guildzilla
Senior Member
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.
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.