Rainsong CH and H series guitars...

[DebbieE]

what's the difference? Is it just the H series has the striped tops that match the back and sides and also the inlays that the CH series doesn't have?

Thanks,

Debbie

[AZLiberty]

CH Series:

Unidirectional Top
Gloss Top
Satin Back/Sides
"Blacked Out" appointments (tuners, rosette...)
Short Scale - 12-fret

Hybrid H series:
Woven Carbon top
All Gloss
Round fretboard markers
Chrome tuners
Standard scale -14 fret


Also, not all body sizes are available in all series. No CH-D for example.

[NoodleFingers]

The word "hybrid" in the names of both models is that they are made with a mix of carbon fibers and glass fibers in the composite. As I understand it, these hybrids are not as strong as pure carbon fiber, but still very strong (far stronger than wood) and just as resistant to temperature and humidity. They are also said to have a "warmer" tone.

The "Concert Hybrid" models have a pure carbon fiber unidirectional top with hybrid construction for the back and sides. Not sure about the neck.

I had always assumed that the top for the Hybrid line had both carbon weave and glass fiber layers. But it may be all carbon. I'm not sure.

[jonfields45]

The bridge plate, neck bolt area, and end pin area have hard build ups which if all CF, could be made with glass fiber for the center layers, with little sacrifice in the final product durability, but a loss of the marketing claim of all CF and some lowering of cost to build. In the original Hybrids you could see the glass in the neck and end pin build ups. Almost right away they switched to only glass for the center layers. I think that is the primary difference. Possibly the glass fiber core bridge plate is a little less stiff which yields a more mellow tone. My personal favorites for tone are the CH models. Otherwise the Hybrids have always had less expensive cosmetics.

[NoodleFingers]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

The bridge plate, neck bolt area, and end pin area have build hard ups which if all CF, could be made with glass fiber for the center layers, with little sacrifice in the final product durability, but a loss of the marketing claim of all CF and some lowering of cost to build. In the original Hybrids you could see the glass in the neck and end pin build ups. Almost right away they switched to only glass for the center layers. I think that is the primary difference. Possibly the glass fiber core bridge plate is a little less stiff which yields a more mellow tone. My personal favorites for tone are the CH models. Otherwise the Hybrids have always had less expensive cosmetics. I am fairly certain everything else is the same.

If you don't mind my asking, where did you pick up such detailed knowledge of RainSong's construction techniques?

[steelvibe]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

The bridge plate, neck bolt area, and end pin area have build hard ups which if all CF, could be made with glass fiber for the center layers, with little sacrifice in the final product durability, but a loss of the marketing claim of all CF and some lowering of cost to build. In the original Hybrids you could see the glass in the neck and end pin build ups. Almost right away they switched to only glass for the center layers. I think that is the primary difference. Possibly the glass fiber core bridge plate is a little less stiff which yields a more mellow tone. My personal favorites for tone are the CH models. Otherwise the Hybrids have always had less expensive cosmetics. I am fairly certain everything else is the same.

Thanks for that info. The unidirectional tops are RainSong's lightest and they are crazy responsive because of that. I've played a Classic Series jumbo and, while it was a nice guitar, it was mostly loud [emoji4]



The unidirectional top was introduced on the Concert Series (way back in the day and with the abalone rosette and inlays). Then came the Shorty and the Parlor 12 and 14 fretters with the same tops, and now finally the CH or Concert Hybrid Series over three body types. I didn't know that about the top Jon but that is very interesting. Isn't also true that all the guitars mentioned above have fiberglass mixed in with CF on the woven back and sides? I would guess that all RainSong necks are solid CF for strength.

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by NoodleFingers

If you don't mind my asking, where did you pick up such detailed knowledge of RainSong's construction techniques?

Part a lifetime of engineering in semiconductors (including packaging). Part curiosity with an inspection mirror. Part obsession having bought (and eBay'ed eventually) an early model of every new RainSong, CA, and for a while Emeralds. And finally installing pickups in most of them and taking a close look at what I was drilling through.

And of course I could be wrong too :~).

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by steelvibe

Thanks for that info. The unidirectional tops are RainSong's lightest and they are crazy responsive because of that. I've played a Classic Series jumbo and, while it was a nice guitar, it was mostly loud [emoji4]



The unidirectional top was introduced on the Concert Series (way back in the day and with the abalone rosette and inlays). Then came the Shorty and the Parlor 12 and 14 fretters with the same tops, and now finally the CH or Concert Hybrid Series over three body types. I didn't know that about the top Jon but that is very interesting. Isn't also true that all the guitars mentioned above have fiberglass mixed in with CF on the woven back and sides? I would guess that all RainSong necks are solid CF for strength.

Oh yeah I forgot... The inner composite layer for the back of a Hybrid is black glass fiber. It is CF in the standard models. This makes the back of a Hybrid somewhat imbalanced with CF on the outside and Glass on the inside, presumably separated by the same spacing material as the top. But it might also contribute to why I like the Hybrid model's tone better and certain higher end models have also used the Hybrid back construction. For my money, I agree with Torres (who built a guitar in the 19th century with paper back and sides) that tone is primarily in the top.

The sides of all RainSongs are a single layer of CF. If you hold a flashlight directly against the side and look at that spot through the sound hole, you will see the single layer of weave very clearly.

Because of the specialized tooling to injection mold the neck (by the way the only CF part of a RainSong that is not built with pre-impregnated CF) the only practical thing for them to do is build them all the same (plus or minus some inlays and a final finish of gloss or satin polyurethane). They are an epoxy core, likely cut with a filler to reduce weight and fine tune the physical properties of the epoxy wrapped in CF. The epoxy core is visible under the truss rod cover. CF might be light compared to steel, but would be too heavy and expensive to use as the core of a neck (and a complete waste).

In my opinion, you should choose the RainSong model you like the best and not be concerned with the materials with which it was constructed. All RainSongs are going to be stable in the face of humidity and temperature. All RainSongs will not deform over time and require a neck reset.

One last comment I've made before, just because you can't see bracing does not mean there is not a lot going on in the construction of a RainSong.

[Captain Jim]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

...

One last comment I've made before, just because you can't see bracing does not mean there is not a lot going on in the construction of a RainSong.

I wonder if the different CF makers have experimented with the back shape on their guitars? More curvature, more power and "push"? I bought a Taylor GSmini after they first came out, and I recall reading Taylor saying the curvature in the back of that guitar helped it produce "a bigger" sound.

I understand it is quite a commitment once a mould is made.

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by Captain Jim

I wonder if the different CF makers have experimented with the back shape on their guitars? More curvature, more power and "push"? I bought a Taylor GSmini after they first came out, and I recall reading Taylor saying the curvature in the back of that guitar helped it produce "a bigger" sound.

I understand it is quite a commitment once a mould is made.

I am guessing the RainSong CF/Glass buildup is already light and stiff enough that further arching for strength, what Taylor is doing for un-braced plywood, is not required for good tone. Good marketing turns engineering necessity into a feature :~).

[AZLiberty]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

I am guessing the RainSong CF/Glass buildup is already light and stiff enough that further arching for strength, what Taylor is doing for un-braced plywood, is not required for good tone. Good marketing turns engineering necessity into a feature :~).

A choice, not necessity.

Taylor copied the pressed, arch back Guild design, which is well known for good projection. Plenty of folks use a flat backed braced plywood back.

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

A choice, not necessity.

Taylor copied the pressed, arch back Guild design, which is well known for good projection. Plenty of folks use a flat backed braced plywood back.

But not an un-braced flat back plywood design, which would be the cheapest to manufacture. The choice for wood (ply or solid) is arch or braces, but not neither like a RainSong.

Once you've chosen your design, no reason not to claim it is better. If arched back flat top guitars were truly the best for projection, then they would at least be represented in factory high end guitars.

[jonfields45]

And another observation, the glue joint (reinforced with a CF flange) of the top to the sides of a RainSong really impresses me. It is not painted over and on my RainSongs absolutely perfect, like a 15 series Martin. I think this is not easy and another aspect of the content in what looks like a simple design.