Let's Talk Archtop Tone

[rhcole]

Another post compared the sound of the X-700 to the Guild Johnny Smith. It got me interested in how others would describe different archtops.

I love 'em. Porn for old men- that's me. I can just look at a nice archtop and fall in love.

Anyway, I have three: My X-170, an Epiphone Broadway (recent), and a Gretsch Country Club (recent). They are really different from one another. At opposite ends of the spectrum are the Gretsch and the Epiphone. It amazes me that these are repros of guitars that were direct competitors for one another in the mid 50's. Same size, same scale, utterly different. The Gretsch is bright and twangy and the Epiphone is mellow and sweet. They both can play jazz, but the Gretsch likes to spit its notes out and can get nasty for the blues if asked. The Epiphone really wants to give a boxy, dark and mellow tone. What a guitar for an inexpensive import, by the way- it goes toe to toe with the others in sound and build quality.

In the middle of the two sits the Guild. It is surprisingly woody sounding for a more shallow guitar with a sound post. It utterly creams the ES-175 that I used to own and sold. It is tonally close to the Epi, but with less air. I tried a metal bridge on it for a while, and it totally changed the tone. It got a punkish attitude, and suddenly wanted to snarl a bit with some distortion.

I'd love to hear about the tones others get, and what they compare to. Has anybody ever played the ultra-expensive custom archtops out there? How are they different? What do they sound like? How do different Guilds sound compared to one another?

 

[Walter Broes]

At the time a Gretsch Country Club and Epiphone Broadway were direct competitors, both had single coil pickups - I don't think a current issue Epi really compares.


I think what I look for in an archtop is blasphemy to a lot of Jazz guys who like carved archtops - I like laminated archtops with bright single coil pickups, and metal bridges and roundwound strings....

 

[zizala]

I'm quite pleased with two single pickup hollowbodies.......a CE-100 and a T-50 both from 1960.

The CE-100 is a plywood hollowbody electric and similar in proportions to the popular ES-175, but its a tad less deep and quite comfortable to hold. The T-50 is a thin body but similarly equipped as the CE-100...lots of fun to play. Maybe not as resonant but lots of kick....its great and hard to put down. I pretty much use them both interchangeably.

I'm a jazz gal...but don't like my tone rolled off the way some players do. I prefer some edge, balance and clarity.
The brighter sound of the Franz single coil pickups really suits me well.
I do have a 1960 ES-125TD but find the P-90 to be darker than I like. Could be that particular P-90, they do vary as do the Franz's but the difference is obvious. Its tempting to sneak a Franz under that Gibson's black pickup cover!

I had an ES-175 with single P-90 for awhile on approval but sent it back as the CE-100 had all that I was looking to hear and is a great guitar to play. Sure saved some dough.....

So I'm happy to recommend some of the less pricey older amplified archtop models like the X-50, T-50, T-100 and CE-100.

Great bargains these days and very good guitars.

z

 

[Brad Little]

So I'm happy to recommend some of the less pricey older amplified archtop models like the X-50, T-50, T-100 and CE-100.Great bargains these days and very good guitars.
z

I agree. Even though I've owned (and currently own) several more expensive archtop guitars (late 40s Epiphone Zephyr Deluxe Regent, 60s Country Gent, much vaunted Ibanez ES-175 copy), the T-100D that I had for a while in the 70s stacked up very well against them. The only reasons I don't regret selling it is that I have guitars I like as much, and the friend I sold it to (lost touch with him) probably still has it.
Brad

 

[jmac]

I play my X-160 using both pickups. I always have, both when I was playing jazz exclusively, and now that I'm playing jump jive.

I like the thin strings also, 9's, and I play without a pick. Straight into a fender amp, no effects.

The result a sound that is authentic but doesn't exactly conform to any particular genre that my band draws from (blues, rockabilly, swing).

Plus its got the guildsby...which I also use no matter what I'm playing (jazz included). I can't imagine playing without the guildsby.

 

[Guild Beginner]

Amen, WB. I love to make an archtop get unwieldy with rounds and a pickup with a higher output.

 

[Paddlefoot]

I've been having a bunch of fun lately with an X-175. A well played stocker with D'Addario nickel plated round wounds on it but they are the light -heavy set (.010-.052). Gets a nice retro rock sound through a Tophat Club Deluxe 1x12 and T-Bone Walker blues is just a natural for this set up. I really like having the master vol. so I can set the pickups and tone the way I want and then adjust it as loud or soft as I want. I put off playing this one for a while because it was pretty grungy when I got it and had a lot of crackle in the pots. Well after a good clean up and some deox-it this has turned out to be quite a nice piece. This one has a 1 5/8 in. nut and I didn't think I would like that. After playing it I find that I do like it because it makes me try different ways to play things. Try stuff, you never know what you'll find out.

 

[rhcole]

How much do you guys think a laminate versus solid top affects sound? I was told laminates are harder and brighter sounding, but my Country Club with a solid spruce top is plenty bright due to single coil P/Us. Conversely, I had a Heritage 575 with a solid top that was so dark sounding I didn't like it. They guy I bought the CC from had 22 guitars, he said he thought the solid top guitars sounded brighter. Ummm...
My Epiphone with a laminate is very mellow sounding.

I really don't geddit, even though I've had plenty of guitars to compare against one another. One player said that he thinks the top is only 15% of the sound and the P/Us are the rest.

What value, then, in a carved top $10,000 archtop?

 

[AlohaJoe]

I love archtops and have quite a few... some set-pup lam tops and a number of vintage carve-tops with floating pups. Each is different and each one has a different purpose.

I'd agree that the top is maybe 15-20% of the tone, but like most things, there is a point where you pay lots more dollars for a smaller increment of improvement. A well carved top should have more overtones and thus a richer sound (but may be a bit more feedback prone). The quality of the carving or thickness of the laminate, the choice of woods, the pickup, a player's attack, the age of the instrument etc all interact in subtle ways, so the equation is very complex and each combination is unique

The biggest advantage of having a carved guitar is when playing acoustically. When you cut a hole (or two) in the top, bolt in pickups and drill a few more holes for knobs and switches you lose much (but not all) of that advantage.

In new guitars, the Sadowskys and Benedettos are laminates and they're very nice in the 4K range... I've played a few and they sound great plugged in. No set pup guitar will sound as good as a floater when played acoustically. Treniers are carved and the Collings is carved. If you like beautiful archtop eye candy, be careful looking at this baby... you might hurt yourself. And no, I don't have one, but maybe if we all chipped in... let's see 8,500 people at $1 each...

Collings AT16 16" carved archtop acoustic.
http://www.12fret.com/new/Collings_AT16_Archtop_pg.html

 

[Paddlefoot]

I'd say Joe is zeroing in on the perfect answer. Top may be 15-20% of the tone but there are so many variables in the construction that it would be hard to say what exactly give a guitar it's unique sound. In Bennedetto's book on building an archtop guitar he talks pretty extensively about tap tuning the top itself and then also tap tuning the top and the body together. Consider that much of the construction and art, if not science, behind archtops comes from violin and archtop mandolin construction. Then you have the experimenters who added sound posts, blocks and solid center sections. I recently heard that one of the main differences in the Bennedetto Guilds was a complete change in the braces for the top. Also you have cost saving changes such as press formed laminate spruce tops like on an X-500. Then you have the folks who say a fatter or thinner neck sounds different or one made of maple as compared to mahogany. All of this adds up to a bunch of variations. You're probably just going to have to listen to a lot of guitars to find the one that really grabs you.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

For jazz, it has to be a deep body with flatwounds. I might be the only one south of the north pole who puts 10 flatwounds on a deep jazz box. Most pups sound good to me, but there has to be two. The exception is my A350, which has 11 nickels when I use the sliding pup, bronze when I don't. Other solid-top boxes are out of my price range.

For rock and country

I like laminated archtops with bright single coil pickups, and metal bridges and roundwound strings....

plus a bigsby, all of which are mandatory for maximum twangification and coolicitousness.

For blues, everything sounds good to me.

 

[AlohaJoe]

Here's some excellent notes on this subject from Rik Wright. I posted some of this a year or so ago so it may sound familiar to some. I think he really nails it down. Italics for emphasis are mine.
http://www.rikwright.com/Content/Content.aspx?page=custom&pgid=280

Choosing an Archtop Guitar

In my opinion, the most important instrument characteristics when purchasing an archtop guitar are the following:

* Neck Profile
* Mounted versus floating pick-up
* Laminate versus tap-tuned carved top
* Body Size and Depth

All of these need to be weighed against three important factors:

* Physical comfort
* Playing style and venue
* Amplification

As I stated above, I often hear from guitarists who say that they’ve spent a ton of money on an expensive carved-top instrument but are unhappy with how it plays or sounds. The reason almost always boils down to one of these topics:

a) Neck Profile – Neck profile is perhaps the most important consideration in my enjoyment of an instrument. I have fairly small hands for a guitarist, and too long of a scale length or a neck that is too deep causes me discomfort in my wrists if I am playing the guitar for three sets a night. Besides comfort, I find I am more technically accurate when playing on a fretboard that has a 25 inch scale. I have owned guitars with 25.4 and 25.5 inch scales, but they aren't my main instruments. Occasionally I do like the larger scale length and a bit wider neck when accompanying a vocalist where I am playing a lot of bass lines as part of my performance.

b) Mounted versus Floating Pick-ups – Most guitarists base their blueprint of what a jazz guitar sounds like on a full humbucking pick-up, yet for some reason often purchase guitars with floating mini-humbuckers or PAF pick-ups. If the tone you are going for is Kenny Burrell, Joe Pass, Jim Hall or Wes Montgomery – they were all playing full humbucking pick-ups mounted in the top of guitar. There are some excellent jazz pick-ups on the market but you need to know where to find them. My favorite pick-ups are Eric Miller’s custom wound Seymour Duncan’s and Roger Sadowsky’s custom wound DiMarzio pick-ups. I also recommend Seymour Duncan’s Benedetto pick-up and Gibson’s 57 Classic which can be purchased “off the shelf”. To me, floating pick-ups are best utilized on tap-tuned carved tops where the instrument is meant to be played with a good portion of the acoustic tone projecting into the room and amplification being used just to augment the acoustic tone. Both Bartolini and Kent Armstrong make nice hand wound adjustable floating pick-ups, but if you go with the Kent Armstrong pick-up make sure you buy one made by Kent himself (through a dealer like Joe Vinikow of Archtop.com) and not the cheap mass-produced pick-ups sold through WD Music.

c) Laminate versus tap-tuned carved top – Most of the great jazz guitar recordings you’ve heard were recorded with laminate top guitars like a Gibson ES-175 or Jimmy D’Aquisto’s infamous Jim Hall model. For performing on large stages where my tone is almost completely the sound of the amplifier, I prefer these instruments or their modern day successors like Roger Sadowsky’s Jim Hall model or Eastman’s John Pisano model. However, classic instruments like Wes Montgomery’s L5 or Johnny Smith’s Guild Artist Award were fully carved instruments.

Now there is certainly a lot of value in a carved-top instrument. Personally I find them more responsive than laminate top instruments, although that makes them more prone to feedback if amplified. If you are a follower of modern guitarists such as Peter Bernstein, Jack Wilkins or Howard Alden you've been listening to the full-bodied sound of a carved-top guitar. The tap-tuned instruments are considerably livelier than the laminate arch-tops. These are instruments that are intended to be amplified just enough to enhance the acoustic resonance of the guitar in an intimate performance space.

d) Body Size and Depth – The overall balance of the guitar is often determined by the body size and depth of the instrument. For physical playing comfort I often prefer instruments with a 16 inch bout and less than 3 inch body depth. This is mostly because I find it difficult to get my arms around larger instruments and the length of my forearm is too small to have a full range of motion. The benefit is that my archtops are less prone to feedback and quite honestly I’ve never heard a significant difference between them and 17 inch guitars with 3 inch body depth. Most importantly I find that 16 inch guitars with 2.25 inch to 2.75 inch body depth tend be wonderfully balanced guitars throughout, with an even voice across the range of the instrument.