Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma
Today, I tested a vintage, boutique guitar (James Goodall) against a Martin Vintage series HD-28V (the Goodall guitar is mentioned in another thread).
I put them side by side and strummed to hear the difference while I stood in front of the sound hole. The Martin was a bit louder to my chagrin since I wanted the Goodall to be more "resonant." Also, Martin had more bottom while the Goodall had more mids which I tend to lean towards.
Then, I played each and the "loudness" was more apparent with the Goodall than the Martin to my surprise. As you say, I felt more of the tonal vibrations with the Goodall from its back and sides. Incidentally, I noticed that the Goodall was noticeably lighter than the Martin or Taylors for that matter.
I wonder if Goodall's build is similar in philosophy with yours, at least this particular model.
I'm mainly an electric guitar player and am used to hearing the tone right in front of my face from the amplifier or monitor speakers. I have noticed that some acoustic builders actually have the sound hole on the side of the guitar to address this.
|
Yes, I think (as do others) that a guitar with a heavier back will tend to project more volume forward. A back that is "active" tends to broadcast sound around more. I prefer the latter. I think if projection forward is really important you probably have it amplified anyway. Certainly, if someone wanted a guitar for non-amplified performances and needed that forward projection I would recomend we go with the heavier back. So it all comes down to the needs and preferences of the player. Just to confuse things a little more, it is said that a guitar with an active back is more prone to feedback when amplified. It really is a balancing act!
