Acoustic bass questions

[rahock]

i didn't get a case with my olympia so you came out way ahead on that deal, rick.

Somebody bought a Tacoma and got a gig bag .When I bought the Olympia ,last of either brand in the store, the only thing it would fit in was a beautiful hard shell Tacoma case, so it was MINE . Probably worth more than the bass.
Rick

[nofi]

i got mine over ebay. i'm lucky it arrived in one piece. no, not even a gig bag. i dragged it around until i found one that fit, barely.

[Granny Gremlin]

Go back and reread what I said: compare an acoustic archtop guitar to a flattop of the same size and the flattop will easily have more fundamental. And size for size, it would be extremely rare to find an archtop with as thin a top as a flattop.

How about you read what I said, eh?  Show me an archtop of comparable size to a dreadnaught.  The only ones I can think of are a) not actually proper acoustics (i.e. sustain block + cutouts in the top for standard pickups) or b) 5K+ boutique jazz guitars which neither of us are likely to ever get our hands on (and with these I am not sure they are similar size; just looks like it on the internet).

Sure, the tops won't be as thin as some better flat tops, but are often carved from a single solid piece; more than makes up for it (glue, i.e. constrained layers) between the plies deadens the sound much more than a few extra mm of wood will.

You clearly don't know enough about design to know whether or not an Earthwood with a solid arched top and back would be bassier. You also don't understand why archtops use the typical bridge and trapeze tailpiece vs. the flattop bridge, or else you wouldn't have wondered why ABGs don't use them. There is a lot more to design that just substituting a different type bridge or substituting an arched top.

Ouch.  Don't be so condescending; doesn't look good on you. Especially when this is not rocket science.

I know why the different bridges are used; it's predominantly down to not having enough flat surface area on a archtop to mount anything else but a floating saddle (nor enough depth of wood to use something screwed or posted in).  There's no reason not to use a trapeze on a flat top guitar (and in fact I have seen flat top 6 banger acoustics with trapeze tailpeices often.... just not basses).  This was all thought out centuries ago and tradition/expectations (as well as certain people being fetishists about one or the other sounding better) have developed over time.

There's a reason arched body upright basses have a lot of bass: they have huge bodies to move the needed amount of air. The only way to get even remotely near that with the guitar-sized body of an ABG is with the flattop designs that exist. If archtops of the same size could get an equal amount of both bass and projection as the flattop ABGs, you can bet the market would be full of them.

The market argument ignores one reality I have brought up repeatedly: production (and therefore retail) costs.  Archtops are more labour intensive to make.  So nice non sequitor there. You make this argument all the time so I have to point out that lack of something existing on the market means nothing other than it is not (in a production company's point of view, which may or may not be correct) economically feasible/sustainable to produce. It does not in any way indicate that what does exist is better; merely overall more actractive/easy to sell, which is not the same thing. History has shown repeatedly that pricepoint is a much more significant factor than "betterness."  It's like someone in the 20s saying that metal edges on skis are not superior because they don't exist on the market.  ... oh and archtop ABGs do exist (but are really expensive) so game, set,and match on that score (see link provided by someone a few pages ago).

Otherwise, this is exactly what I said.  More volume (in the mathematical sense of the word, not in the auditory one).  Now it is you who is knowledge  deficient  (though physics/geometry vs 'design'.... also economics as mentioned above; glass houses) because if you have 2 bodies of IDENTICAL SIZE,  put a flat top/back on one and arched on the other.  Which one has the larger volume of air inside?

NOT the flat top.

Arched top/back make a body bigger (are you assuming that the underside of an archtop is flat or something?  only on shitty ones or solidbody archtops).

And indeed I have been saying that ABGs, to be more acoustically useful, need bigger bodies than those designed for use on a 6 banger tuned a full octave higher.  Granted, just adding an arched top/back to the same size body won't get you there, but it won't hurt either (barring other factors I have mentioned).  That is all.  

[Dave W]

How about you read what I said, eh?  Show me an archtop of comparable size to a dreadnaught.  The only ones I can think of are a) not actually proper acoustics (i.e. sustain block + cutouts in the top for standard pickups) or b) 5K+ boutique jazz guitars which neither of us are likely to ever get our hands on (and with these I am not sure they are similar size; just looks like it on the internet).

What are you talking about? Why do you keep equating one size of flattop with all sizes? You can't be thickheaded enough to think all flattop guitars are dreadnoughts. Again, I said size for size.

Sure, the tops won't be as thin as some better flat tops, but are often carved from a single solid piece; more than makes up for it (glue, i.e. constrained layers) between the plies deadens the sound much more than a few extra mm of wood will.

So you admit that they aren't as thin.

Ouch.  Don't be so condescending; doesn't look good on you. Especially when this is not rocket science.

You make up half-cocked theories with no basis in fact and no evidence but your own flawed logic. This is hardly the first time.

I know why the different bridges are used; it's predominantly down to not having enough flat surface area on a archtop to mount anything else but a floating saddle (nor enough depth of wood to use something screwed or posted in).  There's no reason not to use a trapeze on a flat top guitar (and in fact I have seen flat top 6 banger acoustics with trapeze tailpeices often.... just not basses).  This was all thought out centuries ago and tradition/expectations (as well as certain people being fetishists about one or the other sounding better) have developed over time.

That's not why different bridges are used. You obviously have no idea why and are just making stuff up off the top of your head.

The market argument ignores one reality I have brought up repeatedly: production (and therefore retail) costs.  Archtops are more labour intensive to make.  So nice non sequitor there. You make this argument all the time so I have to point out that lack of something existing on the market means nothing other than it is not (in a production company's point of view, which may or may not be correct) economically feasible/sustainable to produce. It does not in any way indicate that what does exist is better; merely overall more actractive/easy to sell, which is not the same thing. History has shown repeatedly that pricepoint is a much more significant factor than "betterness."  It's like someone in the 20s saying that metal edges on skis are not superior because they don't exist on the market.  ... oh and archtop ABGs do exist (but are really expensive) so game, set,and match on that score (see link provided by someone a few pages ago).

Mass produced archtop guitars exist at reasonable prices (e.g. Godin 5th Avenue); no, they will never be as inexpensive as the cheapest flattops but we weren't talking about being the rock-bottom cheapest either. There's no doubt an archtop ABG could be mass produced at a reasonable price. If they could produce more fundamental than a flattop ABG, they would sell. They can't, except in your imagination.

Otherwise, this is exactly what I said.  More volume (in the mathematical sense of the word, not in the auditory one).  Now it is you who is knowledge  deficient  (though physics/geometry vs 'design'.... also economics as mentioned above; glass houses) because if you have 2 bodies of IDENTICAL SIZE,  put a flat top/back on one and arched on the other.  Which one has the larger volume of air inside?

NOT the flat top.

Arched top/back make a body bigger (are you assuming that the underside of an archtop is flat or something?  only on shitty ones or solidbody archtops).

And indeed I have been saying that ABGs, to be more acoustically useful, need bigger bodies than those designed for use on a 6 banger tuned a full octave higher.  Granted, just adding an arched top/back to the same size body won't get you there, but it won't hurt either (barring other factors I have mentioned).  That is all.  

Yes, the archtop of equal size would have slightly more air volume, I never said or implied otherwise. But it will NOT have more fundamental, thanks to top thickness, bridge design, bracing and possibly other factors.

Look, even the $7500 Ribbecke Halfling blurb says ""The beauty of this guitar is that it combines the articulation and projection of the arch top, and bass response of a flat top." The maker of a $7500 hybrid admits that a flattop has more bass. But you know better. 

[rahock]

A lot of the old arch tops from the 20s-30s were pretty deep bodied. My dad had an old Cromwell from that era. They were bought by Gibson , who continued the fat body arch top for a few years with little or no changes.
Rick

[Rob]

A lot of the old arch tops from the 20s-30s were pretty deep bodied. My dad had an old Cromwell from that era. They were bought by Gibson , who continued the fat body arch top for a few years with little or no changes.
Rick

Imagine trying to be heard with an upright and horn section.  I suspect that's why they were larger.

[rahock]

Imagine trying to be heard with an upright and horn section.  I suspect that's why they were larger.

Exactly, my dad added a D'amond(I think) PU that mounted from a pickguard and slid under the strings . It sounded pretty good. He played with a guy who had a pre -WWII Martin that blew him away in both volume and tone. To be fair , that is probably the best sounding acoustic that I have ever heard .
Rick

[uwe]

My dear Canadian and Minnesotan Friends:

Do I confuse the learned if somewhat heated and needlessly aggressive discussion if I shyly state that my archtop Gibson Custom Shop ABG has acoustically (and even with its passive, yet still loud piezo, which I have never seen on any other instrument) more bass than my Washburn, Martin and Höfner flattops?   It's not louder overall, it just has more bass. I hasten to add that I have nothing against flattops and that I have until now never given the obviously very highly emotive subject of archtop vs flattop bass delivery ANY thought.  

My Gibson CS ABG does have the largest body of all four though (not deeper though and it is not that much larger either) and a ridicliously thin top to (jack)boot (so thin that playing it amped results in feedback at anything above the most docile living room volume) and it is the only one with a trapeze bridge and medium scale only. Oh, and it cost about twice to three times as much as the other three together did!  

So maybe, just maybe, a thin-top archtop ABG can create more bass than a flattop of respective size could (or at least just as much bass), but that top would have to be so very thin that it would raise issues of stability and feedbback? Maybe that is why no one makes them.

Do I get beaten over the head now too? I better get my helmet then.

[Dave W]

^ ^ ^

I don't question that your one-off has plenty of bass and a very thin top. But you're not comparing apples to apples and I'm not interested in rehashing this.

[uwe]

Oh come on, ole grouchy!

[Denis]

Dang, I had no idea the ABG, the "bass-which-is-hardly-mentioned", elicits such emotional feelings.

Thanks all for the information.