Archtop Variability

[MrBJones]

Being familiar with flat tops, I know that a guitar of particular brand/model can have tone etc that varies from another of the same brand/model. I assume the same is true of archtops…but is that variability more or less prevalent than with flat tops (or about the same) ? In particular, I'm wondering about archtops with hand carved tops.
Thanks!

[Archtop Guy]

Archtops certainly have large instrument-to-instrument variation, at least as much as flatttops do. I will go out on a limb and say that carved top guitars have a some extra variables compared to flattops.

Factory made instruments such as Eastmans and Gibsons have very regular dimensions, such as the thickness and carve of the top, the size and placement of the braces. Of course no two pieces of wood are identical, and maybe dimensions still vary a little. At any rate, even factory guitars still have individual personalities.

Hand carved guitars are another matter entirely. In addition to wider variation in the wood available from a small or one-man shop, the carve and braces vary from instrument to instrument. The luthier can start with two guitars that are ostensibly the same, and by making subtle change to the carve and the bracing create very different sounds.

I always repeat this quote, so here it is again. Jimmy D'Aquisto said that archtops were the most versatile guitars. Most people take his meaning to be that he could optimize an instrument for any sound a customer wanted. Not exactly the same as your original question, but related. These instruments are very sensitive to details of construction.

Like flattop afficianodos we all go by the rule : play it first, then decide.

[skipster]

i would say that archtops have a good deal more variability than flat-tops, based on my experience over the years with pre-1940's Gibsons and Epiphones.
One of the biggest ,and most common,variables that can have a dramatic effect on tone is the neck set/break angle over the bridge.
Gibsons from the 1927-1938 period have some quite different factory neck sets, from pretty low to really high.
In general,the lower bridges give a warmer,slightly mellower tone,that is more familiar to a flat-top player trying out an archie for the first time.
Most of the modern chinese archtops have a low break angle for this reason,although i think the Loars overdid it on their 16 inch models,and ended up sounding a bit boxy and muffled.
the best modern archtop i have played was an Eastman AR810, pretty darn good for the money!

Skip

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by skipster

i would say that archtops have a good deal more variability than flat-tops, based on my experience over the years with pre-1940's Gibsons and Epiphones.
One of the biggest ,and most common,variables that can have a dramatic effect on tone is the neck set/break angle over the bridge.
Gibsons from the 1927-1938 period have some quite different factory neck sets, from pretty low to really high.
In general,the lower bridges give a warmer,slightly mellower tone,that is more familiar to a flat-top player trying out an archie for the first time.
Most of the modern chinese archtops have a low break angle for this reason,although i think the Loars overdid it on their 16 inch models,and ended up sounding a bit boxy and muffled.
the best modern archtop i have played was an Eastman AR810, pretty darn good for the money!

Skip

Hi, Skip's comments seem to explain a lot. When I got intrigued by Archtops a few years ago, I started cheap, - got a '66 Harmony Monterey in 2006 which has a sensible neck angle and a remarkably straight neck. I ordered an Eastman which took two years to arrive, and so bought a Loar, from a box shifter in Germany - terrible neck angle - sold it to a friend and bought another "top of the line. Turned up without the advertised hard shell case and with the same silly neck angle - and black paint to cover the unfinished part under the neck extension.
Won't bother with anything with Loar written on it again!

Then I went crazy and ordered a '34 L4/L7 from Archtop.com. (Label says L4 - spec is definitely L7). Its a fun old guitar, and in relatively good condition (it had virtually no frets so had to have them replaced, but I prefer the sound of the Eastman AR805e - but that has a pickup so I'm selling it soon.

I like archtops, but I've decided I'm not really an archtop player.

[Gratefuliving]

Originally Posted by Archtop Guy

Jimmy D'Aquisto said that archtops were the most versatile guitars.

There was a Fretboard Journal article a few years ago about John Monteleone, he said something very similar but intended it to mean that his guitars were extremely versatile, his example being that he knew guys were using them for Bottleneck, flatpicking, fingerstyle, jazz, folk etc. and he intended them to have that range/ responsiveness that you can coax many different things out of them. I think there's something to that, I've never played a Monteleone, but having played a few Andersen's/ Commins, I think if I were to whittle it down to one it would be between my dread and one of those (note I don't own one now.) Article's not online but here's the accompanying podcast:

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/podc...ohn-monteleone

[Archtop Guy]

Originally Posted by skipster

One of the biggest ,and most common,variables that can have a dramatic effect on tone is the neck set/break angle over the bridge.

Glad you mentioned this. The break angle of the strings over the bridge, and therefore the downward force on the bridge, is very important. The angle is determined not only by the neck set angle, but also by the tailpiece placement.

And this is why the tailpiece height is easily adjusted on most archtops.

When D'Aquisto would adjust a guitar for the player's preferred tone, his primary "knobs" were the break angle, by adjusting the tailpiece, and the bridge itself, by altering the mass or the footprint.

The initial setup of string break angle can definitely vary in otherwise similar guitars.

[skipster]

Thanks Archtop guy,some very good points.

this principal also applies to banjos,many of which have adjustable tailpiece angles. You can turn a bad sounding banjo into a great sounding banjo in about 2 minutes(and vice versa) by adjusting the tailpiece.
Its a bit trickier on guitars, usually the tailpiece is hinged,and cannot be locked in position.
Somebody needs to invent an adjustable,lockable tailpiec for archtop guitars, I would buy one!

epiphone played around with the "frequensator" tailpiece, but i dont really know if that made too much of a difference.

The bridge footprint is another great way to experiment. Steve Gilchrist built me a replica bridge for one of my L5's that used a single foot,rather than the standard double foot that it came with.
the sound became warmer,rounder and more flat-top,with a little less cutting power, but overall a nicer sound.
I have also replaced ebony bridge tops with Brazilian rosewood ones,and i believe that was an improvement(the jury is still out on that though)

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by skipster

...Somebody needs to invent an adjustable, lockable tailpiece for archtop guitars. I would buy one!

Gibson's "Varitone" tailpiece, a feature of their flagship L-5/Super 400 models for half a century, was just such an attempt - thing is, in the opinion of most players it never really lived up to its initial hype (did a great job of initiating stress cracks in the top, though); there's also the Oettinger "finger" tailpiece (featured on a number of high-end Gibson archtops since the late-70s), as well as the dual-segment Ibanez George Benson model. Personally I'm not a fan - I'd also look at bridge footprint/mass/materials first (assuming I'm dealing with an already-built guitar) in a quest for my preferred tone...

[Archtop Guy]

Originally Posted by skipster

Somebody needs to invent an adjustable,lockable tailpiec for archtop guitars, I would buy one!

And here:



This is the tailpiece mount on one my Trenier's. Not exactly adjustable on the bandstand, but not hard to do at home.

[skipster]

now that gives me an idea!
take a repro gibson style tailpiece and elongate each screwhole and the endpin hole in a vertical direction then ,voila, adjustable tailpiece!
thanks folks!

[cmajor9]

Originally Posted by skipster

Somebody needs to invent an adjustable,lockable tailpiec for archtop guitars, I would buy one!

Such a tailpiece was developed by James D'Aquisto, and is a feature on some of his guitars, as well as the Master Series D'Aquisto models he designed in conjuction with Fender shortly before he passed away.