X series Archtops unplugged

[guildzilla]

Every A-50 or X-50 I've had in my hands has been a winner.

I don't think I'm delusional in thinking that most of the Hoboken-era hollowbody guitars have this acoustic potential if you aim for it. As do the Westerly archtops (just not quite as much, IMO) Not dazzling but definitely interesting, cool to the ear and useful. I include the Starfire II/III, the T-100's and T-50's and the CE-100's. As long as the guitar doesn't have a sound post or semi-hollow construction - like a Starfire IV - I've tended to enjoy and appreciate what it can do unplugged, with or without PB's (but not with flat wounds).

The M-65 is an exception, as well. The small body and limited surface area of the top doesn't give you much acoustically.

Whether laminated spruce, mahogany or maple, the Hoboken archtops have a lively, woody sound. I'm not dissing the Westerly and later archtops but I think the Hoboken tops are thinner and more resonant. Playing unplugged I think you can hear the difference in more volume and a more dynamic tone.

 

[Steve Hoffman]

Agreed. I have a Stratford A-350 and it's perfectly balanced acoustically. Like it was voiced by someone who really appreciated a rich, full tone.

Of course they probably sold 20 of those in total so it didn't last long but it really was the Golden Age Of Guild...

 

[guildzilla]

Maybe Carlo Greco made that A-350 top, Steve. It's the same carved top as an AA isn't it?

It probably perpetuates an inaccurate myth to suggest this, but when I hear the qualities I'm trying to describe in this thread I'm always thinking Carlo Greco was here.

Either way, I think Guild, from the early days into at least the late-60's, really wanted its electric archtops to sound nice before they got plugged in. Perhaps not the top priority, but I think they felt it was important.

 

[Steve Hoffman]

I'm sure he did. It was his "thing", right? The carving (in the light) is just a delight to look at. Whoever had this guitar never played it, that's for sure. It's basically new from 52 years ago.

It's a beautiful looking and beautiful sounding instrument. To put a pickup in the thing would be sacrilege. I wish I could post a pic of it here..

 

[Brad Little]

When I had .014s on my X-170, it was good enough to play as a rhythm guitar in some situations and was loud enough to use as a practice instrument, but nobody would mistake it for a flat top (or a solid archtop). Since I got my Artist Award, I put lighter strings and have only played it amplified.
Brad

 

[guildzilla]

Yes, the X-170 has a pretty heavy sound post which definitely inhibits the movement and acoustic volume of the top. I played the catch and release game with two X-170's. Loved everything about each of them, except the unplugged thing which wasn't there at all.

The X-170 prioritizes mitigation of feedback and pays no homage to unplugged sound. The model shows how the design priorities evolved with Guild archtops. It's interesting stuff.

Try a set of 12-53 PB's on the AA, Brad. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's worth more than $8 to check it out, IMO.

 

[waterpolo.dude]

Does the x-175 have a soundpost, same as the x-170?

 

[matsickma]

No. But some X500's do.

M

 

[Brad Little]

Try a set of 12-53 PB's on the AA, Brad. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's worth more than $8 to check it out, IMO.

It had flatwound 12s on it when I got it, not sure what kind. I've got Thomastik GB flatwound 14s on it now, they're pretty good, although I think the low 'E' could be a little brighter. I did have a set of PBs on her for a while, probably 13s. I may go back to them or try a combination next time.
Brad

 

[Leonarcho]

I have owned two '70s X-175s and although they didn't sound too bad acoustically they sounded a lot better when plugged in(especially to my '66 Vibrolux Reverb). I have also owned four Artist Awards and of course they all sounded quite good acoustically but surprisingly enough my old '58 X-550 sounded exceptionally good acoustically and then, when plugged in, whew! Great guitar. Wish I had it back. Still have the old brown case with the New York brass label to remember it by.

 

[yettoblaster]

...my old '58 X-550 sounded exceptionally good acoustically and then, when plugged in, whew! Great guitar...

I had a '54 Gibson ES-175 like that: great sound acoustically: even better than a '51 L-4C acoustic with a carved spruce top I had at the same time. They must've had old growth plywood back then.

 

[Leonarcho]

I have owned a '49 ES-175(still have the original near mint hardshell case), a '53 ES-175(still have the hardshell alligator case it came in) and a near mint '55 ES-175. All of them sounded great acoustically and then, when plugged in to that single P-90, they really shone. Something about a 16" shortscale archtop that really does it for me, solid top or laminated. I also owned a 1953 Gibson L-50, carved top and laminated sides and back, no pickup or cutaway, that was a very fine guitar acoustically. Probably the best, though, from a purely acoustical vantage point, was a 1940 L-7 with picture frame inlays.

John

 

[Steve Hoffman]

I've played most Guild archtops acoustically and my 1978 Artist Award is without a doubt the best sounding of any of my archtops including my Gibsons.

The one exception is my 1947 Gibson Super 400. This is an acoustic monster. Amazing tone, big, loud, rich and tuneful. My theory is that the non-cutaway design really helps with resonance.

 

[yettoblaster]

...My theory is that the non-cutaway design really helps with resonance.

Certainly LOOKS better, in my view.

And I don't doubt that keeping things more or less symetrical could help resonance.

I understand cutaways and certainly they have their place - and for some music I have played I've been glad the guitar had one - but there's something classic and intriguing to me about a non-cutaway archtop, or even a cutaway ACOUSTIC archtop with no pickups added on to break up the lines. Really a time when luthiers were required for even production floors in factories. The Epiphone guys who went over to Guild were really making art pieces I think (and the Gibson guys too). Even Gretsch had some models with the right idea, and off course other ideas that got popular and are intriguing in their own rite. But a non-cut archtop is a thing of beauty the way I think.

 

[Steve Hoffman]

After playing this non-cutaway Super 400 some more and comparing to other archtops old and new, it's still the king.

I think guitar makers went a bit wrong when they designed cutaway guitars. The acoustic tone suffered. Oh well..

 

[yettoblaster]

...wrong when they designed cutaway guitars...

Agreed. For some music a cutaway is handy if you need to show off, but there's no money up there. :wink:

 

[Steve Hoffman]

You and I are probably the only two people who dig non-cutaways. Oh, well. They have sound of their own, that's for sure. 8)

 

[yettoblaster]

You and I are probably the only two people who dig non-cutaways...

Those Godin 5th Avenues are selling to somebody - maybe they'll start a trend.