Goodall Tone: Stereo vs. Mono and Lush Ramblings

[Goodallboy]

A great Goodall is a special instrument, having all the attributes the OP articulates so well, parsing the meaning of stereo, aside.

They are a step above the herd in many ways and they command a price comensurate with that excellence.

Knowing there are other, even better examples of the luthiers art, is why you go in every guitar shop you see because you just never know what you might find.

The OP is on his way.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I think "stereo" was meant as a sort of analogy here, but I disagree that stereo has to be two sources. Wikipedia (I know, a questionable authority) defines it as:

"stereo, is a method of sound reproduction that creates an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective. This is usually achieved by using two or more independent audio channels through a configuration of two or more loudspeakers (or stereo headphones) in such a way as to create the impression of sound heard from various directions, as in natural hearing."

So stereo is a way to simulate via speakers what we naturally hear with our 2 ears. We hear the world in "stereo" because there is a multi-directional aspect to what we hear, even when the sound is generated by a single source.

"Sound reproduction" isn't what a guitar does. A guitar is "sound production." The guitar is the original source. Depending on how I orient my head, I can get different sounds hitting my ears at different times and at different volumes, so I agree that we hear in stereo, but that's the sound interacting with our environment, not the sound source itself.

All guitars produce overtones. Do some produce more overtones than others, absolutely, but that doesn't create a stereo image all by itself. If I record the OP's Goodall on a single mic, then duplicate the track and simply pan one hard left and the other hard right, I'm not going to get a stereo image. It will sound like it's dead center. I'd have to manipulate one of the tracks to get stereo.

If I use two mics, I can get a stereo image without manipulation provided I don't have the mics positioned in the same place and orientation. The two mics are, in a sense, doing what our ears do: picking up the same sound as it travels a different route. That's where the stereo effect comes from. But if that makes a guitar sound stereo, then every guitar is a stereo instrument, and that's why I say the term is being used incorrectly.

I get what you're saying about not requiring two sources to hear stereo. Unless a source is in front of us or behind us, on a line perpendicular to the line our ears are sitting on, and all things between us and the sound source are identical, we're going to hear in stereo. The degree will be more or less perceptible as we change the surrounding environment, but it doesn't change simply by changing the sound source from the OP's Goodall to a less lush guitar.

I get what the OP is trying to say, I just don't think it's a good idea to travel down a path whereby some acoustic guitars are deemed "stereo" and some are not.

Just my change back from a nickel.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by robj144

What is dual mono? We definitely hear in stereo... we have two ears.

Dual mono is two monophonic channels, in this context it would be two exact same signals and channels from one source .

But in retrospect it may be no more an accurate description of human hearing than stereo is, because both are descriptions of music production methods not hearing. And because humans can hear either mono or stereo sources ( and more ) and they sound different .
For example humans can hear in Quadraphonic and in 5.1 and 7.1 Surround and Dolby Atmos and beyond

So it is probably most accurate to describe Human hearing as simply being binaural



For example if you hear a single a single gunshot out in the open, you do not here it as stereophonic , ( having two different source locations) , you here as mono (having one location) and having two ears on opposite sides of the head, simply allows to quickly localize the direction by time domain differences .

While it is true that part of the stereo method utilizes time domain differences to create the stereo effect ( as in two mics on one instrument ) the difference is there are still two sources for the sound one Left and one Right
I could be wrong or just being pedantic but I don't think "humans hear in stereo" is the correct wording

That said: back to OP I do think "Lush" describes the few Goodalls I have played

[SuperB23]

I've owned over 30 Goodall guitars and I've played probably another 25+. I like the brand a lot and I have a ton of respect for the Goodall family. Good people and great builders!! I have a 2015 Goodall Standard in German Spruce and Indian rosewood that is as responsive as any $25,000+ guitar I've played. The tone is surreal and its what I'd consider the ultimate modified or modern dreadnought. Its a phenomenal finger style guitar. It sings with GHS True Mediums on it.

My Favorite Goodall models are the Standard, TRLD, CJ, and TRD.

Here's a video I did of the Goodall when it was new. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APjuwpI81p0

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I understand that you're excited about your guitar but your use of the word "stereo" is incorrect. Separation is not stereo unless it's coming from different sources. Your guitar is a single source.

Correct. Stereo and seperation are not the same thing. However, I was simply attempting to describe what my brain hears when a Goodall guitar is played.
And to do that I used an analogy...and as you point out, stereo comes from two different sources. Well, that's exactly what I was aiming to describe. Of course I'm aware that the Goodall is one guitar and therefore, one source. But just imagine (pretend for a second) that sound produced from a Goodall was split into two sources...the fundemental or true tone from one source and the overtone from the other.

And though I love discussions and debates on semantics, it was definiley not my intention here. Attempting to describe tone to other folks is always tricky, so I choose to use analogies that most people can relate to. But in order to follow the analogies (for their original intent) literal translations have to be avoided...otherwise, the analogy employed is useless. And judging by your response, you do understand the stereo concept quite well. So, using the literal definition of stereo as a template for a concept, or analogy here, seems perfectly logical to my brain.. Thanks for your thoughts, Jim

Memphis

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I think "stereo" was meant as a sort of analogy here,

You are 100% on the money. Just my way of using a concept most have some idea to describe something so abstract as tone. And while I have you on the line...I'm a big fan of your music. I really love the stuff you do! Thanks for sharing. Thanks, Doug

Memphis

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

One aspect of comparing fundamental pitches with the overtone pitches generated by playing a single note is the relative decay of all of the pitches over time. With some guitars, there's a tendency for the fundamental pitch to decay faster than some of the overtones, with other guitars it's the overtones that decay more rapidly, and for other guitars it's some mixture of both. Sympathetic vibrations from other strings are a factor in this too.

Wow! I haven't heard that concept articulated in this way before. I'll need to reflect on that for a bit. I can easily imagine what you're describing here...thanks for putting those thoughts into words.
Memphis

[memphis1]

[QUOTE=Knives&Guitars;5946542]

This is a very interesting observation that I am hoping can be clarified further.
What I think you are defining is that you hear the Fundamentals and the overtones clearly separated? Like hearing both at the same time- but each defined and separated? Is this what you are saying memphis1?

Yes, sir! You've nailed it exactly. That is exactly what my brain interprets when I hear a Goodall being played.[INDENT]What I would be most interested in knowing-clarifying from your statement:
Are you saying that Goodall sound is something a little different in the way it separates Fundamentals & overtones than many other guitars? And that is fine to make a statement like that. As others have pointed out, that is good for some and not so good for other's style of playing.

And yes again! That is exactly what defines the Goodall tone for me, is that seperation (or how my brain hears it anyway) of fundemental from overtone content. And you're right...that works gret for some and not so great for others!

Another equally thought provoking concept (and probably integral to what I'm describing) is what sdelsolray described as the difference in sustain from the fundamental vs overtone concept. Thanks,
Memphis

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I think stereo is probably not the right adjective to use
I think more overtones simply means more complex.

In my understanding the word "stereo" was coined to describe (in audio reproduction) using 2 mics, a 2 channel amplification system, and 2 loudspeakers I suppose it depends on exactly what one means by the term "stereo". To me it means expanding the soundfield linearly out to the left and right, using two discrete sound sources

But a good question has been raised which would be ......do humans actually hear in stereo, or do they hear in dual mono?

Perhaps you're correct. Maybe stereo wasn't the right term to use here...but I think the fact that pretty much everyone here (aside from debating the semantics of Stereo) is aware of the concept, at least shows the analogy has value. Thanks,
Memphis

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by 247hoopsfan

I am privileged to own a Goodall Rosewood Standard. To my ears, my Goodall has a combination of lush overtones and crystal clear clarity. I have played guitars that are much more expensive that do not have the same quality. This is the sound that my ears prefer in an acoustic guitar. My Goodall is also incredibly responsive and with even a light touch, the notes just jump out of it.
I know many people really like Goodall's work with Koa, but to me there is nothing like the deep, rich tones of a rosewood Goodall.
Here is a little instrumental tune I wrote on my Goodall. I think it demonstrates what the OP is trying to say about fundamental yet overtone rich sound.
https://soundcloud.com/247hoopsfan/n...nnings-goodall

Beautiful recording on a beautiful sounding guitar. And yes...what I'm describing I hear in spades on your recording! Thank you,
Memphis

[memphis1]

I get what the OP is trying to say, I just don't think it's a good idea to travel down a path whereby some acoustic guitars are deemed "stereo" and some are not.

Just my change back from a nickel.[/QUOTE]


That's totally fair. But is it really any different that certain guitars being labeled as having a "3D" sound to them? Surely that description should be taken no more literal than my description, yes? Thanks,
Memphis

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by memphis1

That's totally fair. But is it really any different that certain guitars being labeled as having a "3D" sound to them? Surely that description should be taken no more literal than my description, yes? Thanks,
Memphis

I don't love that term either but it may be more apt for what you're trying to describe if one is using it to describe a guitar whose overtones and note separation rival the fundamental. I haven't heard that term used to describe a guitar so I don't know if that's they only way people would apply that descriptor. I suspect it means different things to different people so it's probably too vague a term to really be useful in a discussion about a guitar's tone.

[memphis1]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I don't love that term either but it may be more apt for what you're trying to describe if one is using it to describe a guitar whose overtones and note separation rival the fundamental. I haven't heard that term used to describe a guitar so I don't know if that's they only way people would apply that descriptor. I suspect it means different things to different people so it's probably too vague a term to really be useful in a discussion about a guitar's tone.

That's a good point. But it seems rather difficult to find a term that IS specific enough that relates to most people in the same way. A lot of folks describe mahogany as bright, and that is most definitely not how I would describe it. I would say things like woody, subdued maybe, simple, focused, etc...(I love hog by the way, so please don't read any of those as negative attributes). I love talking about guitars and tone though! Thanks for the discussion!

[JAMKC]

Yo Memphis, if you see this check your email?

[jseth]

I had the good fortune (thanks to a "head's up, right here on this Forum!) to have moved to Fort Bragg, Ca. on nearly the same day that James, Jezn and Luke moved back there from the Big Island...

Over the course of the next three years, we became good friends and I love them and I LOVE their guitars! James brought 50 instruments with him when he moved, realizing that he wouldn't be able to build anything until the new shop was up and running...

When I first played a Goodall, James had brought 30 instruments to the shop for me to play. I took my Mark Angus F-40 (1979) with me as a sort of a watermark to gauge what I was hearing in his guitars... all I can say, is I WAS KNOCKED OUT by his guitars...
One that truly floored me was a Concert Jumbo with Port Orford cedar top and Robusta back and sides...

The sound of that guitar was exactly what you describe in your opener.. don't know if I would use the term "stereo", but I understood what you meant right away... the sound of that particular guitar (and many other Goodalls, It turns out) was so otherworldly; it sounded as if it were being mic'd, then run through an elaborate sound system, and then piped back into the little room in which I was playing! Stunning!

Over the next 6 months, I felt privileged to watch the shop take form, and even to play the first guitars they made there.

I had James and Luke make me my Grand concert, in 2011; redwood over mahogany. It still stuns me when I play it; I get distracted by the tone of it that it's actually difficult to sing and play it at the same time! Truth is that I use my Angus for all my gigs due to it having a great pickup and the same pickup as the matching 12 string Angus I use on stage. So, the Goodall has not been my only acoustic...

I am still finding new sounds and mannerisms the guitar makes... as you said, Memphis1, the fundamental tone is audibly separate from the overtones... it's captivating to experience! I thought that perhaps with mahogany there would be less overtones, but that is not the case. The guitar is SO resonate and SO responsive that I have to remind myself to mute strings or choke chords if I don't want them to keep ringing...

Goodalls are my favorite of all I've played, including much more expensive instruments... I love James' approach and his idea of the tone he wants to hear from his guitars.... I also heartily endorse his lack of excessive ornamentation and elaborate inlay work, although I know that, for some customers, he has had Sammi Wingert do her magic with them, and even Luke was doing a bit of that when I left Fort Bragg in 2012.

Goodall guitars are VERY special instruments; I love James' desings the most... the Standard, the Concert Jumbo , the Grand Concert and the his Parlour. His Aloha series guitars are much more affordable (not inexpensive, just less than the normal); I have played a bunch of those and loved each one. No, they are not cheap, but compared to other high-end builders, they are a tremendous bargain!

Love the family and I love the guitars...