-
This was a very fun day - A/B-ing two 1930's Gibson Super 400 guitars for several hours at the Twelfth Fret, with my pal Ben Bishop. One is the 1935 Ed Bickert S-400, the other is mine, from 1937. Very minor variations in neck size, but otherwise quite similar in terms of construction. The design of the S-400 evolved in the 1930s, but these two are quite similar in design, and were probably built by the same people. Ed's old guitar has a McCarty floating P-90 assembly on it, and is strung with nickel-wrap rounds. Mine is strung with standard acoustic bronze or brass. Similar gauges, IIRC.
Originally Posted by Rickco
What is most interesting is how remarkably similar these two guitars sound. We concluded that any differences in tone between the two are clearly a result of the strings. This reinforces my general belief that a carved archtop has an essential voice (based on the design, choice of materials, skill of the builder, and which can certainly be altered by the builder by adjusting various parameters). Beyond that, strings act as a useful tone shaper, depending on their specs.
Oh, both guitars sound off-the-charts fantastic.
Last edited by Hammertone; 09-04-2023 at 04:29 AM.
-
09-03-2023 05:45 PM
-
was there a "noticeable" difference in volume?
-
Yep, I have a pair of 40’s Triumph’s that sound very unique yet quite similar to one another. The builders obviously had a conception that yielded some good uniformity.
I’m also less than impressed by the sound of any of the custom guitars I’ve played and heard. They’ve (surprisingly) been quite similar as well but not in a good way IMO. The guitars I’ve played and heard suffer from too much openness, yielding a rather banjo-esk, anorexic single note tone and are typically dead in the bass. Maybe I just haven’t tried the right maker but, at the moment, I’d take the more focused sound of a Gibson, Epi or Guild (or Ibanez for that matter) any day over the custom maker’s guitars I’ve checked out.
I wonder if age doesn’t play a part. I’d say yes unequivocally if I hadn’t played some freshly minted Gibsons that had “the” sound right out of the box.Last edited by Chris236; 09-03-2023 at 10:51 PM.
-
I suspect that you would love a guitar made by Mark Campellone. Originally Posted by Chris236
-
The one with bronze/brass (I don't know what's on it right now) was a little bit louder that the one with nickel strings. But the nickel set was definitely less fresh. So ... inconclusive, but I believe that the bronze/brass are generally a little bit louder, based on my experience with other acoustic archtops. Originally Posted by Rickco
-
I’ve done some tests with an SPL meter using different strings and have found no significant dB difference with different strings on the same guitar, even flatwound strings. Different types of strings definitely seem to emphasize certain frequencies though and I think that leads to a perception of differing loudness. Originally Posted by Hammertone
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’ve heard that before! Being in the northeast, I’ve had the opportunity to try a few but, while I found them beautiful, I felt these instruments fell in line with what I was describing in the prior post. They look kinda Gibson-esk at any rate. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I’m not a fan of wood bridges on archtops(maybe something from childhood). Could be that I’d feel differently about some of these guitars if I swapped out the bridge, but I gave up on custom guitars long ago.
Back to consistency and Gibson for a moment - when I discovered how much I liked the Byrdland, I went a little nuts and in the end acquired 4(?) in total. The first was the guitar I recently sold in the For Sale section here, all the others sold many years prior. None of the others were even close to that first Byrd sound wise and on closer inspection, every single one was built slightly different. The bracing, the top thickness, the cutaway, even the scale length was slightly different on all four guitars. Strange the lack of consistency despite 3 of the guitars being made at approximately the same point in time. In the end I realized it was just that original Byrd that I loved, the others, not so much…..so while there may have been some consistency in early Gibson build philosophy, I think as time went on it varied more from guitar to guitar.
-
Your comment was in reference to the possibility of Campellone archtops delivering the tone you prefer. It is clear to me that you know what you’re listening for, and very few instruments are able to meet that standard. As some say, “it is what it is”. Originally Posted by Chris236
AKA
-
That’s not untrue - larger bodied Gibsons hit the mark much of the time as do my Triumphs and early Guilds however. My Ibanez 2471 is a winner too. I’d say the make or break for me personally might be the robustness of the build but the Triumphs are super lightweight! Must be the thickness/shaping of the top. Originally Posted by AKA
Interesting stuff, just when I think I have it figured out, I’ll play an instrument that “breaks the rules” that I like!
And end up with another guitar.Last edited by Chris236; 09-04-2023 at 04:14 PM.
-
My experience is similar. I have a 46' Triumph, and the age of the instrument is very much a factor. You could Originally Posted by Chris236
spend $20,000 on a new custom made guitar and won't have that sound of the 75 year old Epi or Gibson. I don't
think that it is possible.
The $75,000 acoustic arch tops in the video sound like nice acoustic instruments to me. That's it.
I can see why people would like that sound.
Arch top guitars have a good "feel", and are enjoyable to play. The tension from the "floating" tailpiece is a factor
as well. There is very much an aesthetic to the arch top guitar and it's lovely. This is part of my attraction to
them.
I have had luthier guitars as well. Some were beautifully made and a few were poor.
My main problem with any custom order is that you can't hear, FEEL the guitar until you have paid for
it and it is delivered. I would never do that again. But I am 63, and I don't need anything else!
-
>>Must be the thickness/shaping of the top. Originally Posted by Chris236
No. Look a the neck heel. See how it small it is. It save lots of weight and helps make the instruments more balanced
-
dunno - i’ve owned and played many guitars that have the comfort heel that also sound great. I think it has to do with the top, but who knows - all factors contribute no doubt. Originally Posted by PDeville
Last edited by Chris236; 09-06-2023 at 03:51 PM.
-
Yes, those instruments were made as acoustic instruments exclusively.
-
Thanks, Chuck. This makes a lot of sense. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
Having owned, repaired, and played many vintage Epi acoustic archtops, I agree that their usually fine sound is(IMO) most certainly the result of the top carve, top graduations, and the distinctive shape of the tone bars, especially after about 1936/7( and believe that the neck heel has little effect on the tone). The back carve, I think, is important too. I’ve worked on Epis from ‘34 to ‘53, and the top(and back)arching and brace profiling changes through the years are fascinating to study. While I’ve played very fine sounding examples from each period, my own favorites are the 16” guitars from the early postwar years(‘46 & ‘47 Spartans and Blackstones), which is not to take away at all from any examples of other years…I like them all. Originally Posted by Chris236
The back carve is important only, of course, on those models with solid backs. And yet, the models with pressed, laminated backs, have their own distinctive tone, volume, and ‘cut’, provided, I think, by the laminate back: The three ‘47 Blackstones I’ve played(laminate maple backs)seem to have been among the loudest of any I’ve played, with the ‘47 Spartans being very similar, but with a perhaps a more refined sound, given their carved solid walnut backs.Last edited by daverepair; 09-06-2023 at 03:21 PM.
-
Stochelo Rosenberg playing a Sharpach Oval-Hole acoustic archtop
AKA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=155&v=rtBoqbUc7bc&embeds_refer ring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fscharpach.com%2F&embeds_re ferring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fscharpach.com&source_ ve_path=MTM5MTE3LDI4NjY2&feature=emb_logo
-
Agree on all although I haven’t had the opportunity to play anything other that the triumphs and a student’s 40’s Emperor, decades ago. That guitar sounded absolutely amazing. Both of my guitars had a post-production cutaway added. Originally Posted by daverepair
Last edited by Chris236; 09-06-2023 at 07:41 PM.
-
That is a nice looking guitar. Different looking without the pickguard and the controls mounted on the f hole edge.
But I can’t resist….what is that statue in the background? First guess a bird but I’m not sure. Maybe some type of abstract art? But interesting to me!
Tom
-
Very difficult to get round the horrendous string screeching on archtops with acoustic strings. Originally Posted by AKA
I think the Maccaferi is still the superior instrument for this type of thing. They have more presence and yet more warmth.
Hard to say though as I’m not ‘in the room’.
I should have posted this earlier. It talks about the ‘tone extra’ issue, luthier guitars have and how many of them lack tone.
Something Chris was touching on earlier.
The ‘tone extra’ comment is at: 1:23:30
Last edited by Archie; 09-06-2023 at 06:34 PM.
-
Tom - that’s a pelican I think? Maybe some sort of duck. It came from a defunct restaurant in Gloucester, MA or so I’m told. Picked it up at an antiques flea market on the north shore near home for $50. Originally Posted by TAA
45’ Triumph I recently picked up. The CC floater is interesting…I kinda like it but probably not enough to to keep me from swapping it out for a HB.
-
[QUOTE=Archie;1285168]’Very difficult to get round the horrendous string screeching on archtops with acoustic strings.
I think the Maccaferi is still the superior instrument for this type of thing.’
As one who uses bronze strings on my vintage Epis, I must beg to differ with ‘horrendous string screeching on archtops with acoustic strings’.
To each his/her own, of course! I find the bronze strings to give great tone to these instruments(as acoustics), much stronger than nickel. But then, I’m playing in the earlier style of Lang, Lonnie Johnson, Teddy Bunn, or a modern player like Matt Munisteri, to name just a few.
I agree that a Selmer style guitar(the later petite bouche is what I’m familiar with) is indeed excellent for vintage acoustic jazz: it’s volume and cut seems superior to my cherished Epiphones, although the tone of the Epis is more ‘full’, IMO.
-
I love acoustic archtops. If I want the "electric jazz guitar sound," I use my Les Paul or my Tele as they were originally intended, with flat wound strings and played clean.
As for acoustic archtops, people forget that Lloyd Loar didn't create the L5 for jazz bands but for use in the later period mandolin orchestras. The L5 was part of a matched set with the F5 mandolin, H5 mandola, and K5 mandocello. That it became a jazz instrument, and replaced the tenor banjo as hot jazz turned to swing, was almost entirely due to the influence of Eddie Lang. Compare his recordings with Joe Venuti (when he was using an oval hole "16 Gibson L4) with much of his solo work (by which time he had switched to the L5). the L5 has less obvious bass, with more pronounced upper midrange than the L4, an instrument in which the bass and lower mids are more prominent.
In short, the L5 has much of the "cut" of a tenor banjo, but isn't as harsh and trebly and it sustains longer. Indeed, the L5 projects in exactly the same way as an F5 mandolin. But its greater volume and sustain made it the perfect hybrid instrument for the rhythm section of the swing bands which brought a more flowing and legato sound than the staccato rhythms of the smaller 1920s bands. Ironically, one of the best flattops, the Martin OM (as in "Orchestra Model"), was designed to compete with the L5: Perry Bechtel asked Martin to build him a guitar of that design (000 body size, long scale, and a 14 fret neck) to use with his orchestra because he felt the L5 sounded too harsh. But the OM and its 14 fret necked 000 successor have the same balance and evenness across registers that an L5 or similar archtop has.
This evenness throws a lot of steel string players because their experience with acoustic guitars comes from Martin and Martin style dreadnoughts which are bass heavy and lack midrange.
I got into the acoustic archtop sound around the turn of the century. I got a cassette copy of the old Yazoo Records album "Fun on The Frets" and it blew my mind. Not just what was being played (and that collection has a side of Carl Kress/Tony Gutusso (Mottola) plus multiple cuts from George Van Eps and Dick McDonough), but the tone. Even with flattwound strings, I couldn't get that sound on my Yamaha dreadnought. I tracked down my first archtop, a mint condition Harmony Monterey. That got me closer, and by this time I was buying up CDs with Eddie Lang and Carl Kress recordings, among others. I finally took a trip out to Mandolin Brothers on Staten Island and sampled some vintage Gibson archtops, beginning with a blonde 1940 L4 (16" f hole).
THAT was the sound I was chasing. That one I couldn't afford, but they had a 1960 Gibson L50 hanging on the wall that I could. Just brushing the strings as it hung on the rack told me it sounded good. I took it down, played it a bit and bought it. I still have it, it's still my favorite guitar. I can play anything on it that doesn't require an amp; it really is an all-rounder, not harsh, but then I do keep it strung with .013 flattwounds.
I also play mandolin and tenor banjo and I have a 1924 Gibson A Jr. mandolin; an oval hole instrument, it projects but not in the same way as something like an F5 would; and it's very warm sounding. That made me increasingly curious about the L5's roundhole predecessors and I recently picked up a 1925 L Jr. guitar. This is a wonderful instrument: punchy, clear, and with a well-defined bass and midrange. Very even up and down the neck and across registers. Not as loud as the L50, and with less bass, but it really reminds me in some ways of a nylon string. And it's only a little bigger than that with a 13" lower bout.
I do find that picking close to the neck gives a tone close to what you get playing amplified on the neck pickup, but it seems a lot of acoustic players are closer to the bridge, as they would be on a dreadnought. This definitely gives a harsher tone, just as it does on the mandolin (or, for that matter, banjo).
Anyway, here are some of the things I listened to that got me into acoustic archtops:
And modern, fingerstyle use of a Gibson L1, the model immediately above my L Jr.:
-
And compare Lang, here with violinist Joe Venuti, on an L4:
Versus these two (with pianist Babe Signorelli), when he is clearly using an L5 (and picking near the bridge). I think the dividing line between the L4 and L5 for Lang is 1927, so the L5 didn't really gain traction as a jazz instrument until five or six years after it was introduced.
And of course, one of the most significant L5 players didn't play jazz at all, but is considered by many to be the mother of country music, Maybelle Carter, whose style influenced flatpickers such as Clarence White:
It's interesting to compare the tone she gets with Lang, above, and with Clarence White's version of this song on a Martin dreadnought (D28 or D18, not sure which one he's using here):
-
L5OEF15 - Thanks for a great pair of posts! Exactly right that the L-5, like every other instrument in early jazz ensembles, was ‘borrowed’ from a different purpose. For the brass and sax, it was marching bands; for the L-5 and other archtops, mandolin orchestras.
-
I would be remiss if I didn’t add a few more examples, including some examples of plectrum guitar, or archtop classical, by Johnny Smith:
I am not sure what guitar he’s using here, but it could have been an Epiphone Emperor Concert, of which only three are known to exist: Epiphone Emperor Concert Arch Top Acoustic Guitar (1949) | RetroFret
Lang, of course, prefigured this:
And of course, I have to mention a modern master of prewar jazz guitar, Jonathan Stout. Compare the sound here on a 1932 “16 L5,
with a genuine Lloyd Loar signed version from 1924:
https://youtube.com/shorts/MUUntrV30...9hTLhqMtE0966L
and a 1939 L5 (the “Advanced” L5, with a 17” lower bout and X bracing instead of the traditional parallel bracing):
https://youtu.be/7uE7JEH5718?si=2FA4GnbqThxqoT-v
And here, with a 1928 (oval sound hole 16” lower bout, parallel braced) L4:
The L4, consistent with the Lang/Ventuti recording upthread, has more bass than the L5 to my ears, but it does not give up anything in clarity. I have a theory that players used to steel string flattops, especially Martin style dreadnoughts, would get along with an oval or round hole archtop like an L4 or L75 better than an L5 or other f hole for that reason. It’s like a dread with more clarity.
Yes, I am plotting and saving to get an L4 or L75… I even emailed Gibson to see about custom ordering an archtop version of a J45. That would be interesting, but it seems that it can’t be done.
Finally, Selmer and Selmer-Maccaferri guitars were mentioned upthread. Django Reinhardt’s unaccompanied pieces using a Selmer petit bouche are fascinating to compare with the American archtop sound:
I think both types are more versatile than they’re often pigeonholed.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions