The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Archtops

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-15-2007, 11:26 AM
Forensicguy's Avatar
Forensicguy Forensicguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,644
Default What Are The Benefits of An Archtop Guitar?

I was reading something on the Taylor Forum and someone mentioned Archtop guitars.

I was wondering, what are the benefits of an archtop vs a flat-top guitar?

Now I know we may see more electric guitars with archtops, but acoustically, what does this do?

The R. Taylor line has a 65' radius top and also a flat top option (mine is the 65')... but I don't think this is technically an archtop, but I guess you could say it is...

Anyway, what are your thoughts and comments on archtops?
__________________
My Blog: www.russlowe.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-15-2007, 11:50 AM
RHolmes RHolmes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PITTSBURGH PA.(GO STEELERS!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Posts: 591
Default

Iv'e owned several arch tops & what I can tell you is this. They do not have a spruce top like an acoustic, generally they are maple.. They do not have a sound hole, they have f holes. Between the two, it makes the guitar sound way different than an acoustic especially when plugged in. The arch top sounds like an electric guitar that is way more mellow than a solid body. I started a thread/ pole the other day about your ability to hear the difference between various acoustic guitars. I admited that I am in the below average catagory in telling the difference in sounds between different guitars. In terms of the 2 types you mentioned, it's like night & day. Arch types make a great jazz guitar sound- very mellow. I guess you have to pick the right guitar to fit the style of music you are playing.
__________________
07 TAYLOR CUSTOM 614 CE
76 GIBSON 335
99 HERITAGE ROY CLARK
05 GRETSCH 6120 AM(THE PROM QUEEN)
03 FENDER JAGUAR REISSUE
86 GUILD G37
01 GUILD STARFIRE 4
99 GUILD F65CE
97 GUILD S4CE
06 FENDER STRAT

THE BEST PLACE TO FIND A HELPING HAND IS AT THE END OF YOUR ARM.

PRACTICE MAKES PERMANENT. ONLY PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:22 PM
piscator piscator is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35
Default

Good Question! I've wondered this also.

I read one article that said the archtop evolved as a technological effort to 'perfect' the traditional guitar. An attempt to 'modernize' the guitar, make it louder and more suitable to playing jazz.

I've often wondered if this was really true and if it is true, why hasn't the "modernized" archtop replaced the tradional guitar? In what ways did the archtop succeed and in what ways did it fail? It must be a fascinating story.

Any storytellers out there?

Piscator
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:47 PM
Tony Burns Tony Burns is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: middle of no where
Posts: 8,030
Default

We all have our opinions - im looking for a 40's style Archtop with a floating pickup ( like they used in the big bands ) Yes many used Carved spruce -but they are the high end models- except for Eastman ( Chinese ) and some had round center holes , like todays acoustics-- Most are Maple or birch ply tops, sides etc- to keep the cost down -but again your high end models are solid flame maple - most Epiphones and Gretsch are Plywood - I guess its like any other guitar make - the More you spend the more you get !
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:52 PM
Deadduck Deadduck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Monroe, LA
Posts: 634
Default

I have an old Gibson L-50, which was a lower end archtop acoustic. It sounds very different than a flattop: not a loud or bassy. Has a bluesy sound to it.

As far as why it was developed, I have always heard it was developed to facilitate the move from gut strings to steel strings. The classical flattop design at the time was not sturdy enough to handle the tension of steel strings, so the archtop was designed with the trapezoidal bridge to better distribute the tension of the strings. I think the design was modeled after cellos and mandolins.

History of the guitar according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar
__________________
Keith

Gibson J-45, LR Baggs Anthem SL
Martin D-28, JJB Prestige 330
Seagull S-6
Gibson L-50

Last edited by Deadduck; 09-15-2007 at 01:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-15-2007, 01:05 PM
retyrd retyrd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 45
Default

Re, the archtop guitar.
Humidity does not effect an archtop to the
extent it will a flattop guitar.
Also, you can adjust the bridge higher
or lower to set the action and,
if you have a tunamatic bridge set
the string length so it will note
perfectly at the 12th fret.
They do not have the booming
bass of a large flattop and were
used for years in big bands as
rythmn to replace the banjo.

Last edited by retyrd; 09-15-2007 at 01:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-15-2007, 01:09 PM
ramsa ramsa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,019
Thumbs up

Awhile ago, approx 5 years, I got a bug to get another inexpensive jazzbox. Having owned a number of Gibson ES series, the cost was pretty heavy on the real deal USA made products.
Anyway, I ended up with a neat Samick JZ213 and it's Korean made. Much like the Epiphone products, it's a well made clone, but not the same as the original designs in sound or cost.
The Samick has a solid spruce top that is formed with a press instead of being carved, and the pick-ups were changed from ultra cheap Asian knock-offs to authentic Bartolini HBs in neck and bridge positions. Sounds pretty good now...
So, it's a good sounding/playing copy of an L-5 for under four digits after the work on the pups...
If I was to go at it again, I'd look at Eastman and Heritage for a bit more cash outlay.
My $.02

Dave
__________________
Proud Tacoma Owner
GAS in Remission, and Playing More
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-15-2007, 05:26 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Winchester, CA
Posts: 4,180
Default

In my opinion, there are two basic types of archtop guitars. The first type is designed to be an acoustic instrument - designed, voiced and constructed to have a certain acoustic sound.

The acoustic archtop was originally developed by Gibson with significant early contributions from Lloyd Loar. They designed an acoustic guitar that was louder and more focused (fewer acoustic overtones) than the traditional flattop. They were used in orchestras and big bands (think Freddie Green, Eddie Lang, etc.) and primarily played a 4 to the bar cadence.

Interestingly, the chord voicings utilized were 3 or 4 note chord shapes instead of the full, 6 string barre chords. Freddie Green rarely played more than 3 note chords and in some cases only 2 notes. His 4 to the bar strum locked in with the bass player.

The design of the early archtops produced a clear, bright, cutting sound, less resonant than the sound produced by a flattop. Carved spruce or maple tops, x bracing, large bodies (17" or 18" at the lower bout) high action (string height), offset neck (to further raise the strings off the top), trapeze tailpiece and voilin style floating bridge all contributed to the volume and clarity of the original archtops.

In my opinion, the second type of archtop is the electric archtop. These are archtops that are designed primarily as an electric instrument AND whose acoustic characteristics are judged primarily by how they will translate into an electric sound. For example, perhaps the quintessential modern day electric archtop is the Gibson ES175. Laminated top and back plates combined with parallel bracing produce a very focused, bright acoustic tone. Not pretty in and of its unplugged self but it produces acoustic characteristics that translate nicely to an amplified sound. Combined with a top mounted PAF humbucker or a single coil P90 and you get the classic electric jazz guitar sound. Gibson achieved a design that could be played at higher volumes (i.e. through an amp) and that would resist feedback while producing a warm, controlled amplified sound.

Voila...practically every known jazz guitarist on the planet has played an ES 175 at some point in their career - Kenny Burrell, Jimmy Raney, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall and Pat Metheny to name just a few.

Although you can divide archtops into 2 basic groups (acoustic and electric), these days you see varieties that fit the traditional definitions as well as all flavors in between.

By the way, have I ever mentioned that I secretly hope Taylor will some day add an archtop guitar to their line???

My 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-15-2007, 07:30 PM
old_dog old_dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 303
Default

I don't know how accurate this is but I've read that the recording equipment of the day couldn't handle highs and lows. It captured mid-range best. So the archtop was developed for its strong mid-range characteristics.

Also, the "f" hole design lessened sustain and overtones because vibrations travel across wood grain more than they do along the length of the wood grain. The "f" holes break up more cross grain area of the top plate than a round or oval hole.

I have oval hole and "f" hole archtops and I can tell you the sustain and overtones of the oval hole are far stronger than those of the "f" hole.

I've also read the "f" hole guitar was modeled after the violin and cello because those are monophonic instruments that must give the player full control over the duration and sustain of each note. So they produce a more suitable tone for jazz and big band back up applications that were more prevalent during the era when the archtop was developed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-15-2007, 07:34 PM
old_dog old_dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 303
Default

Oh, one other benefit is the ease of setting string height with the archtop's adjustable bridge. Also, you have the benefit of a deeper body with shallower rims due to the arched top and back. I find my 17" archtop easier to hold than my 15 1/2" flat top that's over 4" deep at the rims.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-15-2007, 08:38 PM
Kitchen Guitars's Avatar
Kitchen Guitars Kitchen Guitars is offline
Formerly Yamaha Junkie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South West Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,930
Default

They look and sound cool. Nuff said
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-15-2007, 10:42 PM
piscator piscator is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35
Default

Livingston, thanks so much for your conscientious essay. Your differentiation of two categories of archtop is instructive.

So the strictly acoustic archtop developed as a special purpose instrument designed to produce a focused midrange in support of the bass in a big band. OK, but what circumstances or characteristics prevented the archtop from being developed further. What kept it from becoming the guitar of choice for (pick an example) the 50's folk musicians or the Woodstock generation? I'm not trying to be flip, this has puzzled me for some time.

"Not pretty in and of its unplugged self but it produces acoustic characteristics that translate nicely to an amplified sound." This is well put! Maybe the answer lies here? Are Archtops incapable of the overtones and subtleties of flattop guitars?

Tx, Piscator
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-15-2007, 10:54 PM
Sammy_L_D Sammy_L_D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 830
Default

Archtops were basically a design that was experimented with to get the volume out of guitars maximized for rhythm playing in big bands. Their sound is meant to cut through a mix far more than blend in; put it that way.

The need for this was all but forgotten, however, when amplification became available. Nowadays, if you're looking acoustically, it's more for the purpose of wanting *THAT* sound.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-15-2007, 11:00 PM
Forensicguy's Avatar
Forensicguy Forensicguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,644
Default

Thanks to all for their replies so far. I'm learning a lot!
__________________
My Blog: www.russlowe.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-15-2007, 11:18 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Winchester, CA
Posts: 4,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscator View Post
So the strictly acoustic archtop developed as a special purpose instrument designed to produce a focused midrange in support of the bass in a big band. OK, but what circumstances or characteristics prevented the archtop from being developed further. What kept it from becoming the guitar of choice for (pick an example) the 50's folk musicians or the Woodstock generation?

"Not pretty in and of its unplugged self but it produces acoustic characteristics that translate nicely to an amplified sound." This is well put! Maybe the answer lies here? Are Archtops incapable of the overtones and subtleties of flattop guitars?
Hi Piscator,

I'm not an archtop expert nor do I know a lot about its development over the years. I do know its origins stemmed from the roll the guitar played in early jazz combos and particularly big bands and orchestras. As you and others have pointed out, its primary characteristic allowed it to cut through the band.

In my own experience, I have mainly been interested in electric archtops primarily because I love the modern jazz guitar sound (modern as in the 50's 60's and 70's) and that is the type of music I am interested in.

Whereas I have played and owned several electric archtops of various quality levels, I have not had the chance to demo many purely acoustic archtops. I'm guessing that acoustic archtops did not have the tonal qualities that would lend itself to the folk music of the 50's and 60's. The few purely acoustic archtops I have played lacked a resonant bottom end and had too bright a treble end to produce the full, warm, dark sound of a rosewood dreadnaught. The flattop guitar rings out beautiful resonant tones which make it ideal for acoustic folk music, fingerstyle guitar, etc. Those beautiful characteristics typical of a nicely built flattop would fall a part in a hurry if you were strumming 4 to the bar behind a 15pc horn section.

Anyways, I won't pretend to know the real reason why archtops did not evolve into a more acoustic instrument like the flattop. Like everyone on this forum, I have a love for the flattop acoustic guitar too. As much as I love my electric archtop and jazz music, no electric archtop (and possibly no acoustic archtop) can hold a candle to my Taylor 912C when it comes to fingerpicking an old John Denver tune or playing an Earl Klugh solo fingerstyle piece.

By the way, did I mention that I secretly hope Taylor will someday produce a...never mind.

Darryl
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Archtops

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 AM.


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=