshness. My 18 inch Campellone is quite the same way. Excellent points.

[jackalGreen]

Nothing much to add except that this discussion has been fascinating, especially all of the detail concerning playing an archtop with and without amplification.

What I have to add is just a small anecdote: for about a year or so, 99.999995% of my "playing" (really just getting my hands readjusted to the fretboard and my RH going) has been acoustic, on an Ibanez AF55.

Certainly, played acoustically, it's been more than adequate for a rank beginner, but had almost no suggestion of any tones I've heard from Wes, Pat Martino, Grant Green, and so many others. Bright sounding (I use a TI GB set in 0.014), and with a pick especially, sounds almost strident.

However, yesterday my TOOB Metro 6.5BG arrived from Helsinki, and paired with a BAM200, just at home, with the speaker a few feet from me at ear level, it's been a revelation. An entirely different instrument, although the volume is nearly the same at "practice/bedroom" type levels.

I think the first thing I did was just hack through "Sunny" in octaves, and played through "Four on Six." A full, warm sound, no reverb effect added or anything.

A completely different instrument.

[AKA]

Nice comparison. Love them all. Are they all 16” instruments?

AKA

[QUOTE=omphalopsychos;1282501]I didn't want to post here initially because of all the trash slinging, but this is an interesting topic. So here's a pretty longwinded and corksniffy post.

There are very different kinds of acoustic archtop sounds. It's not just a scale of good to bad.

Below is a clip of 3 different archtops, each with a very different sound and characteristic.]

[omphalopsychos]

Nice comparison. Love them all. Are they all 16” instruments?

AKA

The D'Angelico is 17", and the L5 and Trenier are 16", so it's not apples to apples. But the reason these three went together is because Trenier Broadway is, in theory, a combination of attributes of early archtops. According to Bryant, my Broadway was modeled off an L5. I think that statement is more true cosmetically than sonically. They're very very different guitars.


I should do another acoustic archtop comparison, this time with my 17"ers.