CF archtop without F-holes

[thefsb]

I watched the video presentation below. It's super interesting. I learned about Orville and the history of Gibson, the history of archtop production, a couple of famous builders, and some of the issues for them. I was especially interested in two points:

1. Why F-holes?

2. What is it about arch-top construction that offers advantages over flat-top?

Parker answers 1. saying it was initially for looks and then it was tradition and the archtop survived as a design concept despite that F-holes are a bad idea for acoustic guitars. He said they make the top less efficient (I'm convinced he's right) and, when amplified, they yield oscillation modes that promote feedback.

He answers 2. by saying (iiuc, he took his time on this) that when it has the right geometry, arch-top construction permits a thinner top, which is lighter and therefore more efficient, i.e. louder.

That sounds to me like a very interesting case and now I really want to play one of his guitars, although I probably never will.

But it also suggests to me that using carbon fiber is interesting, if the builder understands the design remit: put the sound hole in the top left corner, mold the top to the right profile and thin it towards the edges, and make it as light as you can by exploiting the material's low stiffness and strength variation relative to wood.

Emerald makes a CF archtop but it has F-holes and I've no idea what profile its top has. Iow, it doesn't appear they have learned the lessons Parker gave. Or maybe they did but maybe making them look the part with F-holes is more important for sales. Idk

Ken Parker: The History and Evolution of the Archtop Guitar

[nickv6]

I had a very early rain song CF archtop with no f holes. Great guitar. Two Hb and a piezo bridge.
Was very heavy though

[Bluemonk]

FWIW, I have played amazing archtops with F holes. And I have played an amazing Parker archtop.

[L50EF15]

I have seen this link before but I have always been interrupted when I try to watch the clip. I shall try again!

I note that the f-hole guitars as we know them began with Lloyd Loar’s design of the Gibson L-5, which superseded the oval hole L-4 as Gibson’s top guitar. It bears mentioning that the L-5 was originally intended as an instrument for backup in a mandolin orchestra and essentially followed the same principles embodied in the Loar designed F-5 mandolin.

Due respect to Ken Parker, but I think Loar knew what he was doing. I grant that there may be compelling theoretical reasons for saying that an f-hole archtop is inefficient, but the ultimate issue is the sound. Whether it sounds better or worse than other designs (round hole archtop, round hole flattop) is a matter of preference. But it definitely sounds different than other designs.

And that difference, in my view, given the historical record, is exactly why acoustic archtops found favor around 1930, replacing the tenor banjo in jazz bands: An f-hole archtop projects similarly to a tenor banjo (no surprise given the floating bridge and tailpiece arrangement on each), but is less harsh sounding, largely because scale length, number of strings, and tuning (and other reasons; a tenor banjo without a resonator and tone ring is less strident than one with those features). No flattop, certainly no flattop in the Martin design paradigm, can quite get that sound. Indeed, the original OM was designed to compete with the L-5, and was a commercial failure in its intended role (not unlike the L-5 in its intended mandolin orchestra role). Of course an OM is a superb instrument, one with more cut and projection than a dreadnought. But neither projects the way an L-5 or similar instrument does.

For someone who prefers the sound of a flattop but wants more projection, Orville Gibson and his pre-Loar successors at Gibson got it right with the L-4 and related models such as the L-75: A round hole archtop really is the best of both worlds. That’s true even in the smaller Gibson archtops like my L Jr., but much more so with the 16” models. The problem is that unless you buy used, or custom, you can’t buy such an instrument today.

Bottom line, Lloyd Loar designed the L-5 to complement the F-5 mandolin, H-5 mandola, and K-5 mandocello. That his design evolved to suit a different kind of rhythm section was because of its distinctive sound, lack of theoretical efficiency or not. Whether that sound pleases the ear or not is entirely subjective, and in part dependent on what one is used to playing or hearing.

[Silly Moustache]

Orville Gibson's original idea was to build a mandolin built like a violin, largely to make it stronger.

That included the "f-holes" seen on all violin family instruments.


his early carved top and back mandolins were stringer and louder than the classical design.

The Guitars were something of an afterthought (the earliest Gibson guitars did have central round or oval soundholes, , I believe the f-hole versions occurred around 1922.

As is the different tonal differences between the A-4 and the A-5 mandolins, the F-hole guitars had a sharper more trebly tone and projected more markedly than round hole instruments.

They have proven ideal as rhythm instruments, especially in jazz and dance bands as the music changed from dixieland to swing and tenor banjo players had to learn to play guitars.

[L50EF15]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Orville Gibson's original idea was to build a mandolin built like a violin, largely to make it stronger.

That included the "f-holes" seen on all violin family instruments.


his early carved top and back mandolins were stringer and louder than the classical design.

The Guitars were something of an afterthought (the earliest Gibson guitars did have central round or oval soundholes, , I believe the f-hole versions occurred around 1922.

As is the different tonal differences between the A-4 and the A-5 mandolins, the F-hole guitars had a sharper more trebly tone and projected more markedly than round hole instruments.

They have proven ideal as rhythm instruments, especially in jazz and dance bands as the music changed from dixieland to swing and tenor banjo players had to learn to play guitars.

Yup. All of this was really brought home to me over the last seven years: I took up banjo (first five string, and then tenor), and got deeper into mandolin (I have dabbled with it since 2001, with a flattop). I still don’t have an f-hole mandolin, but I bought a Loar era (1924) A Jr. a couple of years ago and started putting in at least two hours a day on the instrument. And when I got my L Jr., it really made me think of nothing so much as a guitar version of the A Jr.

[RADJJD]

IMO

The video seemed more like an infomercial for Gibson, as if Gibson invented arch top musical instruments.

BTW, early Lutes (circa 3000 B.C.),the forerunner of of all stringed instruments, had a round hole, or holes; no "F" holed units can be found.

Other arch top acoustic instruments, the violin, viola and cello were first built in the early 16th century, in Italy. WHOA! Not Gibson???

Martin & Gibson are in the Guitar "SALES" business. Flat top guitars are easy & cheap to build; mass production = lower cost = higher margins = more PROFIT.

I have played most or all of the Major Brand guitars over the past 50 years & nothing off the rack today compares to my round hole archtop for the combination of tone & projection. This unit was built for a professional Jazz guitarist in Regal's Custom shop in Chicago, & there are no compromises in tone woods or build quality.

Dreads cab be a lot louder, but I'm not playing in a gymnasium, just my living room, so I prefer better tone than more noise.

Yes, F holes are "pretty", but like lots of pretty things, they don't function that well; i.e. pretty people with no personality.

Young pro band players that own lots of pricey guitars, both acoustic & electric, have played mine, & after five minutes they are drooling over it. It is pretty, too, in its own way because of the labor & time intensive refinishing technique that I used (Ultra blonde shellac) French Polish. This is another thing that adds tone, but has gone by the wayside as it is cheaper to spray Nitro, plus shellac lacks durability if you abuse it or take it on the road.

This is the only guitar that I have taken the time (several months) to restore, but it was surely paid me back every day since.

I live by the Pacific Ocean so my old unit demands maintenance now and then, because the 92 year old Cedar soundboard is no longer a "soft" wood; it is hard as a rock, & heat & humidity are no longer it's friends.

I would buy a backup guitar, but I haven't found one that sounds good enough (fussy?), other than really expensive Custom builds that are way out of my budget range..

I'm a player, not a collector.

[thefsb]

Originally Posted by RADJJD

IMO

The video seemed more like an infomercial for Gibson, as if Gibson invented arch top musical instruments.

Really? I thought Parker made Orville seem a bit ridiculous and the post-Orville company seem like philistine bean counters that were lucky but unworthy to have Loar work for them for a while.

Originally Posted by RADJJD

Other arch top acoustic instruments, the violin, viola and cello were first built in the early 16th century, in Italy. WHOA! Not Gibson???

I'm not sure what you're reacting to. Parker said Orville had the idea of decorating plucked acoustic instruments with F-holes and that's the origin of them on American archtops. He also explained how he understands F-holes to be functional on bowed instruments and dysfunctional on acoustic guitars. So I concluded that F-holes are a meme that, for no acoustical, mechanical, physical reason, got into a certain niche of the guitar market and just stayed.

Originally Posted by RADJJD

I would buy a backup guitar, but I haven't found one that sounds good enough (fussy?), other than really expensive Custom builds that are way out of my budget range..

You've every right to be fussy if you have an instrument that sets a standard, as yours does.

I did some casual market surveys after I watched the Parker presentation and I have the impression that F-holes are primarily a feature that a conservative market expects. And the majority are electric guitars with at least one mag pickup attached to the top, so maybe it doesn't matter much if they are not responsive acoustic instruments, or maybe an acoustically relatively dead body is an advantage by allowing louder amplification. Few factory builds have an option to buy without at least one mag pickup, which adds how much mass to the top?

So I'm inclined to think that it was amplification that allowed the F-holes to stay and that the idea of the jazz box (as, e.g. Eastman advertises theirs) is as much a matter of appearances as anything else.