The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-08-2010, 08:38 AM
cotten's Avatar
cotten cotten is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 27,040
Default Communicating Tone Clearly, And Not So

(Please excuse my asking again some questions I posted here. http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...=192916&page=3 I thought it deserved its own thread.)

Communication about guitar tone is vital, but it's also difficult. Putting into words what one's ears long to hear seems to be a real challenge. Therefore, two questions:

1. What are some words or phrases that communicate well a particular guitar tone?

2. What are some words or phrases that while often used, are too vague to be of much help?

For instance, "smokey." I'm not quite sure what that is. "Balanced," does this mean the trebles and bass are equally strong but the mids are weaker, or does it mean that a guitar is equally strong in every register?

I, too, am hoping to commission my first custom guitar before long, and need to know how to communicate my desires clearly. But, as one of our member's signature says, talking about tone is like dancing about architecture. Surely it can't be that nebulous! Or can it?

cotten
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-08-2010, 09:20 AM
Kent Chasson Kent Chasson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 909
Default

Great question!

Balanced means all registers to me.

Some of the more objective terms I like are:

-Strong Fundamental vs Strong Overtones

-Separation of notes vs Blend

-Sustain vs quick Decay

-Immediacy vs a Welling/Swelling of the sound

-Head Room

-Projection

-Volume

More subjective ones that there is still some agreement on:

-Warm

-Bright. I usually clarify this one because people frequently use it to describe the sound of a guitar with cut, strong fundamental, and quick decay. But I've heard some people use it to mean what I would call....

-Brilliant (sparkly, crystalline trebles like you often get with Brazilian)

-Open

-Punchy

-Woody

-Piano-like

-Airy

-Woof

-Rumble


I also often talk about where the sound seems to come from, the box, the face or all over.

That's a quick list of the first things to come to mind. Looking forward to hearing more responses! I'd also love to hear someone put into words what people mean by "fat" trebles. That's a term that gets used a lot but I'm always at a loss to describe it.
__________________
Chasson Guitars Web Site
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-08-2010, 09:38 AM
Ehvamone Ehvamone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 127
Default

Funny isn't it? As I was communicating to Nehemiah what I wanted in a guitar tonewise, it occurred to me that we as musicians tend to have pretty specific terminology for everything- except timbre. Whether its notes, chords, time.. we can get extremely precise.. head into tone and timbre and we barely agree on terms.
Its curious, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-08-2010, 10:32 AM
Laird_Williams Laird_Williams is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ehvamone View Post
Funny isn't it? As I was communicating to Nehemiah what I wanted in a guitar tonewise, it occurred to me that we as musicians tend to have pretty specific terminology for everything- except timbre. Whether its notes, chords, time.. we can get extremely precise.. head into tone and timbre and we barely agree on terms.
Its curious, isn't it?
Indeed! And yet timbre is so important. Research has shown that a "signature" timbre can enable listeners to identify an artist FAR quicker that other aspects of their music. Dan Levetin's excellent book, "This is Your Brain on Music," spends a lot of time and effort on timbre and how we process it. How ironic indeed, that we can't seem to find a way to talk about it with any precision.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-08-2010, 10:47 AM
Larry Pattis's Avatar
Larry Pattis Larry Pattis is offline
Humanist
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Chasson View Post
I'd also love to hear someone put into words what people mean by "fat" trebles. That's a term that gets used a lot but I'm always at a loss to describe it.

A full, thick, fundamental treble sound, with few overtones.

That's *my* interpretation (and use of) the words "fat trebles"...

...and that's what I want!
__________________
Larry Pattis on Spotify and Pandora
LarryPattis.com
American Guitar Masters
100 Greatest Acoustic Guitarists

Steel-string guitars by Rebecca Urlacher and Simon Fay
Classical guitars by Anders Sterner
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-08-2010, 11:01 AM
Tim McKnight's Avatar
Tim McKnight Tim McKnight is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morral, Ohio
Posts: 5,929
Default

Balanced [to me] means that the treble and bass response are both equal in amplitude and one does not over power the other. A quick test that I do is to pluck both strings at the same time and listen to them to see if they are both the same amplitude. Stiffer built guitars will often have a more powerful treble response while looser guitars will often have a more robust bass.

Kent made some very good responses so I will not bother repeating them but rather add a +1 to his comments.

I think words like "rich", "full", "grandiose" and "sweet" should be added to the subjective list as well.
__________________
tim...
www.mcknightguitars.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-08-2010, 11:08 AM
Michael Watts Michael Watts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 2,984
Default

As this is so utterly subjective I think it makes sense (when possible) to actually show the luthier examples of of what does it for you. There are certain specific goals that you can communicate such as balance in tonal spectrum, volume etc. Think of the things that you really want and DON'T want in a guitar and where possible show your working and provide examples! Your choice of luthier should (I would say) be someone who will be playing to his/her strengths in the build. If you can match what you want to play to what they want to build then all will be well!

BTW congrats Cotten, thank you for your contribution.
__________________
www.michaelwattsguitar.com
Album Recording Diary
Skype Lessons
Luthier Stories
YouTube
iTunes
Instagram

Guitars by Jason Kostal, Strings by Elixir, Gefell Mics and a nail buffer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Brackett Instruments Brackett Instruments is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Grover NC
Posts: 5,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Pattis View Post
A full, thick, fundamental treble sound, with few overtones.

That's *my* interpretation (and use of) the words "fat trebles"...

...and that's what I want!

That's "fat trebles" to me too. I'll add that "fat" trebles aren't brittle at all either.


Back to communicating tone. I find it really helpful to listen to some of the same guitars, or even recordings as a client. For me it's really helpful for someone to say, "kinda like guitar A, but with the bass response of guitar B, and the sustain of guitar C". That way I know we're hearing the same thing.
__________________
woody b politically incorrect since 1964
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-08-2010, 11:23 AM
kirkham13 kirkham13 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bisbee AZ
Posts: 1,429
Default

Liquid glassy sounds....brittle.... (koa/walnut)
Round full clear....bell like.... with or without fast decay....
Woody.... (transparent with colorations of maple,brazilian,oak,walnut)
__________________
Sakazo Nakade Flamenco 1964
Bourgeois D Adi Tasmanian Blackwood 2011
Tom Anderson Strat 1990s
Schecter California Classic Strat 1990s
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-08-2010, 12:31 PM
Brent Hutto's Avatar
Brent Hutto Brent Hutto is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,276
Default

Back when I was taking viola lessons I had my teacher help me audition several instruments. He played the same Bruch Romanze on each one, at my house where we could comfortably settle in and listen under ideal conditions.

While he was playing one of the violas there was just a moment where I was completely overcome by a sense memory of visiting my Great Aunt's house which was dimly lighted, furnished decades out of date and had a characteristic dusty/woody smell.

The scent memory in particular was incredibly vivid. I've never had a sound provoke such a strong pseudo-experience of an old memory like that, before or since. This was years after my Great Aunt's demise and the subsequent demolition of the house to make room for another.

So what would you call that sound?

And yes, that was the viola I purchased!
__________________
Grabbed his jacket
Put on his walking shoes
Last seen, six feet under
Singing the I've Wasted My Whole Life Blues
---Warren Malone "Whole Life Blues"
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-08-2010, 01:05 PM
justonwo's Avatar
justonwo justonwo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,120
Default

Here's an example of what I wrote to Mike for my Baranik. I stole the template from someone on the forum, but can't remember who. It covers a pretty wide range of very specific requirements, I think.

Sound:
Generally speaking, the sound I’m going for blends many of the features I like in both OM and dreadnaught style guitars. From the dreadnaught side of things, I would like to borrow the big, round bass response and depth of sound. From the OM side of things, I would like the presence and clarity in the highs and mids. The thing I have not liked about many of the traditional OMs is the smallness and boxiness of the sound.
I would like to blend the sound of these two guitars to a certain extent. I like the depth of the dreadnaught bass, though it can get a bit muddy and muddled. I like a bass that’s authoritative but not overwhelming. Something that’s punchy and responsive without sounding small.
These days I seem to be playing mostly fingerstyle with the flesh of my fingers, though I do like a guitar with headroom that will hold up when I dig in a bit with a pick.
Depth:
The reverb you hear in a great dread (I hear it in spades in my Goodall Standard) is at least partially responsible for the “bigness” and heft of the tone in those guitars. That kind of reverb added to the bass and treble frequencies in particular would be ideal for my acoustic.
Clarity:
Great clarity gives notes a good definition and a clear, glassy edge. It helps a full guitar, rich with overtones, keep good note separation. To request a “metallic” guitar would be going too far, I think, especially for those times when I would play the guitar with a pick. Notes should have a definitive attack and a decay that blossoms into a nice array of overtones (how’s that for a poetic description? J)
Overtone Content:
I probably lean more toward the modern (i.e. rich overtone content) side of things than a guitar with heavy emphasis on the fundamental, especially when fingerpicking. I like a guitar with great overtone content and complexity, though not so much so that the notes run together and become muddled. Obviously, the more overtone content you have, the more you risk loss of note separation. So, to the extent possible, I’d like to balance clarity, note separation, and overtones so the guitar sounds rich but uncluttered.
Highs:
I really enjoy highs with lots of sparkle and some glassiness to them, which is the sound I hear, for example, when I switch to a new set of strings. I really like highs that are clear, chimey, and present without being excessively metallic. I don’t want to go so far that the guitar sounds ice-picky or excessively bright when using a pick. Sparkly but not brittle and sharp. And not so heavy on the high treble spectrum that the highs lose body and become thin.

Midrange:
I have a hard time describing mids. I know what it sounds like when the mids are too heavy for my tastes – like the middle setting on a Les Paul if that makes any sense. It throws the balance of the guitar off and gives the notes a certain “boingy” springy feel – quick attack and decay without much sparkle or heft. But guitars really find their voice in the mid range so it doesn’t make any sense to scoop the mids out either. Input here would be great.
Bass:
Like a great dreadnaught, I want an authoritative bass. A bass with heft and a reverb quality will keep the guitar from sounding small, in my mind. But I want to balance that with some punchiness and definition in the attack that keep the low end from sounding too much like a plucked upright bass (does that make any sense whatsoever?)
Resonance:
For the most part, the best acoustics I have played have resonated like crazy with the simplest chords – as if they could sustain themselves with only the most minimal strumming effort. They are guitars that respond well to a light touch and vibrate strongly against your body as you play them. I have noticed that the most resonant guitars, more often than not, have light-weight sound boxes.
Headroom:
I don’t plan on beating on this guitar like Pete Townshend with a Super Jumbo, but I don’t want it to fall apart if I start to get a little aggressive with the pick either. The guitar definitely shouldn’t break up when fingerpicking with the flesh of my fingers, no matter how hard I attack.
Setup:
I generally prefer necks that are near straight with average action at the nut. I really want to prevent buzzing if I pick with some authority, so the low side of average action is probably warranted here.
Neck Profile:
I’ve always been a fan of a medium round C profile. I guess I come from the Historic Les Paul world. I remember the first time I picked up my Goodall Standard, I thought, “Wow, this feels like home. Just like one of my electrics.” I don’t like too much shoulder, but I don’t like a real shallow C either. A medium “C” shape probably describes things pretty well. If it gets too thick, my smallish hands have a hard time maneuvering the fretboard. I think my Goodall is pretty much perfect. I can always send measurements if that would help.
Tone Woods:
I’m a huge fan of Spruce and Rosewood. I have a Goodall with East Indian Rosewood and Sitka and a Mustapick Arena with German Spruce and Brazilian. I’m intrigued by your choice of cocobolo as your standard wood, and would say I’m generally open to wood choices the builder thinks are best suited to my tone goals.
Weight:
I’m not saying this is always the case, but I’ve noticed that more often than not, the really light weight guitars have the most resonant, responsive, and tuneful sounds. All other things being equal, they are the best sounding guitars. I don’t know if that’s necessarily an absolute requirement, but it’s a request I would like to make.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-08-2010, 09:15 PM
cotten's Avatar
cotten cotten is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 27,040
Default

I guess with enough carefully chosen words, as justonwo has shown, tone can be described, but it's clear that some of our easily tossed out descriptions of tone should be tossed out, as in discarded as being practically meaningless.

Yet there are some words or phrases that do seem to communicate tone with some degree of agreement. "Fat trebles" is one, evidently. What are some others, and which tone descriptions can we safely do away with?

cotten
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

"Chocolatey."
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-09-2010, 12:39 PM
Shabby Chic Shabby Chic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 412
Default

I tend to separate tone into two separate realms: the notes themselves and their interaction with the air. For the notes themselves I try to describe tone via:

-response/attack: how fast or slow notes develops
-decay/sustain: how fast or slow notes die
-loudness/volume
-clarity of the fundamental: describes overtone content for bass, mids, trebles
-evenness: described best by a perceived EQ curve shape

How the notes interact with the air I think in terms like 'boxy' and 'woofy.' I like Kents description of where the sound appears to be coming from.

I find most other terms as extensions or consequences of the above with a few exceptions. It is certainly a subject worth a lot more words than I've written here...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-10-2010, 08:02 PM
cotten's Avatar
cotten cotten is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 27,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
"Chocolatey."
That's good, Howard, but I was really asking more about how guitars sound than how they taste when you kiss them...

cotten
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=