View Single Post
  #8  
Old 03-19-2010, 01:00 PM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Before I respond to your views, (and perhaps bother you with new questions), Let me introduce myself (this is required due to my other thread ). I am a chemist, currently pursuing Ph.D., a guitar enthusiast, and have wide range of interests. I have been interested in guitars for like 4 years, and in guitar construction for last 6 months. I will be experimenting with guitar construction, and may write a research project as well, but not before completing my thesis (ca. 6 months). Thank you all for sharing this with me. It means a lot to me. I appreciate it. Keep it up .

First off, I should notice here that I will not be able to play any of these guitars in near future (at least next 1 year, geographical constrains!), and hence these questions . Having said that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperB23 View Post
To your first question, I think the Cantilevered necks, the combo of the thicker tops and misplaced sound hole all help with sustain and you hear it big time when you play a McPherson.
Hi Bobby, Thanks for dropping in. I gather that there IS a remarkable difference! Nice to know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperB23 View Post
I've noticed McPherson guitar really rely on those medium strings to drive that thicker top, lights don't work IMO.
Due to heavy construction, IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperB23 View Post
On the Batson guitars I've noticed that when you play one they sound more like a standard flat top to the player but a little more like a archtop to the listener. ... It seemed like the guitar was the best of what I like in a high quality archtop mixed with a flattop.
Pretty well summary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperB23 View Post
Of all the guitars I've played from both these brands they have all been very high quality.
Right. I believe this is quite obvious for such guitars that go for such $$$$s IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcmusic7 View Post
I'm not sure how well the cantilevered neck/fretboard works, but it sure looks cool. I've heard that part of the top is relatively dead, but every little detail that can help, does. I think the expertise of a luthier would perhaps be able to speak more articulately on the actually effect of them.
I had the same confusion ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcmusic7 View Post
I love their newer bracing system(s)...
There was even an older bracing system(s)?...I didn't knew about that! Can you tell us more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcmusic7 View Post
I've owned my Batson for about a month now. Their sound is truly unique and original. The absence of the soundhole on the top does add a nice color to the instruments voice. You really have to play one and hear it in person, I think. Words can't describe sound well enough... That said, Bobby's observations about Batsons are well put and give a fair generalization. I think my Batson is the best playing guitar I own. The neck's profile and setup are just remarkable.
I'm afraid, I would not be able to try anyone of them in near future, but I share the sentiment that sound is indeed very difficult to describe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drcmusic7 View Post
Hopefully this helps...
Oh yes , It does. Thanks for the beautiful pictures, Danny .

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
These guitars aren't for everyone.
Why so? On the basis of tone/sound? Non-traditional Build? or Price tag?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
I've played several McPherson's and like some more than others. Some really put out and others less so.
Well, but I guess it's true about every other guitar, let it be Gibson/Martin/Batson/Tom Bills, No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
It's got a tone that is kind of a combination of an archtop and a flattop.
I gather that it's a common feeling about Tom Bills and Batsons! This is getting more interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
Tom builds some amazing archtops, and you might want to check those out as well. He has a hybrid, with an arched top and top sound hole like a flattop.
I know about his KIWI archtop, but will dig more into this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
He's not shy about experimenting.
Exactly. That's the reason he is being discussed here!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
To answer your question about the sound hole and doubling the area of the soundboard vs volume, no it doesn't make the guitar twice as loud. With the sound hole on the side, I think what it mainly does is put the sound right in the players face. I think the side sound hole design puts the player in the front row. It's very cool. It's got a delicious bass response, as well.
This is what I am after. First hand info, not sponsored testimonials or youtube demos. I was quite skeptical about the doubling of sound, and I was convinced that the tone is surely going to be affected by enlarged soundboard (I guess for good!), sound level/volume might be more comparatively, not double though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hilyard View Post
Some photos of mine and a few recordings.
Thanks for the recordings David, I am listening them again and again as I write this to get hold of the tone (!), In the meantime - well played!

Quote:
Originally Posted by $ongWriter View Post
Not familiar with Tom Bills....sorry
Try his site, http://tbguitars.com/ or google him. I read somewhere that Batson brothers were inspired by Tom's designs, (in some interview I suppose).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
First off, I never played a Batson or McPherson, and just one Bills, very briefly. But I have built guitars with offset soundholes and very small top soundholes and large side ports. More often than not I elevate the fretboard and neck extension over the top.
Hi Howard, Nice to have a luthier in the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
1. This is not actually a cantilever in engineering terms, because there is no load on the end of the board. But it sounds cool and techie to call it that. Actually, the neck on any guitar is a cantilever, since there is a load on the unsupported end. But I digress.
Right, But that's what they are referred/advertised as, cantilevered neck/fretboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
In practice, very little difference. Some of my best guitars have had the fretboard glued to the top in the conventional way. I have reasons other than sound for doing elevated extensions.
Can I ask what reasons? I guess better access to upper frets, and I have noticed that first hand. Or structural reasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
2. Neither in theory nor in practice can this "'almost' double" the sound. Pure marketing hype. What percentage of the top is the soundhole occupying? Then consider that it is in a less active part of the top. Most sound comes from the lower bout. Then consider that it is venting reflected sound from the underside of the top. Even in theory the gain would be slight.
Well, in theory it should have a considerable effect, IMHO. Let me explain my point of view. The sound hole only occupies say 7-10% area of the top (so it should not be SO MUCH important), but it is accompanied by heavy structural adjustments (bracing) and the neck joint is just above it. This are precisely two reasons why upper bout is acoustically less active/dead. What other reason can there be for the upper bout to be less active/dead? Batson and Tom Bills remove most of the heaviness and thus CLAIM almost double top area. Of course, there is some marketing hype involved, but I believe, as their designs evolve, the fraction of marketing hype will decrease and actual benefits, if any, will be evident. As we have noticed above, Bobby and David have noticed detectable (to be moderate) benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
3. No idea. I do notice that the Batson site is difficult to navigate, though.
My feeling as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
4. I guess by now I should stop being surprised when people read stuff on a guitar company's site that was written by someone who does advertising copy and take it literally.
Well said. But, had I believed everything, I would not have asked this questions! I know how sites are made (I make websites, project based) and how things are advertised (I do consultancy for ad firms, project based). Even those buying these "unusual" instrument won't spend some thousand $s for nothing. Being a luthier yourself, I think you have suffered most from (mostly unreasonable) skepticism of guitar players! NOBODY takes it literally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
Other things: the guitar has been developed over centuries by a lot of smart people who were willing to experiment. They were not unaware of developments in the physics of musical instruments, which were pretty much all worked out 150 years ago. But there is never a shortage of new builders who think they are first person ever to apply some science to the instrument.
That's very true, But nothing is perfect (or there would not be any metaphor "HOLY GRAIL" ). Guitars did evolve from lutes, and with efforts of you all (luthiers), The guitars may/will evolve into something more exotic or at the least, positively different! We already know something called electric guitar.

I would again assert, your inputs mean a lot to me. Keep flowing the stream of information ".

Last edited by archtopGeek; 03-19-2010 at 01:09 PM.
Reply With Quote