|
|
#1
09-27-2015, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Loar LH 600/700.Acoustic Volume Compare
Im interested in The Loar LH 600 - or 700..Been looking around at what people are saying.
Some comments were that it is LOUD in volume and doesn't do subtle very well.This was in comparison to the vintage Gibson "L-50" & "L-5" (all with a 16 inch lower bout im guessing) The reason i am concerned about the volume of the loar (have never owned a archtop before)is i want it for singer/songwriter type- Folkie Blues stuff... Some bare fingerpicking and strum.And want it to sit behind the vocals when needed,not struggle with it overpowering the voice all the time. So can the Loar LH 600 do subtle when it wants to? (as the Gibson L-50 etc) And would it be louder in general than a will built Dreadnought say ? I guess keeping the string action low would help... All acoustic not wired up,thanks. 
|
|
#2
09-27-2015, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't like comparing volumes of different style guitars but I will say that I've attended acoustic jams with my 700 and it works just fine alongside dreadnoughts. No problems. The worry of the The Loar's in general is make sure you get one with as much room as possible to lower the string height at the bridge.The neck angle on some is marginal and you end up with higher than perfect action. I suspect those guitars excel with big strings and high rhythm volume, but suffer when attempting the more subtle stuff.
|
|
#3
09-27-2015, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Odd that I don't see archtops in singer/songwriter applications more often. I use oval hole archtops all the time for the jazzy/bluesy stuff I tend to write. They work quite well.
Wouldn't worry about too much volume. You will learn to play it at the volume you want to hear. It's more a question of the timbre you're shooting for. Archtops have a different sound envelope compared to flat tops. More initial impulse, less sustain and less natural reverberation. When someone says they have a 'dry' sound you might think that implies something bad, but it really isn't. Just different. Keep hearing about Loar and neck angle around here.. seems you should check that out before taking the plunge.
__________________
Spook Southern Oregon Last edited by Spook; 09-28-2015 at 12:22 AM.
|
|
#4
09-28-2015, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ArchtopGuy & Spook thanks for your thoughts that really does help out a lot.
And its good to know your using the archtop for S/S writer type stuff !..im OK with it being a different sound from the flat top.And having to change my playing style to suit..I did play the LH 300 in passing about a year ago, when i wasn't really into or looking for an archtop.. (Played alongside some vintage 30s Parlour guitars)I don't remember it being overly loud.. From what you've said i need to try to get one with a good neck angle.. Maybe it would be overly loud if the neck angle was wrong.And with no adjustment to go down in height,with an already high ish string height I would be ok with lowering the bridge,if that was a good fix. Think i will ask a couple of retailers about the neck angle/string height of the one they have in stock.See what they say.At least if did return they would know why. Last edited by mahoriver; 09-28-2015 at 10:51 AM.
|
|
#5
09-28-2015, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are a few demos of both instruments on YouTube - different material by and large (chord solo or "classical archtop" - both of which they do exceptionally well for their price, BTW) but they'll give you an idea of what to expect in terms of tone...
|
|
#6
09-29-2015, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(i have already played the LH300 as mentioned above& seen the vids) It was in relation to comments i read about the the 600/700 not being subtle in volume/loud compared to the vintage gibson archtops its inspired by.. But im now think that is because some of these Loars come with the neck angle set wrong. And with no adjustment at the bridge to go down if needed. (I did read the other thread about lowering the bridge,removing material.Sounds doable)Thanks anyway
|
|
#7
11-06-2015, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LH-700 owner
I own an LH-700 and a 1933 Gibson L-7. Sort of the same guitar....kinda. The Loar is a fine guitar. Much louder than my L-7. The dealer that I bought the Loar from described it as a sonic cross between a 16" Gibson and an old Epiphone. For me, nothing sounds like old wood for the subtle nuances it conveys, but the Loar is a very respectable and versatile guitar, particularly after it breaks in. Expect to do a setup up to get the frets feeling nice.
|
|
#9
11-10-2015, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have an LH-700. I don't know how it compares to a Gibson, but on the other points, I think it would work well for singer songwriter, if that is the sound you are after. Personally I really like the "dry" sound for both jazz and flatpicking and tasteful strumming. IMHO it doesn't quite work as well for fingerpicking. I still finger pick on it - it still works - I've even been playing some slide on it.
As for the neck angle, I'm not sure what it should be but I did sand quite a lot off the bridge to get the action down. Perhaps the back angle isn't enough? Anyway I got it to a place that works well for me and the action is consistent all the way up the neck now. Even though I use 12s on my flatops I like 13s on the Loar. EDIT: I take that back. I've been doing some fingerpicking since posting this and really enjoying it. It's just a different beast to a flattop, and as such expectations and approach is different.
__________________
National Resophonic NRP 12 Fret Loar LH-700-VS Archtop Eastman E8-OM Herrmann Weissenborn Recording King RP-10 Recording King RG-35-SN Lapsteel Maton 425 12-string ESP 400 series telecaster Eastman T485 Deering Americana Banjo My Youtube Last edited by tdq; 11-11-2015 at 04:18 PM.
|
|
#10
11-11-2015, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
