Review of cheaper jazz boxes (under $700) - longish
OASYSCO
I am on a gear hunt and visited a guitar shop this morning, trying out a dozen
guitars, looking for that new jazz box in the under $700 category.
In summary, if you want a good jazz box, you'll spend well over a grand and
probably over $2,000 US. Sorry, but the under $1,000 category is mostly junk
(IMHO). Korean models (except for one, explained below) and cheaper Gibbies
just don't do it. You can flame me if you want, but I'd rather dialog. It's not
that I am against the Korean models like an American bigot; it's that I played
them and was unimpressed (except for one mentioned below).
First, I benchmarked all the models against the standard jazz box - Gibson
ES175 selling at this shop for $1,850. It had the tone and feel that most of us
want. (As an aside, I now believe that the Heritage 575 is at least as good and
probably better than the ES175 and costs $500 less).
Here are the models I tried: Epi Elite LP (f-holes), Epi Casino (P-90's),
Gibson Blueshawk (under $600), Washburn J9, Washburn (J8 - nice guitar!), and
the Epi Sorrento.
Ratings:
---------
1. Washburn J8 - L5 shape, full depth, laminate hollow body with 2 P-90 pickups
and rosewood fingerboard. This guitar had the best jazz sound of all the rest -
by far!!! I was surprised considering it had P-90's; they did not hum a bit. It
even sounded good acoustically. At $695 with no case or $775 with a case, it
was the best sounding electric I played. It sounded as good as the Es175 - no
kidding. It played great and felt good. to see how the guitar sounded for
things other than jazz, I put on the bridge pickup and played Hatchet's Whiskey
Man - it sounded good. One guy came up and said, "Man, that's a Washburn! I
thought you were palying a Gibson from the sound of it!." I don't know if that
is good or bad; you decide.
2-10: all the rest of the guitars fell in at a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. I
almost don't want to waste your time reviewing them, but I will just so you
don't waste your money.
Gibson Blueshawk - $550 (no case). I had high hopes for this one, having read
the Harmony-Central reviews, but was sorely disappointed. The pickups were 1/2
as loud as any of the other gutiars I tried. I could not believe the lack of
volume. Acosutically, it sounded like a broomstick. So, don't get one thinking
you can practice without an amp. I don't even know why Gibson made it a
semi-hollow bidy; the guitar is so shallow... Oh well, it is light and easy to
play, if that's any consolation. With the Varitone switch, you could get alot
of color, but none of it suitable for straight-ahead jazz. Hmmm, maybe that's
why they call it a Blueshawk. A better name would have been Blue Tears, cause
that what you'll be crying if you waste your money on this thing. I know a $500
Gibbie is tempting, but steer clear.
The Epi elite with f-holes was my next great expectation. It played very easily
with great action - lower than I like actually. Unfortunately, it weighed a ton
(like other LP's) and the best tone was using the neck pickup with the tone
knob turned down halfway. It sounded good at that setting, but I was unhappy
with any other setting. At $650, it was reasonably priced, but limited in
variety of acceptable tones. Accoustically, it sounded like a solid body even
with the f-holes.
The Epi Sorrento was not suitable on any setting for jazz, though it was a
pretty guitar; kinds like a poor man's ES-135. I just could not get a deep,
dark tone with those P-90's. Ditto for the Casino. I though Epi make Casino's
with humbuckers - maybe they would have sounded better. The sorrento would
probably be pretty good for pop or R&R, though.
At the absolute bottom of the list was Washburn's J9 (no tremelo). The neck
pickup would blank out now and then. It is 3/4 inch slimmer than the J8 and had
humbuckers. The neck was ebonzied rosewood - and looked cheaply done. Buy the
J8 - it's the same price, but has a deeper bodysounds way better both
acoustically and electric, and looks better.
I would have like to sample a newer Epi Emporer, but they did not have one.
OK, I think I've satisified myself that Epi's are out for me and as Washburn's
(except for that J8) and proably any Korean-made model (I won't waste time
thinking aobut samick anymore). I am also satisifed that I can't get a decent
jazz guitar (except for the J8) for under $1,300 (Heritage 575).
You can look, but if you don't play boxs befoe you buy 'em, you'll be
disappointed. Trust me; i was disappointed with a recent purchase. I know i'll
hear all the stuff aobut buying an Epi and changing out the pickups and tuning
gears and stuff, but who wants to do that with a brand new guitar on a limited
budget?
Before I go, let me plug Winter Sound in Gloucester, VA. Mike was great and let
me play any and all guitars that I wanted and did not complain when I started
to repeat my limited repetoire :) Though they are a bit off the beaten path for
me, they look like great guys to deal with.
Hope this helps someone,
greg
Eric Stump
them: the Epiphone Emperor Regent, and the Epiphone Broadway.
Both guitars sound much better than ANYTHING under $1000, and in my opinion,
actually better than a few more-expensive Gibsons & others. The Regent is a true
jazzbox - only one floating mini-humbucker, whereas the Broadway leans more towards
rock, electrically: 2 humbuckers. Acoustically, the Regent sounds very good, and
the Broadway only less so. Electrically, the Regent's mini-humbucker is good for
translating the acoustic sound of the instrument, whereas the Broadway can
definitely rock out, if so desired.
Really, before giving up on cheap jazzboxes, these 2 are worth serious
consideration.
Eric
Eric Stump
Eric Stump
OASYSCO
>There are 2 jazzboxes you apparently didn't check out, and should if you can
>find
>them: the Epiphone Emperor Regent, and the Epiphone Broadway.
I did mention one of those guitars in my post:
>>I would have like to sample a newer Epi
>>Emporer, but they did not have one.
I have played the Emporer acoustically, in the past, but did not have enough
time to plug it in. As I recall, I was not overly impressed by the Emporer's
acoustic tone, but I'd like to try it again to see for sure. I remember that
the Emporer was strung with sewing thread (9's or 10's) which did not do it any
favors.
So, as soon as I can find one locally, I'll test drive it. As for the Broadway,
I'll pass; it looks like a grown-up Joe Pass model.
Greg
Eric Stump
EXACTLY a Regent, with 2 built-in humbuckers. Same scale (25 1/2, whereas the Joe
Pass is 24 3/4), same woods (maple body, SPRUCE top, whereas the Joe pass is maple
body, MAPLE top, which is why the Joe Pass sounds so thin & cheesy acoustically,
and the Regent & Broadway sound much better.)
As for the strings, alot of these cheaper jazzboxes seem to be strung with crap.
Don't hold that against them...strings can be changed, and reather cheaply...
OASYSCO wrote:
> >There are 2 jazzboxes you apparently didn't check out, and should if you can
> >find
> >them: the Epiphone Emperor Regent, and the Epiphone Broadway.
> >...snipped...
>
> I did mention one of those guitars in my post:
>
> >>I would have like to sample a newer Epi
> >>Emporer, but they did not have one.
>
DickSchnei
In article <19981004194823...@ng41.aol.com>, oas...@aol.com
(OASYSCO) writes:
>I have played the Emporer acoustically, in the past, but did not have enough
>time to plug it in. As I recall, I was not overly impressed by the Emporer's
>acoustic tone, but I'd like to try it again to see for sure. I remember that
>the Emporer was strung with sewing thread (9's or 10's) which did not do it
>any
>favors.
Greg,
Great review - thanks.
I used to own an Epi Emperor (and a Joe Pass) and I too did not like the
acoustic sound of it one bit. I have played several of them and none of them
had a passable acoustic tone. I own a Washburn J10 (not made anymore) that is
of a similar design, but it has a much better acoustic tone and is considerably
louder. I have played three of these and each of them was quite decent
sounding considering that it is a plywood guitar. These are full depth
archtops with a single floating pickup. There weren't very many made, but if
you are patient, you should be able to find a used one for around $800 or less.
Dick Schneiders
piet...@ezo.net
find it helpful. I would agree, the Blueshawk is not a jazz styled guitar.
But, it was nto intended to be one!
Dale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JFOG10
The thing is, you need to figure out just WHAT you want the instrument for.
Every
guitar I own is exclusively for taking out and performing with heavily, and
often in less
than ideal places ( bars, clubs, etc) . So, acoustic tone, which is real nice
for sitting around
the house playing chord melodies with, is actually a detriment in a live
situation. A good
acoustic archtop is often tough to use live, due to feedback, unfortunately. I
am using one of those "bad" sounding Epi Joe Pass models, and it's, honestly, a
GREAT guitar for gigging.
With a basic set of D'addario flats through a nice Fender amp, I get tons of
nice comments
about my sound.Conversely, I've heard Benedettos through an Evans amp sound
woofy
and less than ideal. That's one reason the Es-175 is such a gigging stalwart.
Not because
of it's brilliant tone, but because it does the job, with a minimum of
hassles. Just
something to keep in mind,
- Jim
Musical Mercenery
"Have Guitar, Will Travel"
Ivan
>
>The thing is, you need to figure out just WHAT you want the instrument for.
>Every
>guitar I own is exclusively for taking out and performing with heavily, and
>often in less
>than ideal places ( bars, clubs, etc) . So, acoustic tone, which is real nice
>for sitting around
>the house playing chord melodies with, is actually a detriment in a live
>situation. A good
>acoustic archtop is often tough to use live, due to feedback, unfortunately.
Good point, that is really what it boils down to...what is the main
use of this new guitar? Accoustic or amplified? I have an Emperor
Regent and while the accoustic tone is not the greatest I really like
the amplified tone. And it still works well for practicing around
the house without the hassle of plugging into an amp etc...
Finding an Archtop with good accoustic sound in the < $700 range is
a difficult task. Live long and prosper.
DickSchnei
>maple body, SPRUCE top, whereas the Joe pass is maple
>body, MAPLE top, which is why the Joe Pass sounds so thin & cheesy
>acoustically,
>and the Regent & Broadway sound much better.)
Actually, since all of these guitars are plywood, the wood that is used for the
exterior ply is going to have little, perhaps no, effect on the sound of the
guitar.
The Joe Pass is a much smaller guitar than the Regent and Broadway, both in
depth and width. This, plus the routed in pickups, is going to be the primary
reason for the lousy acoustic sound, when compared to the larger guitars.
These guitars are not billed as being acoustic guitars, and they should not be
expected to have a good acoustic sound.
Dick Schneiders
Eric Stump
is no debate about it. Whatever sounds/feels good TO YOU, is all that matters. All
this reviewing is really a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you do get an idea
of the workmanship,etc - and a "professionals opinion" on the sound, but on the
other hand, if somebody tells you a Joe Pass sounds bad, it could be PERFECT for
you. So, in general, take reviews with a grain of salt. YOU GOT TO PLAY EM'
YOURSELF!!
By the way, I played a Joe Pass, and while I was not fond of it's acoustic sound
(as much as the regent - the joe pass was "passable" - pardon the pun :),
electrically it held up to most archtops, to my ears. I just wanted something that
sounded a little "sweeter" acoustically. Electrically, if I found a Joe Pass for a
good price, it could certainly do the job just fine.
You know that saying "Those who can't do TEACH"? Well, I think it's more accurately
stated "Those who can't do, CRITISIZE." (Whether it's guitars or CD's)...no offense
intended, OASYSCO, you opened my eyes to the Washburn J-8...I'm gonna' go check
that one out...
Eric
JFOG10 wrote:
> The thing is, you need to figure out just WHAT you want the instrument for.
> Every
> guitar I own is exclusively for taking out and performing with heavily, and
> often in less
> than ideal places ( bars, clubs, etc) . So, acoustic tone, which is real nice
> for sitting around
> the house playing chord melodies with, is actually a detriment in a live
> situation. A good
Eric Stump
in the sound. Maple is a harder, brighter wood, whereas Spruce will lend a mellower
sound. It's true that cutting holes for pickups and controls is a detriment in the
sound. BUT: the Joe pass and the Regent(or Broadway) aren't drasticallt different
in size. The Joe Pass is a TED smaller, due to it's 24 3/4 scale, but held up
beside a Regent, you can see the Regent is only a small bit wider. NO DEEPER: I
checked with Epiphone. All 3 models: Broadway,Regent,Joe Pass, are ALL 3" deep!!
As far as the "plywood"/laminated tops go, according to Guitar Magazine, quite a
few of even the expensive archtops come with laminated tops. (Not all, I'm sure -
the "carved" top is alive and well in the really high-end models.)
...and, I think the Regent is billed as an "acoustic" guitar, and does a pretty
good job of it, considering it's price range.
DickSchnei
>The top wood DOES INDEED make a difference
>in the sound. Maple is a harder, brighter wood, whereas Spruce will lend a
>mellower
>sound.
Certainly it does if it is a solid, carved top. However, I don't feel that the
wood used for the outer, cosmetic ply of a plywood top will have much effect.
That is what you are referring to and I disagree with that.
>All 3 models: Broadway,Regent,Joe Pass, are ALL 3" deep!!
I no longer have either of my Epi's, as I sold my Joe Pass and Regent, but the
Regent was a lot deeper than the Joe Pass. I don't know where you are
measuring, but the depth of the lower bout on the Regent was closer to 4" than
3", like my current cheap archtop, the Washburn J10.
>As far as the "plywood"/laminated tops go, according to Guitar Magazine, quite
a
>few of even the expensive archtops come with laminated tops. (Not all, I'm
sure -
>the "carved" top is alive and well in the really high-end models.)
Yes, some of the individual luthier archtops being made today have plywood
tops, however, that is primarily to have a lower cost point and to help reduce
feedback problems. While they do have a good acoustic sound, the ones I have
played are not as good as any of the solid, carved top ones in my experience.
These guitars will seem expensive when compared to the cheap jazz boxes under
discussion, but they are still considerably less expensive than the carved top
ones. Also, these guitars will be made with much more attention to stuff like
bracing and top thickness, which will improve the acoustic sound of them
considerably when compared to the factory archtops. Again, though, the choice
of the top ply of wood will have very little effect on the resulting sound.
That is totally for appearance. There will be several much more important
factors involved.
Dick Schneiders
Eric Stump
3 models were 3" deep.
By the way, I've now heard of the Washburn J-8, and the J-10. How do you like
yours?
DickSchnei
>By the way, I've now heard of the Washburn J-8, and the J-10. How do you like
>yours?
I like them both a lot better than any examples of the Epi's that I have
played. The J-8 has two built-in pickups and the J-10 has a single floating
pickup. Unfortunately, the J-10 (called the Orleans model) is no longer being
made. The details of construction seem to me to be a bit better on the
Washburn models and, as I have stated, I feel the acoustic sound of the J-10 is
considerably better than that of the Epi's. Perhaps it has more body depth,
but I still feel that my Epi Regent was the same size. I wonder if they
changed the specs on them. The dual pickup models do offer a greater variety
of sounds. The J-10 has only a volume control and no tone control. I
sometimes still miss my Joe Pass, for that reason, but not often. I have a
Hamer Special for when I want to play electric blues or rock (not often). The
pickups on any of these inexpensive archtops aren't great, and I will probably
replace the one on my J-10. I have a 1940's Regal archtop with an old D'Armond
floating pickup and that gives a much warmer, traditional jazz tone to my ears.
Feedback has not been a problem for me, but I only play solo or backup my
wife's vocals in small venues, so I never need a ton of output from my amps.
Just Jazz Guitar did a review a couple of years ago or so on archtops under
$1500, and they felt that the J-10 was the best of the ones they tested. If
you are interested, I can get that article out and summarize their findings
here.
Dick Schneiders
Tom Walls
says...
>
>
>I am on a gear hunt and visited a guitar shop this morning, trying out a dozen
>guitars, looking for that new jazz box in the under $700 category.
>
Thanks. I'm curently perusing this market and you helped narrow the field for
me.
SteveY
>
> The thing is, you need to figure out just WHAT you want the instrument for.
> Every
> guitar I own is exclusively for taking out and performing with heavily, and
> often in less
> than ideal places ( bars, clubs, etc) . So, acoustic tone, which is real nice
> for sitting around
> the house playing chord melodies with, is actually a detriment in a live
> situation. A good
> acoustic archtop is often tough to use live, due to feedback, unfortunately. I
> am using one of those "bad" sounding Epi Joe Pass models, and it's, honestly, a
> GREAT guitar for gigging.
> With a basic set of D'addario flats through a nice Fender amp, I get tons of
> nice comments
> about my sound.Conversely, I've heard Benedettos through an Evans amp sound
> woofy
> and less than ideal. That's one reason the Es-175 is such a gigging stalwart.
> Not because
> of it's brilliant tone, but because it does the job, with a minimum of
> hassles. Just
> something to keep in mind,
> - Jim
>
> Musical Mercenery
> "Have Guitar, Will Travel"
Yes,
I'm in agreement with Jim here. I had a Joe Pass Epi that worked very well live,
in fact, a bit better than my Heritage Eagle now. However, I still like the EAgle's
acoustic tone for practising better.
The more resonant the guitar, the farther from the amp. There comes a point
when it's a drag, but my Heritage has only touched that point a couple times, so
its worth it to me to have an all-around-play-and-like-it-everyday guitar. The
Epiphone and aWashburn J-10 I've had were fine in their way though too. I just
like the acoustic archtop (solid mahogany in my case) sound a bit better around
the house.
I actually prefer the Gibson 24&3/4" scale, though an ES-175/165 or L4C feels
better to me than the Joe Pass version by Epi.
FWIW, I've gotten used to the Eagle with 0.14 - 0.55 Thomastik-Infeld "Be-Bop"
strings now, so my friend's L4C is beginning to feel "strange" to me. So much for
preferences.
I've said it before: "Do we break in our shoes, or vice versa?"
-Steve "slowhand" Yetter Santa Cruz, Ca.-
B^}
..
.
Eric Stump
$1500, and they felt that the J-10 was the best of the ones they tested. If
you are interested, I can get that article out and summarize their findings
here.
...That would be great, if it's not too much trouble. I'm sure it would be of
interest to all.
Guitar Player Magazine did a similar review, in the October 1997 issue, and if
anyone is interested, I can do the same...
SteveY
<snipped>
>
> As far as the "plywood"/laminated tops go, according to Guitar Magazine, quite a
> few of even the expensive archtops come with laminated tops. (Not all, I'm sure -
> the "carved" top is alive and well in the really high-end models.)
>
Heritage Eagle = carved mahogany top for $2500 list. Mine was $1400 out the
door with a case for a "second." FWIW, tap tuning is $200 0ption.
I wondered about Heritage guitars for a while. Now, I'm a fan! I like mine better
than the new Guilds, but have to admit they're pretty nice and a bit cheaper,
though the model offerings don't correlate feature for feature exactly.
-SteveYetter
Eric Stump
Heritage Eagle = carved mahogany top for $2500 list. Mine was $1400 out
the
door with a case for a "second." FWIW, tap tuning is $200 0ption.
I wondered about Heritage guitars for a while. Now, I'm a fan! I
like mine better
than the new Guilds, but have to admit they're pretty nice and a bit
cheaper,
though the model offerings don't correlate feature for feature exactly.
-SteveYetter
I want to try one of the Guild Starfires, because depending on what
color you get, (Red, Black) - they are all-mahogany. I'm not into
"thinlines", but an all-mahogany one sounds like it would be fuller &
warmer than most. Part of the reason I got a deeper body archtop, is for
the "practicing/everyday" aspect; so I don't dislike listening to myself
playing the thing everyday due to a cheesy, thin sound. But the Guilds
sound like they might be cool...do you know what the Heritages are made
of?
Eric
>
>
>
Wolfe Axe
>you know what the Heritages are made
>of?
>Eric
The "Eagle" model is made of solid carved Honduras Mahogany- prolly why they
sound so good. New ones ( not "second") is $1600 w/ factory case: 17"
archtop, venetian cutaway, 25 1/2" scale, "simple" trim,. very toneful.
I have read these posts re: "under $700" with interest, beacause its a
tough question for sure. I feel used Heritage H575's & Eagles at around
$1000-1200 are good bargains, and instruments that will hold up, and gain value
in the future.......but......under $700 is tough. I do have several PBC solid
carved, small body archtops for $850- just been Playing mine & really enjoy it.
But I realize these unique guitars are meant to sell for lot more than $700-900
originally. I'm enjoying & learning from this exchange.
Thanks,
Jay Wolfe
http://wolfeguitars.com
Michael Standal
SteveY wrote:
> Eric Stump wrote:
> <snipped>
> >
> > As far as the "plywood"/laminated tops go, according to Guitar Magazine, quite a
> > few of even the expensive archtops come with laminated tops. (Not all, I'm sure -
> > the "carved" top is alive and well in the really high-end models.)
> >
>
> Heritage Eagle = carved mahogany top for $2500 list. Mine was $1400 out the
> door with a case for a "second." FWIW, tap tuning is $200 0ption.
'Scuse my ignorance - what's tap tuning?
>
DickSchnei
Here is a summary of the review of "Budget Archtops" from Just Jazz Guitar
magazine. Keep in mind that the article appeared in the May, 1997 issue, so
the prices are probably different and some of the models may no longer be
available as new guitars. All of these guitars are laminated (plywood) bodies
and tops. Unless otherwise specified, the pickups are built-ins. The review
was conducted by Andy MacKenzie, a professional jazz guitarist and writer from
England. He feels that most of the pickups used on these guitars are way too
bright sounding and that they should be replaced by a Seymour Duncan or Kent
Armstrong, etc.
Cort - LC5-1, $1,490, 2 p/u's, Spruce top, Larry Coryell model - nicely made
and set-up with quality features like a sunburst pickguard. A bit overpriced
as you pay something for the artist endorsement. Good sound and Larry Coryell
stated that he was personally involved in the guitar's design.
Cort - Yorktown, $1,000, 2 p/u's, Spruce top - A scaled down version of the
above guitar. No mention was made of what the differences are.
Epiphone - Emperor Regent, $1,499, 1 floating p/u, Spruce top - A full bodied
acoustic archtop. This is a superb guitar and sets the standard by which the
others in this list are judged.
Epiphone - Emperor ll, $1,299, 2 p/u's, Maple top - The Joe Pass model.
Epiphone - Broadway, $1,549, 2 p/u's, Spruce top - The electrical version of
the Regent. Another wonderful guitar.
Gretsch - G400 (Synchromatic), $1,500, no p/u's, Spruce top - Non-cutaway,
fully acoustic reproduction of their 1940's cats-eye soundhole guitar. His
favorite guitar of the group, because of the vintage look.
Ibanez - GB10 JS, $1,499, 2 floating p/u's, Spruce top - Korean made George
Benson model. The quality of these Korean made guitars is not up to the
Japanese made guitars, but they are close to half the price.
Ibanez - PM 20, $1,399, 1 built-in p/u, Maple top - Korean made Pat Metheny
model.
Ibanez - AF 120, $999, 2 p/u's, Spruce top - Korean made L5CES model. A good
value.
Samick - HJ605, $1,000, 1 piezo, Maple top - L5C copy with bridge mounted
tranducer and preamp.
Samick - HJ650, $780, 2 p/u's, Maple top - L5CES copy.
Samick - HJ615 N, $1,000, 1 piezo & 1 built-in p/u, Maple top - Same as the
HJ605 with the addition of a humbucker mounted at the bridge! This guitar
would be much better if the humbucker had been mounted at the neck position.
Samick - CCT5650, $1,100, 2 p/u's, Spruce top - The Charlie Christian model.
Small body, stop-tailpiece, unusual F-holes. Looks more like a guitar from the
1970's and not the 1930's.
He liked all of the above Samicks, except the HJ615 N, but feels that they look
a bit strange for the typical jazz player.
Sebring - JS20, $899, 2 p/u's, Maple top - L5CES copy. A total knockoff of the
Gibson and lawsuits are pending, so expect some changes. A very nice guitar.
Washburn - J6, $1,149, 2 p/u's, Spruce top - Montgomery model, L5CES copy. A
very fine guitar.
Washburn - J10, $1,299, I floating p/u, Spruce top - Orleans model, full bodied
acoustic archtop - L5C copy. The top is "tuned" for better acoustic sound.
Grover Imperial tuners, flamed sycamore body, elaborate abalone inlays. It
looks great and is easily the best buy of the survey - it would sell for twice
the price.
Vantage - 655 VG, $860, 2 p/u's, Maple top - L5CES copy with tulip button
Kluson tuners. Plays easily and is a very good value.
Vantage - 670 V, $870, 2 p/u's, Maple top - ES150D copy. The only copy of
Gibson's "fat boy" 335 type guitar he has ever seen. Basically the same as the
655 above, except for the double cutaway. A blues players delight.
Well, this article was much less of a review, and more just a simple listing,
than I had remembered it. He mentions sound very little, but I suspect that
since none of these guitars are really meant to be acoustic guitars, and that
the rather poor pickups are the prime source of the sound, he felt that sound
comparisons would be fairly limited. Also, Andy tried all of these guitars at
the winter NAMM show and it was probably very noisy and difficult to audition
guitars based on sound. I used to own an Epi Joe Pass and Epi Emperor Regent,
and now own a Washburn J10 and none of the pickups on these guitars are very
jazzy sounding. They lack the smooth, warm sound I like, but putting on
medium, flatwound strings improved the result quite a bit. I am planning to
change the pickup on the J10 very soon.
Hopefully this listing will be useful to some of you in that it lets you know
what is available in inexpensive archtops, at least over a year ago.
Dick Schneiders
OASYSCO
Dick,
Thank-you for taking the time to post your summary of that review. I just have
a few points to make...
>Epiphone - Emperor Regent, $1,499, 1 floating p/u, Spruce top - A full bodied
>acoustic archtop. This is a superb guitar and sets the standard by which the
>others in this list are judged.
Did he mention what criteria he used to make this statement. "a superb guitar"
is a strong thing to say.
>Sebring - JS20, $899, 2 p/u's, Maple top - L5CES copy. A total knockoff of
>the Gibson and lawsuits are pending, so
I played the Sebring a few months ago. I thought it was a junker - slow neck,
horrible (I mean BAD) acoustic sound, thick wood (built more like a storage
container than a guitar). It had that jazz look about it, though.
>Also, Andy tried all of these guitars at
>the winter NAMM show and it was probably very noisy and difficult to audition
>guitars based on sound.
Ummm, is this not the most (or almost) important aspect of a guitar - it's
tone?
>Hopefully this listing will be useful to some of you in that it lets you know
>what is available in inexpensive archtops, at least over a year ago.
Yes, most definitely. Thanks again!
Greg
OASYSCO
>> Heritage Eagle = carved mahogany top for $2500 list. Mine was $1400 out the
>> door with a case for a "second." FWIW, tap tuning is $200 0ption.
>
>'Scuse my ignorance - what's tap tuning?
Within my limited understanding, "tap tuning" is when the wood itself is tuned
to a certain pitch such that when struck it approximates a certain frequency.
To do this, the wood must be carefully carved. Tap tuning allows makers to
create guitars of uniform and supposedly superior tone.
I don't know if tap tuning really makes a difference sonically, but one thing
is for sure, the luthier spent more time and care on such a guitar. And so you
pay for that.
Greg
julius kusuma
review posted by Dick
> Washburn - J10, $1,299, I floating p/u, Spruce top - Orleans model, full bodied
> acoustic archtop - L5C copy. The top is "tuned" for better acoustic sound.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Grover Imperial tuners, flamed sycamore body, elaborate abalone inlays. It
> looks great and is easily the best buy of the survey - it would sell for twice
> the price.
cheers,
julius
OASYSCO wrote:
>
> >
> >'Scuse my ignorance - what's tap tuning?
>
> Within my limited understanding, "tap tuning" is when the wood itself is tuned
> to a certain pitch such that when struck it approximates a certain frequency.
> To do this, the wood must be carefully carved. Tap tuning allows makers to
> create guitars of uniform and supposedly superior tone.
>
> I don't know if tap tuning really makes a difference sonically, but one thing
> is for sure, the luthier spent more time and care on such a guitar. And so you
> pay for that.
>
> Greg
--
----------------------------------------
julius kusuma
purdue university electrical engineering
http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~kusuma
ja...@purdue.edu
news.newusers.questions moderation board
----------------------------------------
Eric Stump
newsgroup! (It's new)
SteveY
>
> I want to try one of the Guild Starfires, because depending on what
> color you get, (Red, Black) - they are all-mahogany. I'm not into
> "thinlines", but an all-mahogany one sounds like it would be fuller &
> warmer than most. Part of the reason I got a deeper body archtop, is for
> the "practicing/everyday" aspect; so I don't dislike listening to myself
> playing the thing everyday due to a cheesy, thin sound. But the Guilds
> of?
> Eric
>
Hi Eric,
I think those Starfires are more like Gibson ES-335's or Epi Sorrentos.
Laminated with interior blocks. The Heritage versions of those (H-535, H-555,
etc.) are 'bout the same I imagine.
In fact, Heritage also makes some so-called "jazz boxes" with tune-o-matic
bridges on studs, instead of bridge bases (feet?). Seems to me that a tip off to
intended use (tonewise), is whether the bridge crosspiece is mounted on studs or
"feet."
Sorry if I digress. The Guilds I was thinking of are the x-170, Stuart X-700, etc.
Heritage has spruce topped models too (solid carved), Golden Eagle, et al.
Regards,
-SteveYetter
SteveY
>
> >you know what the Heritages are made
> >of?
> >Eric
>
Hi Jay,
Is PBC a maker or brand of guitar? I haven't heard of these. Inquiring minds
wanna know!
Thanks,
-SteveYetter
DickSchnei
In article <19981006191323...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, oas...@aol.com
(OASYSCO) writes:
>>Epiphone - Emperor Regent, $1,499, 1 floating p/u, Spruce top - A full
>bodied
>>acoustic archtop. This is a superb guitar and sets the standard by which
>the
>>others in this list are judged.
>
>Did he mention what criteria he used to make this statement. "a superb
>guitar"
>is a strong thing to say.
No, Greg, he didn't say why he thought the guitar was "superb". When I went
back and located the article I was fairly disappointed in some of the wording
and the fact that there were virtually no references to the sound of the
guitars. However, since I had already stated that I would post the
information, I did, even though it really didn't offer much detail.
> was it "tap tuning" or "top tuning"? notice this from the guitar
> review posted by Dick
>> Washburn - J10, $1,299, I floating p/u, Spruce top - Orleans model, full
bodied
>> acoustic archtop - L5C copy. The top is "tuned" for better acoustic sound.
Julius,
Again, the article was, unfortunately, not very detailed and so I really don't
know what he meant. However, I am pretty sure that, since the top is
laminated, he did
not mean "tap" tuned. I have heard from another reliable source that this
guitar was designed to have the best possible acoustic sound they could
achieve. Some of the ways they attempted this was to have a thinner laminated
top than the other guitars, with fewer plys and also to use less bracing. I
suspect that the use of the word "tuned" is simply a Washburn marketing ploy to
succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
competition.
Dick Schneiders
Wolfe Axe
>suspect that the use of the word "tuned" is simply a Washburn marketing ploy
>to
>succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
>competition.
Very astute sir. Since Washburn doesn't actually "make" any guitars- rather
they are a group of marketing persons in a nice office building near Chicago,
with no tools, shop, nor guitar makers.What they actually do is tell Samick
what they think they can sell to their dealers, and tell 'em to make some as
cheaply as possible. And....since Samick makes some
really good looking guitars- the resulting instrument usually looks & plays OK,
and costs less than most.
Tap tuning began with need for concert string players wanting extra volume
for solos , well back before all of were born- yes Jack, even me. I don't know
that it is such a desireable feature for players that play electrically,
because it usually enhances feedback. Most luthiers "tune" tops to a degree to
simply try to make a "lively" guitar.
I also discourage this option for guitars with top routed pickup(s). I do
notice that tap tuned guitars - same model, new- are slightly louder & punchier
acoustically.
Oh well......I'm ramblin' on...see 'ya
Jay Wolfe
SteveY
<snip>
> Again, the article was, unfortunately, not very detailed and so I really don't
> know what he meant. However, I am pretty sure that, since the top is
> laminated, he did
> not mean "tap" tuned. I have heard from another reliable source that this
> guitar was designed to have the best possible acoustic sound they could
> achieve. Some of the ways they attempted this was to have a thinner laminated
> top than the other guitars, with fewer plys and also to use less bracing. I
> succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
> competition.
>
Hi Dick,
My J-10 Washburn sounded pretty good acoustically too, especially with
flatwounds, but the Eagle does sound much better.
FWIW, I once had a '54 ES-175 with a wonderful acoustic tone. Much better
than the acoustic L4C I also had. Wierd huh?
Regards,
-SteveY
Jack A. Zucker
>
> >suspect that the use of the word "tuned" is simply a Washburn marketing ploy
> >to
> >succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
> >competition.
>
That's not true. When Hamer moved to NE, many of the luthier's stayed
behind in Chicago and are now working for Washburn. The Washburn USA
made series instruments are manufactured in the old Hamer plant.
-Jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
Cleveland, OH US
Check out my jazz guitar page at:
http://w3.gwis.com/~jaz
DickSchnei
>Hi Dick,
> My J-10 Washburn sounded pretty good acoustically too, especially with
>flatwounds, but the Eagle does sound much better.
> FWIW, I once had a '54 ES-175 with a wonderful acoustic tone. Much
better
>than the acoustic L4C I also had. Wierd huh?
>Regards,
>-SteveY
>
Steve,
I strongly prefer flatwounds (medium TI's) on my J10 also.
I have played a couple of Heritage archtops, and yes, they do sound
considerably better acoustically (and plugged in) than the Washburn, but I
would have been disappointed if they hadn't as they are solid wood, carved top
guitars. I really wish that there was a decent Heritage dealer near me. The
only one will not stock any of the hollow bodied guitars, but just the solid
body electrics.
Why in the world did you get rid of the Gibson archtops?
Dick Schneiders
Chip Zempel
dicks...@aol.com (DickSchnei) wrote:
>> was it "tap tuning" or "top tuning"? notice this from the guitar
>> review posted by Dick
>
>>> Washburn - J10, $1,299, I floating p/u, Spruce top - Orleans model, full
>bodied
>>> acoustic archtop - L5C copy. The top is "tuned" for better acoustic sound.
>
>Julius,
>
>Again, the article was, unfortunately, not very detailed and so I really don't
>know what he meant. However, I am pretty sure that, since the top is
>laminated, he did
>not mean "tap" tuned. I have heard from another reliable source that this
>guitar was designed to have the best possible acoustic sound they could
>achieve. Some of the ways they attempted this was to have a thinner laminated
>top than the other guitars, with fewer plys and also to use less bracing. I
>suspect that the use of the word "tuned" is simply a Washburn marketing ploy to
>succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
>competition.
>
>Dick Schneiders
I wanted to add a little bit here about plywood, tap tuning, etc., for
those who are in more or less the same place I was about a year ago -
wanting to buy my first jazz guitar and not knowing what to look for. I
suspect that many of the people reading this thread (jazz boxes under $700)
fall into that category.
(Is anyone working on a FAQ? Maybe something along these lines should go
into it!) I'm not an expert, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm
wrong :-), but here's my understanding about plywood vs. carved tops:
a) A laminated ("plywood" *) top is less resonant than a solid, carved top.
This can be GOOD if you are playing amplified and trying to reduce feedback
or BAD if you are trying to find the best unamplified, acoustic sound.
(* Don't confuse a "plywood" archtop guitar with the garbage guitars that
were coming out of Mexico 20 or 30 years ago that really were made out of
_plywood_!)
b) Tops carved from a piece of solid wood are more resonant. This gives a
better acoustic sound (assuming it's good wood and carved well) but is more
prone to feedback.
c) Laminated tops, in general, are less expensive. Less wood is used, and
the wood used is less expensive, and less skill is required in building
them. They are basically glued up on a mold. HOWEVER, that does not mean
that a laminated top means a lower quality guitar. Several well respected
guitars from well-respected makers have laminated tops. Some Gibson (like
the ES-175) and Heritage models (eg, the H-535) come to mind. These guitars
have laminated tops, not to save money, but because they are meant to be
played with amplification. (See item "a" above.)
d) Carved tops, on the other hand, are more expensive to produce. (In what
I'm about to say, I'm assuming that carved guitar tops are made the same
way as violin tops. They are, aren't they?) If the arch of your top (from
the lowest point to the highest point) is, say, 1 inch (I'm guessing here -
what's a typical thickness?) that means that the maker started with a 1+
inch thick piece of wood and carved some places (like the edges) down from
above and other places (like the center) up from the bottom. Anyone have
any idea what two bookmatched pieces of 1 inch instrument grade spruce,
long enough and wide enough to make a 17" guitar must cost? I'll bet it's A
LOT! Especially compared to what a few layers of even the fanciest veneer
must cost. And then, of course, there's the time spent in carving. Even if
most of it is done with some sort of automation (I don't know if it is),
I'll bet it's still more expensive than gluing veneers together on a mold.
"Tap tuning" - carefully refining the thickness of various areas based on
certain resonances the wood makes when tapped with a knuckle - increases
the acoustic properties of the top (and the susceptibility to feedback!)
and, naturally, the cost.
My points are these: Laminated tops tend to be less expensive than carved
tops, and there are a lot more jazz boxes under $1500 with laminated tops
than with carved tops. Still, a laminated top does not necessarily mean a
"lesser" guitar. It can indicate a very fine guitar meant to be more
resistant to feedback in amplified settings.
If you're going to be playing with a lot of amplification, seriously
consider a laminated top (or even solid body!). If a good acoustic tone is
your first priority, you should probably get a carved top. Either way, buy
as good an instrument as you can afford!
P.S. A note on pickups - routed-in pickups (mounted in holes cut into the
top) further reduce a guitar's acoustic properties. Floating pickups
(attached to the pickguard so there's no hole in the top) are better for an
acoustic sound. Floating pickups, because they aren't attached to the
guitar body, may also be less prone to feedback. Note that the Epiphone
Regent - singled out in the Just Jazz Guitar 5/97 review - has a plywood
top (less prone to feedback), a floating pickup (less prone to feedback,
better acoustic sound), and a deep body (better acoustic sound). This
combination of features may explain why the reviewer considered it the
standard by which the others should be judged.
Chip Zempel
cze...@ns.net
--------------
DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed above are solely those of the poster. Of
course, if you had a lick of sense, they'd be YOUR opinions, too!
Wolfe Axe
Oops!
I've been to their Chicago "office" twice in the last 5 years, and wasn't aware
of this. But, I would still argue that Rudy & his marketing people don't make
Washburn guitars, and really don't know any more about making guitars than you
or I.
Regards,
Jay
Jack A. Zucker
> Washburn guitars, and really don't know any more about making guitars than you
> or I.
>
> Regards,
> Jay
I agree with you there. Washburn always seems so terribly misguided. I
guess that's what happens when you're entire approach to making guitars
centers around which heavy metal freak to sign for your next endorsement
deal! :-)
David C. Stephens
Wolfe Axe wrote: Tap tuning began with need for concert string players wanting
extra volume
> for solos , well back before all of were born- yes Jack, even me. I don't know
> that it is such a desireable feature for players that play electrically,
> because it usually enhances feedback. Most luthiers "tune" tops to a degree to
> simply try to make a "lively" guitar.
> I also discourage this option for guitars with top routed pickup(s). I do
> notice that tap tuned guitars - same model, new- are slightly louder & punchier
> acoustically.
I think that you're correct in general, regarding tuning tops aggravating feedback.
However, our good friend Jimmy Foster says that he tunes in such a way (a quarter
step away from any fundamental, or something like that) so that the natural
resonance point of the guitar is not on any properly tuned note on the guitar. He
says that tuning makes the top more responsive overall, and increases volume. I
played one of his archtops sitting in front of his Bassman amp and thought that it
was less prone to feedback than my much heavier Golden Eagle that I also had on
hand (in fact my comment the phenominum is what started the lesson on tuning).
BTW, Jimmy offered to do the same to my Heritage (tuning, deeper recurve) for a
mere $1000. I was tempted, still am really, but I don't want to change the
character of my guitar that much.
Dave
David C. Stephens
Chip Zempel wrote:
> I wanted to add a little bit here about plywood, tap tuning, etc., for
> those who are in more or less the same place I was about a year ago -
> wanting to buy my first jazz guitar and not knowing what to look for. I
> suspect that many of the people reading this thread (jazz boxes under $700)
> fall into that category.
>
> (Is anyone working on a FAQ? Maybe something along these lines should go
> into it!) I'm not an expert, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm
> wrong :-), but here's my understanding about plywood vs. carved tops:
>
> a) A laminated ("plywood" *) top is less resonant than a solid, carved top.
> This can be GOOD if you are playing amplified and trying to reduce feedback
> or BAD if you are trying to find the best unamplified, acoustic sound.
I realize that you're generalizing, but some carved tops are less resonant than most
laminated top guitars. I remember reading that Mapson made one on special request
that had a heavier than normal top. I also think that the Ibanez GB-10 falls into
this category with a smaller and thicker top with less recurve to attenuate
feedback. OTOH, Unger makes laminated top guitars that are very responsive both
acoustically and through the amp. Still you statement is a good overall
generalization.
> (* Don't confuse a "plywood" archtop guitar with the garbage guitars that
> were coming out of Mexico 20 or 30 years ago that really were made out of
> _plywood_!)
>
Witness Unger guitars that are wonderful.
> b) Tops carved from a piece of solid wood are more resonant. This gives a
> better acoustic sound (assuming it's good wood and carved well) but is more
> prone to feedback.
>
> c) Laminated tops, in general, are less expensive. Less wood is used, and
> the wood used is less expensive, and less skill is required in building
> them. They are basically glued up on a mold. HOWEVER, that does not mean
> that a laminated top means a lower quality guitar. Several well respected
> guitars from well-respected makers have laminated tops. Some Gibson (like
> the ES-175) and Heritage models (eg, the H-535) come to mind. These guitars
> have laminated tops, not to save money, but because they are meant to be
> played with amplification. (See item "a" above.)
>
> d) Carved tops, on the other hand, are more expensive to produce. (In what
> I'm about to say, I'm assuming that carved guitar tops are made the same
> way as violin tops. They are, aren't they?) If the arch of your top (from
> the lowest point to the highest point) is, say, 1 inch (I'm guessing here -
> what's a typical thickness?) that means that the maker started with a 1+
> inch thick piece of wood and carved some places (like the edges) down from
> above and other places (like the center) up from the bottom. Anyone have
> any idea what two bookmatched pieces of 1 inch instrument grade spruce,
> long enough and wide enough to make a 17" guitar must cost? I'll bet it's A
> LOT! Especially compared to what a few layers of even the fanciest veneer
> must cost.
Jimmy Foster showed me a piece of beautiful birds eye maple that he was making
laminate out of for his solid body guitars. It was flat, not quarter sawn and not
big enough for an half of an archtop back. Still, it was a four hundred dollars!
Remember, both the top and back are carved. Anyway, he could make four or five tops
for a laminated guitar and less than half an archtop back with the same piece of
wood.
Jimmy further discussed the difficulty of working with AAA woods. The more grain in
the maple, the more likely it'll break when the luthier is bending the sides. Ugh.
> And then, of course, there's the time spent in carving. Even if
> most of it is done with some sort of automation (I don't know if it is),
> I'll bet it's still more expensive than gluing veneers together on a mold.
> "Tap tuning" - carefully refining the thickness of various areas based on
> certain resonances the wood makes when tapped with a knuckle - increases
> the acoustic properties of the top (and the susceptibility to feedback!)
> and, naturally, the cost.
>
> My points are these: Laminated tops tend to be less expensive than carved
> tops, and there are a lot more jazz boxes under $1500 with laminated tops
> than with carved tops. Still, a laminated top does not necessarily mean a
> "lesser" guitar. It can indicate a very fine guitar meant to be more
> resistant to feedback in amplified settings.
John Pizzarelli's Benedetto is laminated.
> If you're going to be playing with a lot of amplification, seriously
> consider a laminated top (or even solid body!). If a good acoustic tone is
> your first priority, you should probably get a carved top. Either way, buy
> as good an instrument as you can afford!
A simi-hollow body (335 style) is appropriate for many.
> P.S. A note on pickups - routed-in pickups (mounted in holes cut into the
> top) further reduce a guitar's acoustic properties. Floating pickups
> (attached to the pickguard so there's no hole in the top) are better for an
> acoustic sound. Floating pickups, because they aren't attached to the
> guitar body, may also be less prone to feedback.
I think you mean to say that floating pickup are MORE prone to pickup. Routed
pickups attenuate the vibration of the top, thus reducing feedback.
> Note that the Epiphone
> Regent - singled out in the Just Jazz Guitar 5/97 review - has a plywood
> top (less prone to feedback), a floating pickup (less prone to feedback,
> better acoustic sound), and a deep body (better acoustic sound). This
> combination of features may explain why the reviewer considered it the
> standard by which the others should be judged.
Nice write up.
Dave
Chip Zempel
<dcs...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Chip Zempel wrote:
>
>> [big snip]
>>
>> P.S. A note on pickups - routed-in pickups (mounted in holes cut into the
>> top) further reduce a guitar's acoustic properties. Floating pickups
>> (attached to the pickguard so there's no hole in the top) are better for an
>> acoustic sound. Floating pickups, because they aren't attached to the
>> guitar body, may also be less prone to feedback.
>
>I think you mean to say that floating pickup are MORE prone to pickup. Routed
>pickups attenuate the vibration of the top, thus reducing feedback.
>
>Dave
Dave -
Thanks for your comments. What you said about pickups makes me wonder. I've
never owned (or for that matter, played) a guitar with a floating pickup,
so I don't have any firsthand experience with them.
Your point about routed pickups reducing the vibration of the top, and thus
reducing feedback, makes sense. But I was under the impression that because
a floating pickup isn't directly attached to the body of the guitar, that
reduces feedback. That seems to make sense to me, too. If the top vibrates,
that makes the pickup vibrate (relative to the strings), and you have more
feedback. Float the pickup over the body so that it doesn't vibrate, and
you'll have less feedback.
Which is "more" correct? In other words, if you took two identical guitars
and routed a pickup into one (reducing its acoustic resonance) and mounted
a floating pickup on the other (decoupling the pickup from the body) which
would be more likely to feedback?
Would the answer depend on whether the guitars had solid tops or laminated
tops? Interesting...!
Mark Cleary
Wolfe Axe wrote:
> Oops!
>
> I've been to their Chicago "office" twice in the last 5 years, and wasn't aware
> of this. But, I would still argue that Rudy & his marketing people don't make
> Washburn guitars, and really don't know any more about making guitars than you
> or I.
>
> Regards,
Jay,
If they knew 1/10 as much about making guitars as you, they would be dangerous.
Maybe they even would make a guitar that did something better than "looks good".
Careful don't underestimate your abilities in the finer parts of guitar lore.
--
Mark Cleary makes music on the finest guitars made.
" HOLLENBECK GUITARS the for the ultimate in tone and playability."
Visit the site http://hollenbeckjazzguitars.com
Gary Persons
> (In what
> I'm about to say, I'm assuming that carved guitar tops are made the
> same way as violin tops. They are, aren't they?) If the arch of your
> top (from the lowest point to the highest point) is, say, 1 inch (I'm
> guessing here - what's a typical thickness?) that means that the maker
> started with a 1+ inch thick piece of wood and carved some places
> (like the edges) down from above and other places (like the center) up
A brief comment.
From what I know, you are correct, except that I just read an article
about a luthier (I'll never find the article...you'll have to believe
me) who "bent" a solid top on a mold. I don't think that's the way most
"normal" builders do it, and I would guess that the acoustic result
would be half-way between a laminated and a carved top.
--
Gary Persons
gper...@earthlink.net
Glendale, CA
George4908
Chip Zempel posted much good stuff about archtops, and things that affect tone
and feedback. One other factor to consier is the bracing. In general --
meaning you will find exceptions to this -- parallel bracing tends to bring out
the midrange in an archtop, whereas X-bracing tends give a more balanced,
flattoppish sound. Which may lead you to believe that parallel braced guitars
are more prone to feedback, due to the more pronounced resonant peak. Yet in
many cases the opposite is true, possibly because parallel braced guitars are
more heavily braced, which tends to dampen vibration, whereas the "modern
X-braced guitars are often very lighly braced. A good luthier can walk you
through all the options and build to suit, but for off the shelf models, you
just have to plug in and test drive for yourself.
George4908
>I think those Starfires are more like Gibson ES-335's or Epi Sorrentos
The Starfire IV is indeed a Guild equivalent to an ES-335 -- thin double
cutaway with stop tail and tunomatic. But the Starfires II and III are single
cutaway, somewhat thicker bodied guitars with floating bridges and tailpieces
(or Bigsby option). Aimed at more of a rockabilly market than a true jazz
market, I believe. The Guild X-170 (or is it X-175) is intended as their
"entry" jazz box.
Bob Valentine
George4908 <georg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The Starfire IV is indeed a Guild equivalent to an ES-335 -- thin double
>cutaway with stop tail and tunomatic. But the Starfires II and III are single
>cutaway, somewhat thicker bodied guitars with floating bridges and tailpieces
>(or Bigsby option).
I'm interested in a lot of these axe discussions, but could people please
mention whether the guitars under discussion have a block down the
middle (335, 135) and which don't (125, 175).
Along those lines, I thought part of the GB's brightness was due to it
having a center-block, maybe inside the back rather than the top?
Bob Valentine
David C. Stephens
Chip Zempel wrote:
> In article <361BE762...@ibm.net>, "David C. Stephens"
> <dcs...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >Chip Zempel wrote:
> >
> >> [big snip]
> >>
> >> P.S. A note on pickups - routed-in pickups (mounted in holes cut into the
> >> top) further reduce a guitar's acoustic properties. Floating pickups
> >> (attached to the pickguard so there's no hole in the top) are better for an
> >> acoustic sound. Floating pickups, because they aren't attached to the
> >> guitar body, may also be less prone to feedback.
> >
> >I think you mean to say that floating pickup are MORE prone to pickup. Routed
> >pickups attenuate the vibration of the top, thus reducing feedback.
>
> Dave -
>
> Thanks for your comments. What you said about pickups makes me wonder. I've
> never owned (or for that matter, played) a guitar with a floating pickup,
> so I don't have any firsthand experience with them.
I currently own a Heritage Golden Eagle (floating pickup) and I've previously
owned a Super Eagle with two routed pickups and a solid spruce top and a 576 with
two routed pickups, laminated top and sound block under the pickups. Of those, the
GE has the most feedback.
> Your point about routed pickups reducing the vibration of the top, and thus
> reducing feedback, makes sense. But I was under the impression that because
> a floating pickup isn't directly attached to the body of the guitar, that
> reduces feedback. That seems to make sense to me, too. If the top vibrates,
> that makes the pickup vibrate (relative to the strings), and you have more
> feedback. Float the pickup over the body so that it doesn't vibrate, and
> you'll have less feedback.
Well that's an interesting point. However, I think that the reduced vibration of
the top overwhelms any vibration that may act directly on the pickup. If the top
is vibrating more, then those vibrations are transmitted to the strings directly
through the bridge. Once the strings and top start vibrating sympathetically at
the same pitch, the whole thing then gets amplified an turns into feedback. The
direct mechanical action on the strings and the acoustic actions on the strings
is, I would estimate, greater than the interaction of the strings with the pickup
vibrations from the top (you can see the amplitude of the string vibrations, but
you can't usually see the top vibrating). No doubt there is some contribution
between the pickup and strings, but I think it is a smaller one. Also, keep in
mind that the floating pickup is probably being vibrated through its pickguard
mounting and also contributing to feedback. Finally, most floating pickups, mine
included, have small pieces of felt on the back that touch the top and help to
align the pickup relative to the strings; therefore, providing another path for
vibrations to radiate.
> Which is "more" correct? In other words, if you took two identical guitars
> and routed a pickup into one (reducing its acoustic resonance) and mounted
> a floating pickup on the other (decoupling the pickup from the body) which
> would be more likely to feedback?
If you're somewhere that you can compare several Heritage guitars you can probably
make a direct test. The Heritage Eagle Classic comes either with one routed pickup
or one floating pickup. Perhaps if Jay Wolfe is listening he can throw in his
direct experience dealing with hundreds of Heritage archtops of both ilks.
> Would the answer depend on whether the guitars had solid tops or laminated
> tops? Interesting...!
I think that it depends most on the "heaviness of the top", whether laminated or
carved. Then I think that the next most important factor is mounting of the
pickup, with routing attenuating feedback the most.
The main advantage to me of a carved top is that its acoustic properties
(responsiveness and overtone complexity) will improve over time as the top is
played and ages. Most solid tops, but not all, start out with a better acoustic
sound IMHO. I also believe that laminated tops also improve with age (I'm in a
minority), but I think the process takes decades instead of years and the
improvement is more modest than with a solid top.
Dave
Tom Walls
>
>I'm interested in a lot of these axe discussions, but could people please
>mention whether the guitars under discussion have a block down the
>middle (335, 135) and which don't (125, 175).
>
Speaking of which -- did 135's always have a block or was this a later
development?
Vincent Vialard
>
> Wolfe Axe wrote:
> > Tap tuning began with need for concert string players wanting
> > extra volume for solos
> > it usually enhances feedback.
>
> I think that you're correct in general, regarding tuning tops
> aggravating feedback. However, our good friend Jimmy Foster says
> that he tunes in such a way (a quarter step away from any
> fundamental, or something like that) so that the natural resonance
> point of the guitar is not on any properly tuned note on the guitar.
I believe that's the way to go if you want an even response
of your instrument anyway.
I find my acoustic bass guitar more sensitive to the room
acoustic properties though, and experienced feedback problems
on different notes. It usually disappears with the audience...
BTW: This trick is usable also to keep drums from resonating
in high volume/little space configurations.
Vincent.
Jack A. Zucker
Martino, etc., either stuff their archtops or put scotch tape (Bollenback),
or packing tape (Benson) over the F-Holes. I doubt a tap tuned top is going
to enhance anything in those situations!
My experience with tap tuned tops is that electrically, the guitars tend to
sound nasally. This is particularly true of floating pickup designs I've
found.
-Jaz
SteveY
>
> Why in the world did you get rid of the Gibson archtops?
>
> Dick Schneiders
Uh. Well. Um. But really... Ah. Jeez, that's a tough one!
As well as I can remember... no, wait, that's not right either. Let's see.
OK, now then: Near as I can figure, it was probably drugs, or food.
Did I mention I'm clean now? How about fat?
Regards,
-Steve "born again in 1976" Yetter-
AKingA
>My experience with tap tuned tops is that electrically, the guitars tend to
>sound nasally. This is particularly true of floating pickup designs I've
>found.
>
>-Jaz
It seems this would be more of a product of the pick-ups rather than tap tuning
if the instruments, played acoustically, did not sound nasally.
A. King
Chip Zempel
wrote:
>[snip]
>I currently own a Heritage Golden Eagle (floating pickup) and I've previously
>owned a Super Eagle with two routed pickups and a solid spruce top and a
576 with
>two routed pickups, laminated top and sound block under the pickups. Of
those, the
>GE has the most feedback.
>
>[snip]
Thanks for your info about routed vs. floating pickups. As I said, I've
never played a guitar with a floating pu, and I guess I had the wrong
impression. It's nice to hear from someone who actually owns two very
similar guitars, one with each type!
Thanks again!
Chip
Ivan
>Julius,
>
>Again, the article was, unfortunately, not very detailed and so I really don't
>know what he meant. However, I am pretty sure that, since the top is
>laminated, he did
>not mean "tap" tuned. I have heard from another reliable source that this
>guitar was designed to have the best possible acoustic sound they could
>achieve. Some of the ways they attempted this was to have a thinner laminated
>top than the other guitars, with fewer plys and also to use less bracing. I
>suspect that the use of the word "tuned" is simply a Washburn marketing ploy to
>succinctly try and explain that their guitar is different and better than the
>competition.
>
>Dick Schneiders
It might be worth noting that a laminated guitar can still have a
"decent" accoustic tone. In fact most accoustic guitars in the
under $800.00 price range have laminated tops vs. solid spruce and
these are in fact "accoustic" guitars.
Not that I think the tone can compare to solid spruce but they seem
to put out a reasonable enough accoustic sound.
I have owned a cheap Yamaha accoustic for years that has plywood top.