It's interesting how much body shape affects tone shape

[RalphH]

It's interesting how much body shape affects tone. I know that sounds like a silly (and potentially obvious) thing to say, but today I was struck by just how much.

I took my Hummingbird into the local guitar shop on my way back from a singing lesson - they've not stocked Gibson acoustics for a good while and one of the guys in there, who I know really well is thinking of buying one - so I stopped in with mine to let him have a try.

While I was there we A/B'd it with an Epiphone Hummingbird, which they do stock, just for fun.

Now, it did not sound the same .. and yet it did in an interesting sort of way.

The Epiphone sounded like a recording of my Gibson played through a medium-priced hi-fi (no, not like through a phone and a battery powered speaker - much better than that!). It had a lot less room-filing presence, yet all the fundamentals what a hummingbird should sound like were there; the mellowness, the compression, the balance, etc -- like I really could have believed I was listening to a recording being A/B'd with exact same guitar live. It's kinda hard to describe.

Like in the same way as listening to a recording of a big marshal stack played through a medium-priced hi-fi is not the same as being in a room with an actual 4x12" cab, and yet it sort of is at the same time. Or listening to a guitar on a youtube video isn't like being in the room with it, however well recorded, and yet it sort of is at the same time. It was that kind of difference.

The other thing that was noticeable was that the fundamentals of their similarity sounded much closer from the front while listening to each other play than they did with the guitar on-lap. Perhaps the sound transmission through laminate vs solid would is more different than sound bouncing off of it, and yet the differences were magnified too - both guitars sounded better from the front but the wall-of-sound presence of the Gibson was waaay more notable from the front than from on-lap.

Other thoughts I came away with where a) I'm really glad I've heard my Gibson from the front - it sounds even better than I realized. b) for £250 that Epiphone is a really, really nice guitar and no-one should feel like the underdog for owning one - it certainly would do the same job as the Gibson, ie they certainly sounded more closely related than say a Hummingbird does to a Taylor. I could tell that I'd enjoy singing over the Epiphone as where I don't like singing over Taylors - they're just too bright and sparkly for my voice, and as far as my GS Mini at least goes, far too dynamic too. Lots of compression is a good thing on a guitar when you're trying to concentrate on singing not playing - it doesn't bite you in the backside if you give it a hard strum by accident.

The differences I put down to things like laminate vs solid, poly vs nitro, hide glue vs [whatever epiphone use], etc.

But the similarity must be body shape - I guess; although they look more or less the same, there's really not much else that's actually the same. Yeah they're both spruce and maple, but so are lots of Taylors and other things that don't sound even remoted related to a hummingbird. They're both short scale, but my GS mini is even more shorterer and that sounds much more like a 25.5" scale taylor than it does a 24.75" hummingbird.

I'm not sure if the bracing is the same or not. I would guess it's similar though not identical - possibly the same pattern (cheaper than designing a new one) but not scalloped - or at least as much (cheaper than doing it).

[charles Tauber]

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. You are comparing two guitars of different brands, similar in shape but otherwise of differing construction, and your conclusion is that shape is a determining factor in the tone that they produce?

[RalphH]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. You are comparing two guitars of different brands, similar in shape but otherwise of differing construction, and your conclusion is that shape is a determining factor in the tone that they produce?

Well I can't see any other particular similarity that would explain why they sound so similar. Not the same but fundamentally very similar. I mean I get at an Epi Hummingbird is supposed to be a copy of a Gibson one - thats kinda the point, but given how much is different when you really look at it, I didn't expect it to sound anything like it - was not expecting it to sound bad - I just didn't have the expectation if would capture the same basic character. I mean it was kinda men vs boys, but not men vs oranges.

[jaymarsch]

I think that body shape can affect tone but to what degree and how it dances with all the other variables (luthier, bracing, wood type and thickness, finish, etc.) is anyone's best guess. My experience is that for every pair of guitars that I could A/B and come to some conclusions about, I can find another "exact" pair, A/B them and the results counter the first conclusion. So, as with so many things related to guitar, it depends.

Best,
Jayne

[RalphH]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

I think that body shape can affect tone but to what degree and how it dances with all the other variables (luthier, bracing, wood type and thickness, finish, etc.) is anyone's best guess. My experience is that for every pair of guitars that I could A/B and come to some conclusions about, I can find another "exact" pair, A/B them and the results counter the first conclusion. So, as with so many things related to guitar, it depends.

Best,
Jayne

Hmm... You're probably right. They only had one out that I could try. It could be pure fluke that it sounds like my guitars little brother.

Maybe i should buy it

[Mr. Jelly]

I tend to agree with the OPs idea. The question I have is are the measurements the same between both guitars? If not then the OPs idea falls apart.

[collingsd2]

I would agree with your main point, depending on how good your ear is. Which I'm sure its great.
There are a lot of factors to a guitars sound but important ones are what they are made of and how they are made. They may be only tiny differences but that's why you can buy a Martin from anywhere from $350 to $35000.
Similar materials and build = Somewhat similar sound.

[RalphH]

Originally Posted by collingsd2

I would agree with your main point, depending on how good your ear is. Which I'm sure its great.

I don't think you'd need an amazing ear to spot the difference. I'd almost say you'd need a better ear to spot the similarities, or at least know what you're looking for, and for me that comes down to having had the experience of singing over different guitars and knowing what I appreciate in a good singer/songwriter type guitar and what is unhelpful. Things like the way the Gibson just fills the room with sound in a way the Epi doesn't really, I'd expect my non-guitar playing friends to spot. Things like the amount of compression they have is not something I'd expect a non-player to spot as you probably have to be playing it to spot, and even then I probably only notice it because my other guitar (Koa GS Mini) is wildly dynamic and if I hit it just a little harder it makes a LOT more noise. When I can concentrate on playing the guitar this is great because you can be very expressive, but when I'm just trying to strum out some backing for my (bad) singing, having small variations in strumming hardness make big differences in volume is less helpful. To everyone else, I probably just sound like a(n even) worse player.

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I tend to agree with the OPs idea. The question I have is are the measurements the same between both guitars? If not then the OPs idea falls apart.

I didn't take my tape measure with me, but I held, played and looked at both. I didn't spot anything majorly different, but I couldn't put my hand on my heart and tell you they're identical.

[collingsd2]

[QUOTE=RalphH;6278724]I don't think you'd need an amazing ear to spot the difference. I'd almost say you'd need a better ear to spot the similarities, or at least know what you're looking for

Sorry if my post was confusing. What I was trying to say is that you would need a good ear to see the similarities just like what you were saying.

[RalphH]

[QUOTE=collingsd2;6278761]

Originally Posted by RalphH

I don't think you'd need an amazing ear to spot the difference. I'd almost say you'd need a better ear to spot the similarities, or at least know what you're looking for

Sorry if my post was confusing. What I was trying to say is that you would need a good ear to see the similarities just like what you were saying.

Ah, right, sorry, wasn't sure if you meant similarities, differences or both

[Silly Moustache]

Hi Ralph,

I cannot comment too much on the square shoulder Gibsons apart from I used to have a "real" Epiphone Frontier and it was not a happy experience. Your point about acoustic body sizes is, however, well taken.

in the early part of the 20th century Gibson and Martin were , effectively , designing/developing the modern flattop guitar.

Martin was way ahead of the game in developing the model 2,1,0,00,and 000. all designed for different sizes of audience from "parlour" to auditorium.
The difference in body sizes of all of these ranged from 12" lower bout, on the model 2, to 15" on the 000. The intervals were less that one inch! Same goes for the length of the body - 18 & 1/4" to 20 & 7/16"

Gibson used various body shapes in their l-0 and l-00 models.

Until 1931 there was no Martin Dreadnought, with the 000 being the largest shape from 1902 until then, and until 1934 there was no Gibson Jumbo - which was introduced the same year as the Martin 14 fret dreadnought.

Gibson didn't even get into the flat-top market until 1926!

In 1929/30, the the flat-top largely went through a "change of use" from a primarily fingerstyle instrument to a rhythm instrument intended to replace the tenor banjo, and compete with the gibson archtops in dance bands.

It was all about "volume" meaning both loudness and cubic capacity.

I suspect that the Gibson "Jumbo" was influenced by the original Martin (12 fret) dread and I'm really not sure why Gibson introduced copies of Martin dreadnought shape in 1960 (Hummingbird)

At one time I believe Gibsons and Epiphones were made in the same Kalamazoo factory, with Epis being the "deluxe" versions, and more recently the Epiphone became their far eastern built budget line.(possibly built by Samick??)

If you make two guitars to the same design and using similar woods , then the likelihood is that they will sound similar regardless of where in the world they are made.
I'm probably getting too historical - I'll shut up now.

[jaymarsch]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Hi Ralph,

I cannot comment too much on the square shoulder Gibsons apart from I used to have a "real" Epiphone Frontier and it was not a happy experience. Your point about acoustic body sizes is, however, well taken.

in the early part of the 20th century Gibson and Martin were , effectively , designing/developing the modern flattop guitar.

Martin was way ahead of the game in developing the model 2,1,0,00,and 000. all designed for different sizes of audience from "parlour" to auditorium.
The difference in body sizes of all of these ranged from 12" lower bout, on the model 2, to 15" on the 000. The intervals were less that one inch! Same goes for the length of the body - 18 & 1/4" to 20 & 7/16"

Gibson used various body shapes in their l-0 and l-00 models.

Until 1931 there was no Martin Dreadnought, with the 000 being the largest shape from 1902 until then, and until 1934 there was no Gibson Jumbo - which was introduced the same year as the Martin 14 fret dreadnought.

Gibson didn't even get into the flat-top market until 1926!

In 1929/30, the the flat-top largely went through a "change of use" from a primarily fingerstyle instrument to a rhythm instrument intended to replace the tenor banjo, and compete with the gibson archtops in dance bands.

It was all about "volume" meaning both loudness and cubic capacity.

I suspect that the Gibson "Jumbo" was influenced by the original Martin (12 fret) dread and I'm really not sure why Gibson introduced copies of Martin dreadnought shape in 1960 (Hummingbird)

At one time I believe Gibsons and Epiphones were made in the same Kalamazoo factory, with Epis being the "deluxe" versions, and more recently the Epiphone became their far eastern built budget line.(possibly built by Samick??)

If you make two guitars to the same design and using similar woods , then the likelihood is that they will sound similar regardless of where in the world they are made.
I'm probably getting too historical - I'll shut up now.

I, for one, appreciate your historical contributions, Silly, and it certainly adds here to our conversation about guitar shapes.

Best,
Jayne

[swampyankee]

I get what you're saying. I have a 000C-16 and it sounds far different than a Martin dreadnaught of the same -16 level. I have an old Washburn D-18M and although it's mostly laminate, I get the fundamental difference in tone from 000 to dread. So much that I'm currently in thr process of finding a solid wood dread.
Likewise, I had/have a Morgan Monroe MV-00 TBV32 and the small "parlor" shape sounds far different than either of the other two, construction notwithstanding. It's got its own thing going on, which is very delta bluesy.

[Birdbrain]

I really like small Jumbos, but it's for comfort and playability, not any characteristic sound. I've owned three closely related ones:
1) a Simon & Patrick Woodland (cedar top/cherry) that was light on bass and volume, but wonderfully blessed with chordal overtones.
2) a Seagull MJ (spruce top/walnut) that was lively and bright and loud, like a maple guitar.
3) A Seagull SWS MJ (spruce top/mahogany) that has a very woody sound, with deep bass.

Other distantly related Jumbo-ish models
4) a no-name maple Jumbo, which was bright, loud and dynamic (like no. 3 above).
5) a Tacoma EK36C (cedar top/koa) that has thick midrangey tones and ample overtones.

Maybe materials do make more difference than shape?