Deep Body on an OM: Yay or Nay?

[Fsgeek]

In general:

Pros: Better bass response, more volume, complexity

Cons: Loss of quick response, Less projection, it might sound a bit tubby (more true in smaller guitars)

[RussMason]

I had a luthier build me a cross between an OM and a Dreadnought. It's good size, but has more of a waist than dreadnoughts do. It has a 5" depth at the lowest point and the sound is pretty amazing. When my luthier fixed it, my guitar became the star of the store. Everybody wanted to play it!

The body is solid walnut and the top is Carpathian spruce. It is the best sounding and most resonant guitar I have ever owned.

I must differ with those who think that all OMs must be built to the same template. Greater depth tends to translate to richer bass tones, and not much else. If the guitar is built with know-how, a deeper OM should sound pretty darn good.

[rbbambino]

I don't think that just increasing the depth of an OM would give you a decent sound. The shape of the body would also need to change. The mini jumbo shape comes to mind. I have a couple of those and I personally like the better bass response from a mini jumbo shape. To me most OMs sound thin. I've played a few OMs that are very good, but they were also very expensive.

[Watt]

My Foley OM is a nice example of what can be accomplished with a deep (5 inch) body. It might lose just a bit of projection and tonal balance, compared to a well-made standard OM. What it gains, however, is a deep, powerful, yet articulate, bass, as well as volume, that can run with virtually any great rosewood dread. It responds exceptionally well to a light touch, but, at the same time, can be played hard without being overdriven. The dynamic range makes it a wonderful guitar for fingerpicking, but, again, it responds equally well to a plectrum.

[vic@leftiesonly]

I think before trying something like adding a deeper body option onto an OM, it would be good for you to decide if an OM is really the guitar you're after.

The OM has a very distinct sound to it, as others have mentioned. You can change the woods on it, but it still going to have a lot of projection, a very balanced (more subtle) bass response and a very particular sort of tone to it.

Just playing a range of models by the same builder is a good education in learning what you like or don't like about a particular body style because it's removing some of the variables you would encounter comparing, say, a Collings OM to some other builder's 000. Otherwise it would be hard to really know what you're going to wind up with based on other people's assessments of a guitar you won't get to hear until it's delivered. Of course, as a lefty, it's much harder to accomplish that.

Someone mentioned the Huss and Dalton CM; I thought of that initially, too, as it's got a deeper body to it. I just sat down with a Huss TOM (walnut/Italian bearclaw spruce) and Road Edition OM (rosewood/sitka), a Huss 00-SP (cocobolo/Englemann) and a Huss CM (Australian blackwood/Englemann) and tried to listen objectively. They are all completely different guitars ... the two OMs have the same sort of feel and projection, with subtle differences due to the woods, very "clear" sounding guitars, but the 00-SP has a lot more low end resonance to it, and the CM has solid low end like a dread but it doesn't really sound anything like an OM with the bass turned up, as it were, because the mids and trebles are also so different.

On a Santa Cruz, I'd be more inclined to look at something like an H or maybe an Otis Taylor signature model, as those guitars are designed from the start with deeper bodies and are not an OM trying to be something more, which may or may not be what you are looking for in the end. I played the Otis Taylor signature at Jerry's a while back, it was a very nice guitar. I would love to hear an H sometime. I have played a few Santa Cruz OMs and their 000, they are great guitars, as well, but I'm not typically an OM kind of guy.

(I'd make an expection for the Collings OM2H, because that's one of the finer overall guitars I've ever encountered, but Collings has a signature sound of its own and it sounds like it doesn't appeal to you. But if you make it down to Jerry's, I would try the beautiful sunburst OM2H he has there for sure.)

I love mini-jumbos, myself, maybe while you are there you can audition a Bourgeois, another fine guitar. Dana's 00 is really a fine instrument, as well.

[sixxstringer]

Well, after a couple years of preparing, I placed my order early last year for my Custom Martin that I was giving myself for my 60th birthday. I paid alot of attention to the details--cosmetically and structurally, including knowing that I wanted a DEEP BODY OM! My wife kept asking me how I could spend all that money for a guitar that would LOOK pretty, but not know what it would sound like. My response "Faith, my dear".

Everyone who has played this guitar (so far) has LOVED the depth and volume and projection, as well as its subtlety and clarity. Several have said it is the closest to a vintage Martin sound in a new Martin they have ever heard.

I like it!

[vic@leftiesonly]

That's a stunner! Congratulations!

[Glennwillow]

I think a deep body OM works on spruce over mahogany but not so much on spruce over rosewood.

- Glenn

[Kerbie]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I think a deep body OM works on spruce over mahogany but not so much on spruce over rosewood.

- Glenn

Couldn't agree more, Glenn!

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by RussMason

I must differ with those who think that all OMs must be built to the same template. Greater depth tends to translate to richer bass tones, and not much else. If the guitar is built with know-how, a deeper OM should sound pretty darn good.

Well, Russ, with all respect, I think you're knocking over a straw man there. Where in this thread or anywhere else on this forum have you seen anyone declaring that all OM's must be built to the same template?

What I've seen on this thread is players expressing their own personal preference for one or the other, and they have also often explained why.

However rich and bassy deep-bodied OM's might be, the ones I've tried haven't worked particularly well for the way I play and the performance situations I find myself in. Your needs are different. More power to you. But let's not dismiss the performance needs of people like me. Something to bear in mind is that, however pleasing that added bass response of a deep-bodied OM might be in a music room situation, once you start micing guitars onstage, the bassier they are the more difficult they are to mic.

Traditionally proportioned OM's are an absolute dream to use onstage. I just tell the sound tech: "Run it flat," and my guitars always sound wonderful with no fiddling around with the EQ trying to keep the guitar from WOOFING or squealing with feedback.

So I prefer the traditional proportions of the original OM design, and I've had plenty of opportunities to play both styles. Deep-bodied OM's work great for you, but not for me.

Isn't it great that we have both styles to choose from?


Wade Hampton Miller

[Wade Hampton]

Sixxstringer, I have to chime in and tell you what a gorgeous guitar that is. I particularly like the peghead inlay:



Did you design that yourself, get a graphic artist friend to design it for you, or did you just tell Martin that you wanted an evergreen tree in abalone with a mother of pearl full moon and that's what Martin came up with?

The reason I ask is that, after a number of custom instrument orders of my own, I've come to appreciate how difficult it is to design an inlay as effective as that one. Anyone can come up with a complex design that looks intriguing when you're three feet away from it, but most of those designs come out looking like iridescent blobs once you step back and view them from across a room.

That one is artistically successful.


Wade Hampton Miller

[sfden1]

Originally Posted by vic@leftiesonly

I think before trying something like adding a deeper body option onto an OM, it would be good for you to decide if an OM is really the guitar you're after.

The OM has a very distinct sound to it, as others have mentioned. You can change the woods on it, but it still going to have a lot of projection, a very balanced (more subtle) bass response and a very particular sort of tone to it.

.

My thoughts as well, and makes me think the OP might do well to consider a version of the SC F, modeled after Gibson's J-185 in terms of shape (the prototypical mini-jumbo), but all Santa Cruz in terms of tone. A very underrated guitar, imo.

Dennis

[guitarlifter]

Originally Posted by sfden1

My thoughts as well, and makes me think the OP might do well to consider a version of the SC F, modeled after Gibson's J-185 in terms of shape (the prototypical mini-jumbo), but all Santa Cruz in terms of tone. A very underrated guitar, imo.

Dennis

I'll definitely have some different models played for me so that I can know for sure.

[guitarlifter]

Btw, wow, I can't believe the 50/50 split decision on deep-bodied OMs. I'll definitely have to test any out I can or at least listen to them.

[rmyAddison]

My attitude is variety of sound, not confinement to any one standard. Right now I am down to 4 Martins, but they are different sizes and all different wood combinations.

To me a deep body OM, I wouldn't want a deep body short scale 000, would be another voice in the choir. If you get a chance to play a Martin OM-30DB Pat Donahue you might be surprised, I found it really rich and still responsive.

Rick Nelson was right - You can't please everyone, so you might as well please yourself!