Any opinions on the differences in volume and sustain between an F-50 blonde and a D-50?
Brad Little
Brad Little
Sound of an F-50 vs. D-50
- Thread starter Brad Little
- Start date
krysh
Guildarist in the mod squad
brad,
sorry about this answer, but why don't you post a comparing file since you got both guitars?
sorry about this answer, but why don't you post a comparing file since you got both guitars?
killdeer43
Reverential Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 21,848
- Reaction score
- 113
Brad,
I have the D-50 part of the equation, so if you'll just send me your F-50 for say, oh, maybe a month or so, I'd be happy to get back to you with a complete assessment; i.e., tone, volume, sustain, etc. :wink: :wink:
I'm sort of like Dennis and wondering if this is a 'trick question.'
Cheers,
Joe
I have the D-50 part of the equation, so if you'll just send me your F-50 for say, oh, maybe a month or so, I'd be happy to get back to you with a complete assessment; i.e., tone, volume, sustain, etc. :wink: :wink:
I'm sort of like Dennis and wondering if this is a 'trick question.'
Cheers,
Joe
Yeah, I guess I should have been a little clearer on why I'm asking. I've had issues with the sound on my F-50 for a few years and I'm trying to decide if they are real or perceived. Several years ago the bridge split through the line of bridge pins, and after it was repaired it seemed to me to have lost volume and sustain. Two respected luthiers have looked at it. The first replaced the bridge plate (as well as fixing some cosmetic issues), the second said the only thing he could find was that the truss rod nut had come loose so that the neck wasn't as stable as it should be. In both cases it sounded better after, but not as good as I remembered it being. Now that I have the D-50, I'm even a little more convinced that something is wrong. It seems to me that the F-50 should be at least as loud (if not louder) than the D-50, if only because of the size of its sound chamber. It is not, nor does it sustain as long as the D-50. This is playing the same tune, same strings, same pick, same player.
Don't get me wrong, the F-50 still has great tone, but it just isn't the sound I remembered from before the bridge work. I'm almost at the point of having the bridge replaced, it seems to me that could be the only thing that will convince me that it might all be in my head (or my aging ears).
Brad
Don't get me wrong, the F-50 still has great tone, but it just isn't the sound I remembered from before the bridge work. I'm almost at the point of having the bridge replaced, it seems to me that could be the only thing that will convince me that it might all be in my head (or my aging ears).
Brad
Brad, my luthier, who has now worked on two of my F-50Rs, is in Mansfield, MA. This guy is top notch. I'll PM you his email if you want to get in touch with him. We could even have him look at yours and mine at the same time for some A/Bing...
kitniyatran
Senior Member
Could be it needs different strings or pick? :idea: Little things sometimes are bigger than they seem.
Might be. Same player, same pick. Differences? F-50 has brass bridge pins and heavy strings, D-50 has plastic bridge pins and medium strings. Both sets of strings are D'Addario PBs. I intend to put mediums on the F-50 and see if it makes a difference, although theoretically heavies should impart more motion to the top than mediums, one never knows. I do think that setting it up for the heavies has improved the sound, but it was done the same time that the bridge plate was replaced, so it is one variable that needs to be checked.MandoSquirrel said:
Brad
Dr. Spivey
Senior Member
I'd try swapping out those brass bridge pins. They can do funny things sometimes, sound good with one type of strings, dead with another. May be they worked when the bridge was starting to fail, but not now? Just an idea.
cjd-player
Senior Member
brad4d8 said:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but aren't you comparing a maple body to a rosewood body? I understand there is a dfference in body shape/size, but maple does not sustain like rosewood nor have the overtones. That's why it is often preferred as a stage guitar ... a maple body won't feed back as easily. Maple gives a strong fundamental with sharp, focused highs. Rosewood has the booming base and sparkling highs with a choir singing overtones all over the place.
The volume of a particular guitar will depend a lot upon how responsive the top is, but in general, I would never expect a maple guitar to be as loud as a rosewood.
yeah, what cjd said.
You may be right abut that, but I'm still comparing the current sound to the sound I remember from before the bridge problem. May just be my ears or brain getting older.cjd-player said:
kitniyatran
Senior Member
some instruments will respond better with lighter strings, some with heavier. It's all physics and magic.brad4d8 said:
Dane said >hen you had the “split bridge” replace, did they also replace the saddle? If yes, are you sure the saddle is the same material as the original? How is the fit of the saddle to the bridge? Dose it fit squire at the bottom and tight making a good contact for vibration transfer to the bridge? When the bridge was replaced was the old glue complepely removed, or is there a double thickness of adheasave acting like a dampner between the bridge and the sound board? Is the bridge sitting completely flush on the sound board or is there some small air pockets, where vibration transfer is again being lost?<
They didn't replace the bridge, just glued the split. I don't think they even took it off. The saddle is the original, although it now has an undersaddle pickup,a recent installation, long after the sound difference. Your thoughts about an air pocket under the bridge is what's been running through my mind, even before the new bridge plate and pickup. The new bridge plate made some improvement, but as you said if I've been playing it for a while I'd probably recognize a difference, and I've had it since 1979 or 1980, so that probably qualifies as a while.
I'll probably just have the bridge replaced, it's the only thing that will satisfy me that it's not the problem. If it doesn't restore the sound in my head, then it's all in my head or my aging ears.
Brad
They didn't replace the bridge, just glued the split. I don't think they even took it off. The saddle is the original, although it now has an undersaddle pickup,a recent installation, long after the sound difference. Your thoughts about an air pocket under the bridge is what's been running through my mind, even before the new bridge plate and pickup. The new bridge plate made some improvement, but as you said if I've been playing it for a while I'd probably recognize a difference, and I've had it since 1979 or 1980, so that probably qualifies as a while.
I'll probably just have the bridge replaced, it's the only thing that will satisfy me that it's not the problem. If it doesn't restore the sound in my head, then it's all in my head or my aging ears.
Brad
Recky
Member
Hi,
let me add that my 1974 D-50 is indeed louder and boomier than my 1981 F-50. The latter sounds more "womanly" in that it has a large bottom and an extended top; the former is more "in-yer-face" by being more middly, chimey, and incredibly loud.
My gut instinct says that I would get the bridge replaced, too. In theory, a repaired bridge should work just fine, but during a repair job like that there are a few aspects that could go wrong, causing a feebler sound.
Cheers,
Recky
let me add that my 1974 D-50 is indeed louder and boomier than my 1981 F-50. The latter sounds more "womanly" in that it has a large bottom and an extended top; the former is more "in-yer-face" by being more middly, chimey, and incredibly loud.
My gut instinct says that I would get the bridge replaced, too. In theory, a repaired bridge should work just fine, but during a repair job like that there are a few aspects that could go wrong, causing a feebler sound.
Cheers,
Recky