Significance of no forward-facing soundhole?

[Gibbo]

Hi

I recently played an acoustic guitar (nylon string) with a soundhole on the top side of the guitar body, so that it was pretty much pointing upwards to the left side of my head. However, there was no soundhole in the usual position on the top/front face of the guitar.

I must say that this provided one of the most pleasurable/fulfilling playing experiences I've ever had: the overall clarity, tone and feel was great.

Am I right, or wrong, in thinking that without the normal forward-facing soundhole, the sound of this guitar would not project so well to my audience?

[Michael Watts]

My personal experience with this kind of design is that the player gets all the power and the glory right up the nostrils and the audience gets a sound rather like the guitar is behind a closed door...

[Gibbo]

So would there be any downside to have both?

[Italuke]

I haven't played one, but just a general comment: most people erroneously think that the majority of an acoustic stringed instrument's "sound" comes out of the so-called "soundhole." Not the case.

[Gibbo]

Originally Posted by Italuke

I haven't played one, but just a general comment: most people erroneously think that the majority of an acoustic stringed instrument's "sound" comes out of the so-called "soundhole." Not the case.

I wonder, could it be that the sound emerging from the soundhole is actually coming from the vibrations of the backboard?

[MC5C]

The soundhole, wherever it is, mostly affects the resonant frequency of the box. So it's important, but sound doesn't "flow" out of the sound hole. Simply not cutting a hole in the top won't have as much effect as designing the top to not have a hole, and taking advantage of bracing and sound generating possibilities that a greatly expanded active top surface might yield. One of my favorite builds has a sound hole in the upper bout/side, a-la Ken Parker, it's an archtop but it has a very unique full, mellow tone that archtops don't usually have. The entire top of that guitar (and the back) is designed to be "live", all of it vibrates equally and generates tone. There are no transverse braces above or below a central hole to kill any possibility of helpful vibrations.

[Gibbo]

Originally Posted by MC5C

The soundhole, wherever it is, mostly affects the resonant frequency of the box. So it's important, but sound doesn't "flow" out of the sound hole.

So why is it then that this extra dimension of sound was clearly emerging from the side hole on this guitar I tried? For example, when I put my hand over it and strummed, this extra dimension of sound disappeared. From a subjective point of view, then, extra sound did seem to be emerging from this hole, and what I was hearing seemed louder and clearer than what I would have been hearing if the hole hadn't been there.

[musicman1951]

Without a sound hole how would the luthier compensate for the loss in bass boost usually provided by the sound hole?

[MC5C]

Originally Posted by Gibbo

So why is it then that this extra dimension of sound was clearly emerging from the side hole on this guitar I tried? For example, when I put my hand over it and strummed, this extra dimension of sound disappeared. From a subjective point of view, then, extra sound did seem to be emerging from this hole, and what I was hearing seemed louder and clearer than what I would have been hearing if the hole hadn't been there.

I was thinking in terms of "room sound" being potentially improved with the larger top area being engaged in vibrating, but clearly the other benefit is how you hear the guitar when you are playing it. I've done experiments with side ports, no top holes, and so on, and while my favorite is the guitar with the hole in the upper bout and side, I have one with a simple side port that exhibits exactly what you describe - great clarity of sound to the player. So I completely agree with your observation.

[nickv6]

I had a Batson guitar with only a sideport. Sitting opposite a player it was very clear that most of the sound comes from the top of a guitar, not the soundhole. It was very loud and very bass heavy. In fact I sold it as it was too bass heavy for me. Fingerpicking I couldn't draw out the trebles enough. But the soundport certainly gave a good player experience.
Nick

[TobyB]

The sound projected can be different... but the bracing etc can be made to compensate.
A luthier friend observed that giving a side port's sound to the player allows them to hear what they are playing in so much more detail that they become more expressive and thoughtful players.

[Gibbo]

Originally Posted by TobyB

A luthier friend observed that giving a side port's sound to the player allows them to hear what they are playing in so much more detail that they become more expressive and thoughtful players.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense -- much like the benefits of being able to hear yourself playing live with a good monitor.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by nickv6

I had a Batson guitar with only a sideport. Sitting opposite a player it was very clear that most of the sound comes from the top of a guitar, not the soundhole. It was very loud and very bass heavy. In fact I sold it as it was too bass heavy for me. Fingerpicking I couldn't draw out the trebles enough. But the soundport certainly gave a good player experience.
Nick

Hi nick

I played a Batson on a 'Batson Road Trip' like that (took a picture of the other guy who tested it out)…and it was overly bassy to the point of being muddy, and slightly harsh.

The front was beautiful, and from anywhere more than 6 feet in front of it sounded like a normal acoustic.

I corresponded with the Batsons about it, but they weren't apparently looking for feedback as much as advertising quotes. It was one of the few guitars with a side-port that if you gave it to me, I'd sell it.



My experience with all off-center and side-port guitars has been from out front when you get at least 5-6 feet away, they sound the same. When I sit behind the guitar and play it, they can really benefit my ability to hear the instrument.

[Alan Carruth]

The fundamentals of the lowest notes the guitar makes have wave lengths much longer than the size of the box. They radiate these sounds more or less omnidirectionally. As you go up in pitch the sound becomes more directional, particularly as you get above the open G string. On a 'normal' The very highest frequencies come off the top an out of the hole moving toward the audience. The player doesn't hear much of this directly, but gets it from room reflections. In a large, dead, or noisy room you don't get the high frequency feedback, and it can be very disconcerting. A side hole that you can look into as you play will put out some high frequency sound and fill that gap in. That's probably the main effect you're noticing. It's bound to change the way the guitar sounds out in front, but that might not be 'better' or 'worse', just 'different'.

I've done some experiments which suggest that the 'normal' sound hole location has a role in shaping the timbre of the guitar. It's complex, but there seems to be an interaction between the shape of the guitar, the 'normal' sound hole location, and the way the top and the air inside couple that helps make the sound more 'interesting'. If this is correct it has a bearing on why these features are so strongly conserved in the history of the guitar: changing them too much results in something that doesn't sound like a guitar. I'll note that it might work just as well with a large side port just above the waist that produces the same 'air' resonant pitch, although I haven't tried making one like that yet.

All of this gets really complicated as you look into it more.