Plywood vs solid guitars
sheetsofsound
the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
thinks it sounds better.
Discuss...
nqbqbep
Hasn't this been beaten to death already ?
dhn...@sbcglobal.net
Whereas I generally like the acoustic sound of a solid top guitar, I
tend to prefer the amplified sound and characteristics of a laminate
archtop.
sheetsofsound
Some of the purely acoustic archtops with floating pickups sound
nasally ...
Bg
Do prefer mounted pickups than Floaters.
That said, I Love the sound of L5's and L4's (Carved tops), but I also
really like The Tal Farlow(laminate)
In fact I'd love to hear a Tal and L5 played side by side into an amp.
Bg
Carl
laminates and they all sound great. I have two of Roger's and I'm
considering a third. His rationale is posted on his website for all to read.
I have a '98 ES-336 which has a carved solid maple top and a '67 Epi Howard
Roberts, with a carved solid spruce top. Those guitars hold a certain
personal aura for me that I can't explain, though it can't be said they
sound better than my laminate guitars. I just enjoy knowing that they're
made of solid wood and had more hand-work put into them.
Rick Stone
Here we go again :-)
--
Rick Stone
website: www.rickstone.com
Some of My Other sites: www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
www.facebook.com/rickstonemusic www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
www.reverbnation.com/rickstone www.youtube.com/jazzand
www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand http://jazzguitarny.ning.com
pmfan57
> < 1KViewDownload
Rick,
I know you like the sound of a carved top amplified, and you get a
nice sound out of one. Do you really think though that they are
better generally speaking in that (amplified) situation than a
laminate? I recall you saying that you felt some sort of feedback (not
the howling kind) from the instrument when playing a carved top that
you don't feel from a laminate. Is that what you feel the main
advantage is?
Tim McNamara
<621d0b4f-12b8-45cb...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because "plywood" is synonymous with "cheap crap." It's used as a
substitute for the real thing. Plywood is seen as a cost-cutting
measure and was one of the reasons that an ES-175 was cheaper than an
L-5.
That the inferiority of plywood is not actually true in many
applications besides guitars (OSB, for example, can be a superior load
bearing material in buildings) and can be environmentally friendlier
than cutting down old growth trees for tonewoods isn't really relevant
to the gut reaction. Plywood is often called a "laminate" when used in
guitars to de-stigmatize it.
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
Five Sharp
"sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:621d0b4f-12b8-45cb...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Discuss...
Been saying this for years here. There's many carved guitars that I simply
hate sound wise. Especially the ones with floating pups. Laminate guitars
are more practical and usually sound better IMHO. The archetypal jazz sound
is more easily obtained on a laminate too. Carved top guitars may sound
great in low volume settings but are simply not very practical.
I am convinced snob appeal (cork sniffing as you call it) appeal plays a big
role in the carved camp.
That said, I love the L5. And Johnny Smith. But I'd never use one live. In a
studio, yes. Or at home on the couch.
Tal never cared for carved guitars. He did not think they were suitable
working men's guitars. I read this in an interview.
On the Bob Mover gig yesterday I talked to the guitarist. He said his L5 was
hardly ever played these days. He used a recent 335 on all gigs. And he
sounded fine on it.
#####
Great White Buffalo
Are we talking semi/hollow electrics, solid body electrics, or flattop
acoustics?
Flattops: I've never heard a plywood version that sounds as a good as
a solid wood guitar.
Solid body electrics: the better ones have solid wood bodies, imo,
whether that be a Tele or whatever.
Semi/hollow electrics: Plywood may sound as good or better than solid
woods, but solids are *generally* lighter. On the downside, they
resonate a bit much and in the electric world can be overly prone to
FB, plus I'm not always thrilled to be using a floating pickup just
because the guitar is made of solid woods.
Greg
TFPainter
instruments can be made both ways. It really boils down to the skill
and experience of the maker/designer. Benedetto made a guitar from
2x4s, Bob Taylor a shipping pallet, Torres paper mache....all with
reportedly excellent results.
The kind of jazz guitar sounds I like best came from those classic
plywood Gibsons that were more lightly constructed...so, that is my
inspiration there. An L-5ces isn't exactly an acoustic guitar...nor
was it designed to be. The top and back are thicker than the acoustic
versions, with the top much more heavily braced. It's generally well
known that the florentine cutaway L-5ces guitars of the '60s had
plywood backs. What is not so widely known is that at least 50 of
these had spruce plywood TOPS too...
Some of the finest concert classical guitars in the world today have
"plywood" tops. More properly, they are wood/nomex honeycomb
composites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_guitar_making#Double-top.2C_sandwich-top_and_composite-top
http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2007/Dec/Sandwiched_Tops.aspx
Tom
pmfan57
> In article
> <621d0b4f-12b8-45cb-aef7-7c4af06e9...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Plywood is often the only thing that will work in many applications
also because it is less susceptible to warping and other reasons.
sheetsofsound
> On Feb 13, 12:27 am, Rick Stone <rickst...@rickstone.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > sheetsofsound wrote:
> > > Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> > > the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> > > Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
> > > sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
>
> > > When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> > > make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> > > thinks it sounds better.
>
> > > Discuss...
>
> > Here we go again :-)
>
> > --
> > Rick Stone
> > website:www.rickstone.com
>
> > rickstone.vcf
> > < 1KViewDownload
>
> Rick,
> I know you like the sound of a carved top amplified, and you get a
> nice sound out of one. Do you really think though that they are
> better generally speaking in that (amplified) situation than a
> laminate? I recall you saying that you felt some sort of feedback (not
> the howling kind) from the instrument when playing a carved top that
> you don't feel from a laminate. Is that what you feel the main
> advantage is?
i get the vibrational feedback out of hollowbody laminate guitars...
sheetsofsound
> In article
> <621d0b4f-12b8-45cb-aef7-7c4af06e9...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> > the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> > Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they
> > all sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as
> > good.
>
> > When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> > make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> > thinks it sounds better.
>
> > Discuss...
>
> Because "plywood" is synonymous with "cheap crap." It's used as a
> substitute for the real thing. Plywood is seen as a cost-cutting
> measure and was one of the reasons that an ES-175 was cheaper than an
> L-5.
Right but like tubes, plywood guitars have a beauty to them that
cannot be reproduced with solid wood.
Kevin Van Sant
<jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<4844d742-ed9a-45cb...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>
>Right but like tubes, plywood guitars have a beauty to them that
>cannot be reproduced with solid wood.
sure, but that works both ways. I think there is no absolute answer.
Some of my favorite recorded guitar sounds came from plywood guitars,
some from solid wood. I give all the credit to the players
responsible.
________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
all my CDs in Mp3 form at:
http://www.kevinvansant.com
sheetsofsound
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:37:49 -0800 (PST), sheetsofsound<jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <4844d742-ed9a-45cb-9411-e23e63df8...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
> >Right but like tubes, plywood guitars have a beauty to them that
> >cannot be reproduced with solid wood.
>
> sure, but that works both ways. I think there is no absolute answer.
> Some of my favorite recorded guitar sounds came from plywood guitars,
> some from solid wood. I give all the credit to the players
> responsible.
agreed
sheetsofsound
> "sheetsofsound" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:621d0b4f-12b8-45cb...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Discuss...
>
> Been saying this for years here. There's many carved guitars that I simply
> hate sound wise. Especially the ones with floating pups. Laminate guitars
> are more practical and usually sound better IMHO. The archetypal jazz sound
> is more easily obtained on a laminate too. Carved top guitars may sound
> great in low volume settings but are simply not very practical.
>
> I am convinced snob appeal (cork sniffing as you call it) appeal plays a big
> role in the carved camp.
Definitely. That and the fact that many of the big-time archtop
luthiers can't make any profit selling to working musicians so they
price their archtops at the prices that only the cork-sniffers can
afford. Hence the introduction of terms like tone-woods, tap-tuned
tops, etc...
Steve Freides
Yes.
-S-
sheetsofsound
Then simple solution. Don't read or reply. Not sure why folks feel
compelled to post about topics that they're not interested in
discussing! :)
Bill C
I was also under the impression - and Tom P may be able to confirm or
deny this! - that building responsive laminate plates is very
difficult and requires expensive equipment. Roger Borys told me that
he supplied laminate plates to Jimmy D'Aquisto and I also read that
Julian Lage's Manzer has a Borys lam top. I also read that Roger
Sadowsky spent some time getting the laminates the way he wanted them
for his current line of archtops (geat guitars imo). ... and I spoke
to a very highly regarded luthier here in the UK about building a
laminate and his reply was words to the effect of "I wish I could".
This alll suggests to me that it's tricky to get it right!
I've come to prefer the *acoustic* as well as the electric sound of
laminates ...
Bill C
Joe Montgomery
Being a Les Paul/335 guy for 25+ years PRIOR to getting the jazz
guitar bug, when I went searching for the 1st time for an archtop, I
gravitated to the carved top, floating pickup type because I was
shooting for that "what is it" sound...by that I mean, if you heard
this sound on a blindfold test recording, the timbre of the guitar
made you say, hmmm is that amplified or acoustic??? My first
experience with this was hearing Bucky Pizzarelli (later, John as
well) who were both purposely going for a right down the middle hybrid
sound of acoustic Freddie properties and electric Christian props as
well...at low, intimate volume levels, repeat, LOW LEVELS, this is my
favorite sound.
That sound I like, I found, with varations, could be achieved another
way...a well made carved top with a built in pickup! Again, only at
Low Levels and Controllable Acoustics! Any combination of amp and mics
allowed for freddie comping (turn the pickup down or off) and charlie
soloing (crank the pickup, back away from the mic).
I soon learned that getting that sound in either guitar format,
floater or built in, in uncontrolled gig conditions has its
problems...also, hauling an expensive, carved guitar out onto a boat
on the river in 98 degree weather to play a few tunes for overpaid
bank execs wasn't the way to go.
Enter the laminate! Less expensive than the carvies, better feedback
inhibitor, nice sounds, good fit and finish (my sadowsky has a nice
acoustic sound, but very soft compared to the carveds) and now that
the Golden Age of Plywood is around I might have skipped one of the
carved.
So I have 2 carved and 2 laminate...1 laminate with built in pu, one
laminate with floater, one carved top with built in, one with floater.
All have the same strings, the carveds have identical pickups, all
have a property unique to themselves. Subtle but audible to me, maybe
not, say, my wife, and she likes guitar music more than most.
Now if I had to choose, (and that may be coming if things don't turn
around economically) I think I would keep the 2 laminates and sell the
carveds. If I had to choose between the laminates, I would keep the
set pickup (Sadowsky).
And if I missed "acoustic" sound that much I'd get a 00 something and
sit in my room and play!!!
jm
sheetsofsound
> I've come to prefer the *acoustic* as well as the electric sound of
> laminates ...
Lots of folks disparage laminated tops for acoustic playing but a
couple years ago, I was doing a singer/guitar duo and using a
laminated top Ibanez GB200. This is not a hand-made plywood using
Borys or Painter's technique. However, it has a nice acoustic tone.
Anyway, the power to the club went off. Hence, the guitar amp and PA
didn't work. The singer and I finished out the set acoustically and
the guitar was plenty loud to use accompanying a vocalist and playing
solos without an amp. I think the whole plywood thing is overblown,
really. I think that plywood gets a bad rap because in many cases, a
poor grade of plywood is used on a cheap acoustic guitar and folks
blame the plywood when in fact, it's the overall quality of the
instrument that is poor.
Lun
>
> > Tom
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't doubt a word you say about ply/solid really being a factor of
> the expertise spent making the guitar. And perhaps the best handmade
> classical guitars have plywood tops, but I rarely play the best
> guitars made :)- So it has been my experience that in the area of
> flattop acoustic (bluegrass types) guitars, I've not heard a plywood
> version that sounds as good as those made of some combination of solid
> woods - solid top+back or rims or whatever. That said, I've heard one
> or two deep bowl Ovations that sound quite good and they're made
> primarily of plastic, though the better oens have a solid top.
>
> Greg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
my plywood Guild x-50 sounds better than my carved solid top heritage
i feel.
Lun
better?
The BR options make the guitar cost a lot more....
Charlie X
plywood is junk, so ANY carved top automatically sounds better in
their MINDS. But as guitar players who can go to certain shops and
play all of these side by side (Mandolin Bros for you East Coast
guys), you quickly discover that A: it is in some cases nearly
impossible to tell the difference, B: In the case of floating pickup
versions, they all sound inferior to a built in no matter what its
made of and C: Many of the plywood tops play and sound better than
some carved tops. Again if the carved top has a floater, its usually
no contest when amplified.
Just my 2 cents...and yes..this HAS been beat to death!
Sheets...looks like u sold that HR?? Good deal man.
chas
sheetsofsound
Smith. I traded it to Pat Martino for his Starbrite guitar but he
hated the Smith and gave it back.
sheetsofsound
NO, BR is another cork-sniffer thing IMO...
TD
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:37:49 -0800 (PST), sheetsofsound<jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <4844d742-ed9a-45cb-9411-e23e63df8...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
> >cannot be reproduced with solid wood.
>
> sure, but that works both ways. I think there is no absolute answer.
> Some of my favorite recorded guitar sounds came from plywood guitars,
> some from solid wood. I give all the credit to the players
> responsible.
>
> ________________________________________
> Kevin Van Sant
>
> all my CDs in Mp3 form at:http://www.kevinvansant.com
Yes, the answer is "personal." It is like "Prego", but rather than in
the sauce, it's in the hands. But "it's in there." Each type has both
it's personal benefits/attributes. However, nasal tone is often
unwanted and so is feedback. A terrific player, on the other hand, can
make a crap guitar often sound like a champ.
-TD
tom walls
FWIW you only sniff the cork to see whether the wine has gone
"vinegary". You also check the cork to see whether it's dried out or
if there are crystals. My point is that cork-sniffing isn't an
affectation, but it merely indicates if there is something dreadfully
wrong with the wine. It doesn't reveal anything about the flavor.
Five Sharp
> FWIW you only sniff the cork to see whether the wine has gone
"vinegary". You also check the cork to see whether it's dried out or
if there are crystals. My point is that cork-sniffing isn't an
affectation, but it merely indicates if there is something dreadfully
wrong with the wine. It doesn't reveal anything about the flavor.
That's cork sniffing about cork sniffing ... :)
#####
nqbqbep
> TIm..i think you nailed it. Its about perception. People percieve that
> plywood is junk, so ANY carved top automatically sounds better in
> their MINDS. But as guitar players who can go to certain shops and
> play all of these side by side (Mandolin Bros for you East Coast
> guys), you quickly discover that A: it is in some cases nearly
> impossible to tell the difference, B: In the case of floating pickup
> versions, they all sound inferior to a built in no matter what its
> made of and C: Many of the plywood tops play and sound better than
> some carved tops. Again if the carved top has a floater, its usually
> no contest when amplified.
Does a Larrivee sound great through a Twin? Most guys here seem to
forget that carved archtops are basically ACOUSTIC guitars. They are
not supposed to be played through amps designed mainly for solidbody
guitars (that's 99% of the guitar amps out there). Played through
proper equipment designed specifically for ACOUSTIC guitars they can
sound great. Their acoustic tone is also reproduced much better when
using a dual pick-up system, like in the Martin Taylor 'Artistry'
model by luthier Mike Vanden.
sheetsofsound
> Does a Larrivee sound great through a Twin?
No but it's pickups are crap. It doesn't sound good through an
acoustic amp either.
> Most guys here seem to
> forget that carved archtops are basically ACOUSTIC guitars. They are
> not supposed to be played through amps designed mainly for solidbody
> guitars (that's 99% of the guitar amps out there).
I disagree. You think the Gibson Johnny Smith was designed to go
through a Bose PAS tower system? No. All those carved D'Angelicos and
D'Aquistos from the '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s were designed to go
through the type of fender amps that you're referring to as being
designed for solidbody guitars!
> Played through
> proper equipment designed specifically for ACOUSTIC guitars they can
> sound great. Their acoustic tone is also reproduced much better when
> using a dual pick-up system, like in the Martin Taylor 'Artistry'
> model by luthier Mike Vanden.
That's a different story. His guitar is equipped with a piezo pickup
designed to make his guitar sound like a cross between an archtop and
a flattop.
sheetsofsound
Well, I don't drink alcohol so I'll have to defer on this one.
nqbqbep
> On Feb 13, 12:33 pm, nqbqbep <isle.of.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does a Larrivee sound great through a Twin?
>
> No but it's pickups are crap. It doesn't sound good through an
> acoustic amp either.
>
> > Most guys here seem to
> > forget that carved archtops are basically ACOUSTIC guitars. They are
> > not supposed to be played through amps designed mainly for solidbody
> > guitars (that's 99% of the guitar amps out there).
>
> I disagree. You think the Gibson Johnny Smith was designed to go
> through a Bose PAS tower system? No. All those carved D'Angelicos and
> D'Aquistos from the '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s were designed to go
> through the type of fender amps that you're referring to as being
> designed for solidbody guitars!
I've never played a Johnny Smith but I would expect it to sound better
through an Acoustic Image, AER or Evans than a Fender. I like the tone
Andreas Oberg gets from his Le Grande in some YouTube videos, and I
think he was using a JazzKat at that time.
In any case, I would bet that the task Fender assigned their engineers
back then was to "design an amp that makes the Strat and the Tele
sound great". Why should they bother thinking about archtops? Fender
wasn't producing any archtops in the first place, and archtop players
as a customer group were quite insignificant to them compared to their
huge clientele of rock, blues and country players. Laminate archtops
however, DO happen to sound good through their amps, because they are
tonally much closer to a solidbody than to an acoustic guitar.
tom walls
Don't mean to take the wind out of your sails. :-) It could still be a
viable metaphor, I suppose.
David J. Littleboy
"nqbqbep" <isle.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:41 pm, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:33 pm, nqbqbep <isle.of.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does a Larrivee sound great through a Twin?
>
> No but it's pickups are crap. It doesn't sound good through an
> acoustic amp either.
Dunno about Larrivees, but in general (as an ex-fingerpicker) I really like
playing flattops through big Fenders. Sounds great. Too much highs, and a
flattop can sound harsh, nasal, and snarly. At low volumes, flattops sound
real nice through a wideband amp, too. But crank a bit and the nasal snarl
comes out and all you hear is the pick clicking. So I don't have much use
for "acoustic" amps.
> > Most guys here seem to
> > forget that carved archtops are basically ACOUSTIC guitars. They are
> > not supposed to be played through amps designed mainly for solidbody
> > guitars (that's 99% of the guitar amps out there).
>
> I disagree. You think the Gibson Johnny Smith was designed to go
> through a Bose PAS tower system? No. All those carved D'Angelicos and
> D'Aquistos from the '40s, '50s, '60s and '70s were designed to go
> through the type of fender amps that you're referring to as being
> designed for solidbody guitars!
I've never played a Johnny Smith but I would expect it to sound better
through an Acoustic Image, AER or Evans than a Fender.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I'm with Jack on this one. Wes, Burrell, Smith himself, Joe Diorio, Adam
Rafferty, Ron Affif are the guys who get the sounds I'd die for. Carved top
archtop through a big fender or other generic amp. Works for me.
I've tried (and heard other people playing) archtops through "acoustic"
amplifiers and thought the sound was thin and harsh. No sale.
I'm basically using an archtop as an electric to get a clear, singing,
bell-like sound. I think solid tops do better at that than laminates. But
the difference is pretty subtle: it really is an electric sound. On the
other hand, ##### is right that there's something funky and beboppy about a
laminate. Less sing, more bop. And, funny thing, Tom P. gets a wonderful bop
sound from his guitars. That's one bloke who knows what he's doing both
making and playing, which in my experience is incredibly rare.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
sheetsofsound
>
> In any case, I would bet that the task Fender assigned their engineers
> back then was to "design an amp that makes the Strat and the Tele
> sound great".
Fender didn't design those amps. They were standard western electric
circuits. They didn't design the guitars either. They made them out of
the cheapest parts available. It just happened to catch on.
> Why should they bother thinking about archtops? Fender
> wasn't producing any archtops in the first place, and archtop players
> as a customer group were quite insignificant to them compared to their
Your argument makes no sense. The gibson amps of the time were not
significantly different. Sorry but carved top guitars with pickups
were amplified by the same kind of tube amps that blues players used.
> huge clientele of rock, blues and country players.
When those circuits were designed, there was no rock music.
> Laminate archtops
> however, DO happen to sound good through their amps, because they are
> tonally much closer to a solidbody than to an acoustic guitar.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
TFPainter
You're quite right, Bill.
The main problem with the vast majority of plywood archtops out there
is that no consideration whatever is given to how to make it sound
good acoustically. The arching (shape and height) is basically copied
from carved instruments. The problem with forcing veneer into a carved
archtop shape is that the resulting laminated structure is much too
stiff to respond acoustically. The arching of the plates has to be
adjusted to the material/technique. Which means reducing the height
and making the compound curves more gentle so the veneer will more
naturally conform to the mold. It took me years of carving different
arching molds with many failed attempts to arrive at what I use
today...to get the sound I'm after.
I do believe a laminated guitar can be made to sound just as good as a
carved guitar acoustically......but that might be considered
blasphemous by the correct minded :-)
Tom
Kevin Van Sant
<isle.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<dbbf2989-c444-454c...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> :
>I've never played a Johnny Smith but I would expect it to sound better
>through an Acoustic Image, AER or Evans than a Fender.
That just gets back to the notion of it's whatever you prefer to hear.
Not much is going to sound better than a Gibson solid wood hollowbody
through a Fender Twin imo.
sheetsofsound
> That just gets back to the notion of it's whatever you prefer to hear.
> Not much is going to sound better than a Gibson solid wood hollowbody
> through a Fender Twin imo.
Agreed. An L5 through a twin is a thing of beauty. As Jason Bourne
would say, "IT STOPS HERE". hehe
Jonathan (not from Cleveland)
> On Feb 12, 7:14 pm, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> > the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> > Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
> > sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
>
> > When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> > make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> > thinks it sounds better.
>
> > Discuss...
>
> tend to prefer the amplified sound and characteristics of a laminate
> archtop.
If you're talking about a magnetic pickup, I think it's at least safe
to say that a solid top probably won't sound any *better* than a
laminate.
I don't think you're going to capture a whole lot of acoustic nuance
with a humbucker.
Mark Cleary
I think what it says is that each ear is different and hears different
things. I have yet to find a plywood guitar that acoustically sounded as
good as a properly carved spruce top. If I were making a guitar only for
acoustic properties of tone, volume, punch, quality of sound,.... ect. I
would not use plywood because it goes against the idea of "carving
sound" into the wood. I would gladly play a plywood guitar for it's
acoustic properties if they sounded like what I like to hear. So far I
have not played a plywood guitar that lived up to this acoustically.
These are my ears not someone else.
I am sure there are players that would pick up a plywood 175 and play it
acoustically and say it sounds great. They might then pick up a big
Super 400 acoustic and say it really does not sound any better. I seen
the happen or least similar circumstances and it is sound, you cannot
argue the point. To put a premium on the price is really marketing to a
large degree.
I very plain piece of maple with no figure, and a spruce tops with all
kinds of flaws can sound better than the finest tone woods money can
buy. Just because you have to wildest grain maple and finest close grain
spruce money can buy, is no indication of the sound. This in my
opinion is the " art " of carving a guitar and like most art people
differ in what they like.
To this day the "dry sound" of Tal Farlow in the 50's proves that carved
top guitars are not better at least through an amp. This to me may be
the best electric sound I have heard and it is wonderful. Had Tal
plugged in a played a D'angelico with a floater I am sure it would sound
like Tal. It may not have sounded the same but I don't think it would
have held him back.
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
Kevin Van Sant
Cleveland)" <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<faaf761a-ddac-4fc9...@r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
>
>If you're talking about a magnetic pickup, I think it's at least safe
>to say that a solid top probably won't sound any *better* than a
>laminate.
"better" would be subjective, to me sometimes yes sometimes no.
depends on the guitar and how it's being played. But "different",
definately.
>I don't think you're going to capture a whole lot of acoustic nuance
>with a humbucker.
I don't agree. I played a 175 for a few years before switching to L5
(mine has a single routed humbucker), one of the things I love about
the L5 compared to the 175 is how much more I hear the character of
the wood. To my ears it is a more complex and richer sound. It is
subtle no doubt, but it is there.
Great White Buffalo
And I like my plywood 175 over my Eastman 805CE, but the Eastman is
WAY lighter and because of its wider, flatter FB, easier to play for
some things - and it sounds different from every other guitar I own,
Greg
RB
> That just gets back to the notion of it's whatever you prefer to hear.
> Not much is going to sound better than a Gibson solid wood hollowbody
> through a Fender Twin imo.
What do you archtop/solid wood guys do when you use distortion?
sheetsofsound
Pick up a different axe?
icarusi
news:621d0b4f-12b8-45cb...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> thinks it sounds better.
I chose a plywood bodied Peavey Tele (unbeknown at the time) over a row of
genuine Fender Teles for its sound. I even wrote to Peavey to Try and find
what the wood was. They never replied. I also played some Vibracell guitars
(Switch) which sounded better than some of the timber guitars I came to
audition at the time.
All things considered plywood is just a composite material like any other,
and will resonate to its design. In theory a predictable construction can be
made more consistently with composites than 'raw' organic material. I was
reading that when John Suhr makes guitars for Scott Henderson, he makes
three identical models (materials, design and hardware) and SH chooses the
one he wants, and they *all* sound different. The remaning 2 go for retail
sale. Not that there's anything lacking in them, just that SH prefers the
other one. IIRC JS is trying to eliminate that last variability.
icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
http://icarusi.wordpress.com/
RB
> Pick up a different axe?
Yep, but that's a pain. Anyway, much contemporary jazz nowadays, uses
the full gamut of gtr sounds available in a single song....What then?
TD
sheetsofsound
I've done plenty of gigs where i brought one guitar with flatwounds
and another for the other stuff. It depends on your playing style and
your approach. Dan Wilson uses heavy flatwounds on a hollowbody and
does R&B gigs with it!
Steve Freides
> On Feb 13, 9:22 am, "Steve Freides" <st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>> nqbqbep wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 4:14 am, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
>>>> the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
>>>> Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they
>>>> all sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as
>>>> good.
>>
>>>> could make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood
>>>> because he thinks it sounds better.
>>
>>
>>> Hasn't this been beaten to death already ?
>
> Then simple solution. Don't read or reply. Not sure why folks feel
> compelled to post about topics that they're not interested in
> discussing! :)
Hey, someone asked a question and I answered.
-S-
RB
> I've done plenty of gigs where i brought one guitar with flatwounds
> and another for the other stuff. It depends on your playing style and
> your approach. Dan Wilson uses heavy flatwounds on a hollowbody and
> does R&B gigs with it!
I wonder what Dan does w/distortion sounds? After all he uses that
Benson RH which leaves the lower register undampened.....oh.....sorry
that's the same topic we've been over fifty times Sorry guys!!!
icarusi
>They didn't design the guitars either. They made them out of
> the cheapest parts available. It just happened to catch on.
They designed the guitars with simplicity economy and mass production in
mind, but they're as good as any design you care to put forward as an
alternative. Even L&Gs later design 'improvements' struggled to supersede
their early designs.
tom walls
> I wonder what Dan does w/distortion sounds? After all he uses that
> Benson RH which leaves the lower register undampened.....oh.....sorry
> that's the same topic we've been over fifty times Sorry guys!!!
There's that clip of him playing with the octave pedal. It's very
distorted, but it's digital distortion. Plus he's literally playing
sitting on his bed so there's probably no volume issues.
sheetsofsound
Haha! Great answer.
RB
> Leave the room I would imagine.
>
> -TD
Uh oh, geezer alert (;-)
Tony,
I'm not sure of your age,but you can't be that old? You would have
come up during the 60's / 70's w/ all that great pop/rock stuff
around...Did u reject that stuff?
sheetsofsound
I don't know. Ask him on his facebook site. I haven't heard him use
distortion though but I've seen pix of him with a strat...
RB
> > On Feb 14, 11:28 am, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know. Ask him on his facebook site. I haven't heard him use
> distortion though but I've seen pix of him with a strat...
Might do, but then I would have to send him a "friend" request, and
that would make me look like I am "needy", which I am most certainly
not....... the only way this stuff could work is if he begged to be my
friend first, then MAYBE, we could, like, chat about this stuff
RB
gtr today, is WRONG ;-)
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message
<f50627c0-b563-4b44...@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
I've played around with the software amp emulator "guitar rig" a few
times. the L5 sounded great with distortion!
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message
<f6936719-da53-418b...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
>I also forgot to add, that anyone who doesn't use distortion in jazz
>gtr today, is WRONG ;-)
yeah, I agree. That's why Peter Bernstein is out of favor with all
the top players.
Tim McNamara
"Five Sharp" <hjg.o...@onsbrabantnet.nl> wrote:
> "sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:621d0b4f-12b8-45cb...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
> ...
>
> > Discuss...
>
> Been saying this for years here. There's many carved guitars that I
> simply hate sound wise. Especially the ones with floating pups.
Depends on the tone one is going for. Tone's personal, of course, and
there is no "right" tone except for in the ears of the guitarist. Gene
Bertoncini, Ed Bickert, Martin Taylor, Joe Pass, Tal Farlow, Barney
Kessel, Django Reinhardt... they don't sound much like each other and
all play distinctively different instruments.
> Laminate guitars are more practical and usually sound better IMHO.
> The archetypal jazz sound is more easily obtained on a laminate too.
> Carved top guitars may sound great in low volume settings but are
> simply not very practical.
In anything other than low volume settings, solidbody guitars are the
only "practical" way to go. They are, however, often looked down upon
by jazz guitarists as being unsuitable or a bit lowbrow.
> I am convinced snob appeal (cork sniffing as you call it) appeal
> plays a big role in the carved camp.
There are layers and layers of snob appeal and cork sniffing in jazz
guitar.
> That said, I love the L5. And Johnny Smith. But I'd never use one
> live. In a studio, yes. Or at home on the couch.
Those instruments worked well enough for Wes Montgomery, Kenny Burrell
and Johnny Smith (although the latter seems to have used his old
D'Angelico even after his deals with Gibson, Guild, etc.).
> Tal never cared for carved guitars. He did not think they were
> suitable working men's guitars. I read this in an interview.
Although there is a photo of him playing a Benedetto in Bob's shop and
clearly not thinking it sucked, judging by the grin on his face.
> On the Bob Mover gig yesterday I talked to the guitarist. He said his
> L5 was hardly ever played these days. He used a recent 335 on all
> gigs. And he sounded fine on it.
A sound I've never been able to warm up to for jazz when I've been the
one playing it. Other people, yes, but not me.
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
sheetsofsound
Tim McNamara
<97d32bcf-6e7a-4b1c...@q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:21�pm, nqbqbep <isle.of.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In any case, I would bet that the task Fender assigned their
> > engineers back then was to "design an amp that makes the Strat and
> > the Tele sound great".
>
> Fender didn't design those amps. They were standard western electric
> circuits. They didn't design the guitars either. They made them out
> of the cheapest parts available. It just happened to catch on.
Clearly your comments on this are factually quite incorrect, given that
those products did not exist before and carried a number of patents.
> > Why should they bother thinking about archtops? Fender wasn't
> > producing any archtops in the first place, and archtop players as a
> > customer group were quite insignificant to them compared to their
>
> Your argument makes no sense. The gibson amps of the time were not
> significantly different. Sorry but carved top guitars with pickups
> were amplified by the same kind of tube amps that blues players used.
Gibson amps and Fender amps of that period sound distinctly different.
While the circuits may be similar (I have little knowledge of
electronics) it is obvious that the amps are voiced differently. It
does not seem unreasonable to think that Fender and Gibson would design
their amps complement their guitars.
> > huge clientele of rock, blues and country players.
>
> When those circuits were designed, there was no rock music.
>
> > Laminate archtops however, DO happen to sound good through their
> > amps, because they are tonally much closer to a solidbody than to
> > an acoustic guitar.
>
> Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
Which does not establish rightness or wrongness in an objective sense,
which seems to be what you are trying to do.
Tim McNamara
<94976327-8b01-402d...@g17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, the only floating pickup guitar I ever liked was a Johnny
> Smith. I traded it to Pat Martino for his Starbrite guitar but he
> hated the Smith and gave it back.
Which proves what?
Tim McNamara
<4844d742-ed9a-45cb...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:56�am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <621d0b4f-12b8-45cb-aef7-7c4af06e9...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some
> > > of the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339,
> > > an HR Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood
> > > and they all sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that
> > > don't sound as good.
> >
> > > When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he
> > > could make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood
> > > because he thinks it sounds better.
> >
> > > Discuss...
> >
> > Because "plywood" is synonymous with "cheap crap." �It's used as a
> > substitute for the real thing. �Plywood is seen as a cost-cutting
> > measure and was one of the reasons that an ES-175 was cheaper than
> > an L-5.
>
> Right but like tubes, plywood guitars have a beauty to them that
> cannot be reproduced with solid wood.
Tubes can't be reproduced in wood. And, yes, some plywood guitars have
a beauty that can't be reproduced in solid wood, and vice versa. They
are instruments with different sounds. Ditto single coil solidbody
guitars, humbucker solid body guitars, classical guitars, Martin OMs,
etc. etc. That's *why* there are so many different designs.
sheetsofsound
>
> sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By the way, the only floating pickup guitar I ever liked was a Johnny
> > Smith. I traded it to Pat Martino for his Starbrite guitar but he
> > hated the Smith and gave it back.
>
> Which proves what?
Obviously it proves that carved top guitars suck. But seriously, ain't
this a conversation?!?
pmfan57
> I love the way Ulf sounds with his les paul copy...
>
> http://video.tiscali.it/canali/truveo/87820500.html
Obviously being really good at playing the guitar is by far the most
important thing. And part of that skill is getting a good sound out
of whatever you are working with. Lots of players get a nice jazz
sound with a solid body. And Ulf gets a great sound with this copy.
Who makes this guitar?
Rick Stone
> On Feb 13, 12:27 am, Rick Stone <rickst...@rickstone.com> wrote:
>> sheetsofsound wrote:
>>> Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
>>> the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
>>> Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
>>> sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
>>> When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
>>> make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
>>> thinks it sounds better.
>>> Discuss...
>>
>> --
>> Rick Stone
>> website:www.rickstone.com
>> Some of My Other sites:www.myspace.com/rickstonemusicwww.facebook.com/rickstonemusicwww.sonicbids.com/rickstonewww.reverbnation.com/rickstonewww.youtube.com/jazzandwww.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand http://jazzguitarny.ning.com
>>
>> rickstone.vcf
>> < 1KViewDownload
>
> Rick,
> I know you like the sound of a carved top amplified, and you get a
> nice sound out of one. Do you really think though that they are
> better generally speaking in that (amplified) situation than a
> laminate? I recall you saying that you felt some sort of feedback (not
> the howling kind) from the instrument when playing a carved top that
> you don't feel from a laminate. Is that what you feel the main
> advantage is?
Like Jack has mentioned, the laminates will feedback too! I find the
carved top guitars have MUCH richer overtones, that effect the sound and
response of the instrument, EVEN WHEN PLAYED AMPLIFIED.
I've picked up a number of laminate archtops recently, trying to find a
decent guitar to travel with and am now signed on as an endorser with
D'Angelico. I've got two of their Excels. They're both 16" laminates,
one with a floating pickup, the other with two routed pickups.
I know that some folks think that the routed pickups sound fatter, but I
think the main difference is in the TYPE of floaters they're being
compared to. The floater on the Excel doesn't sound nearly as fat as
the one with the routed pickups, but then they both pale somewhat when
compared to the Comins (which has a Kent Armstrong floater). I think
it's mainly just a matter of the strength of the magnet, the wire, and
how many windings. When I was at Bill's house, we fooled around with
putting one of thse pickups on the D'Angelico and it improved 100 fold
(the only reason we didn't just install it right then is that I wanted
him to make a new pickguard with the pickup mounted, and I also like to
reverse the position of the volume and tone controls so that I can
manipulate the volume more easily with my pinky).
The pros and cons are like this:
Laminate:
Pros: cheaper to build (and to buy), definitely more rugged and not as
prone damage from climate change.
Cons: not as rich sounding as a carved top, also HEAVIER
Carved top:
Pros: sound is very rich with lots of overtones. the wood just seems to
respond to what you play much faster. Generally MUCH lighter.
Cons: Somewhat fragile (the top can get cracked much easier). I don't
really want to travel with it! Easily effected by the weather. The top
will go up and down with changes in humidity and this changes the
action. It sounds much better when it's kept humidified, when the air
is dry, it starts to sound more harsh and brittle.
You can make music on any reasonable instrument (Hell, I've taken my
$350 Semi-Hollow Ibanez Art-Core to the gig and made it sound fine).
But if you're for real about this, you spend a LOT of time with an
instrument in your hands (for me about 8-10 hours most days). That's
MORE time than you spend in your car (I hope!) so you ought to play an
instrument that you love playing. I've had a love/hate relationship
with my Fender D'Aquisto for years, and am finally letting go of it.
But as I'm digitizing old gig tapes and hearing how that guitar sounded
in the 90's, I wonder why I don't like playing it now.
--
Rick Stone
website: www.rickstone.com
Some of My Other sites: www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
www.facebook.com/rickstonemusic www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
www.reverbnation.com/rickstone www.youtube.com/jazzand
www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand http://jazzguitarny.ning.com
rpjazzguitar
might not be able to in an acoustically perfect situation. When I hear
tracks on the radio, I have no idea. Others tell me they can tell. I
believe them.
But, of all the variables affecting sound, carved vs laminate is
probably about 6th, after player, amp, pickup, room, pick, overall
sound of the band and maybe other things.
And, the cheapest guitar in GC sounds better than the most expensive
carved top -- that is, when the carved top is feeding back.
Rick
TD
Reject it? I probably did more with it on a high level, than many,
with some of the biggest celebrities in the business, with and without
distortion, but I prefer bare knuckles. Lets be "clear" on that champ.
You dig distortion and I will be the "geezer." No problem. (;-) This
geezer has young fingers yet.
pmfan57
> pmfan57 wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 12:27 am, Rick Stone <rickst...@rickstone.com> wrote:
> >> sheetsofsound wrote:
> >>> Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> >>> the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> >>> Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
> >>> sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
> >>> When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> >>> make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> >>> thinks it sounds better.
> >>> Discuss...
> >> Here we go again :-)
>
> >> --
> >> Rick Stone
> >> website:www.rickstone.com
If is sounds good on listening back, that means it sounded good then.
It must have been that thing you mentioned relating to the feeling you
get when you played it. I like both the acoustic and electric sound
of my carved top Heritage Eagle Classic (with routed HBs). Avi
Rothbard sounds fantastic on that live recording he did with an
Artcore.
Rick Stone
But I've only had very rare instances with my carved tops "feeding back"
and it usually had to do with other factors (band too loud, using a
house amp that just turned out to be totally inappropriate for jazz,
sound-man messing with things, etc.) and I don't think that a laminate
would fair any better in these circumstances (my 16" laminate Fender
D'Aquisto used to feed back MORE than my carved top Comins 17" in those
kinds of situations).
As far as not being able to tell the difference as a listener, this
doesn't surprise me. I doubt that I could a lot of the time either.
It's got a lot more to do with the feeling and responsiveness of the
instrument when I'm playing it. Like I said, I can take a $350 Ibanez
to the gig and make it sound good.
If you could drive across the country in a beat up Honda Civic (I'm
thinking of my old '73 with no A/C , manual transmission and CHOKE!, and
you could FEEL every bump and felt like you could be crushed by trucks
that you couldn't get out of the way of because the car had NO
acceleration!) or you could drive across the country in a brand new
Lexus and be comfortable, which would you choose? Both cars would
(hopefully) get you there, and if you hid the car when you got to your
destination, your friends probably wouldn't know the difference, but I
bet you'd have a much better time getting there driving the Lexus!
TFPainter
Phil T
> Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
> sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
>
> When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> thinks it sounds better.
>
> Discuss...
To answer your actual question, which is 'why some folks assume solid
wood is better', I believe the reasons are :
1) High quality acoustic flaptops are known to all be made of solid wood
because superior sound can only be achieved that way, therefore it
logically follows that an archtop made of solid wood must also have
superior tone (and hence one made of plywood must be less than superior).
2) The thought of plywood suggests a cheaper less expensive material
associated with production line methods which logically implies a lower
quality product, compared with solid wood and the attention required of
building by hand.
I don't necessarily subscribe to either of these notions. But I believe
these are the main reasons for the perception that 'solid wood is better'.
tom walls
> Plywood
>
> http://www.zshare.net/audio/725681655094ab88/
Very nice. What are we listening to?
TFPainter
well.......that's the prototype P-16 of course :-)
http://picasaweb.google.com/tfpainter/Guitars#5438226920180247698
Stan Fong
> Just curious why folks usually assume solid wood is better? Some of
> the best tones EVER were made on 335s and 175s. I have a 339, an HR
> Fusion (recently sold) and a Painter archtop, all plywood and they all
> sound fabulous. I have played $10k guitars that don't sound as good.
>
> When I discussed this with Tom Painter, his comment was that he could
> make any kind of guitar he wanted but he chose plywood because he
> thinks it sounds better.
>
> Discuss...
I like them both for different reasons. Laminates are great for
getting a warm dark tone. They're also more rugged and stable. Solid
tops are brighter and more percussive in the attack. They have more
"pop". They also sound better acoustically. They're generally more
resonate and responsive.
IMO, we're comparing apples to oranges here. I'll take the apples and
oranges just for variety.
Stan