If lightly-built is better, how can heavy old Guilds sound so good?

[Tico]

I still have the heavily-built 1977 Guild D-55 that I bought new.
Love it! (Of course I'm biased.)
I also have a very lightly-built 2015 Martin Authentic D-28 VTS 37.
Love it too!
IMO, both lack nothing in terms of fine tone, projection, power, and sustain.

But I just read George Henry's complimentary thread about the new Guilds from Oxnard, including a D-55, being lightly-built.
JohnW63 posted that Ren Fergenson might have have had a hand in that change.

So what, tonally, are the downsides of a more heavily-built acoustic?
... and with those downsides, how can heavy old Guilds sound so good?
Could it be that it doesn't really sound that good, and I'm just partial to what I bought?
(We all like to think we've made good decisions.)

I wonder whether both lightly and heavily built guitars can sound good since weight is just one of several complex and interacting design decisions.
Perhaps both can sound equally fine if the builder knows what (s)he is doing.

Your thoughts?

[gr81dorn]

one technicality to consdider is that "heavy" old growth wood will still have a tendency to be much more resonant to start with, then have it played in over 40 years and you've got a nice recipe for a tone monster. Modern guitars, with a few exceptions, are using much, much newer wood to start with and then, obviously, haven;t aged and been played for decades.

I think the trend to light builds is to compensate for what time and nature provided in the first many decades of guitar production in this country.

[L20A]

Guild guitars are heavy because of the large head stock, tuning gears and big laminated necks.
They have great lightly built tops that resonate beautifully.

Before becoming a Guild fan and player, I used to wonder why they were heavier than other makers.
I also thought that a lighter build would have better sound.
I was wrong!

[Red_Label]

Nearly every guitar that I've ever had with a heavy build, tended to be a bit like a wet log in terms of lively tone and response (besides my Breedlove C25 SRe/H). I like light builds in general. I may be risking soundboard warpage and cracking, but it usually makes up for it in sounding like an instrument that's so responsive and punchy, that it sounds like it's going to explode at any moment. I love that kind of guitar. The less wood the better for my tastes (I know... that sounds weird when talking about acoustic guitars).

[Rodger Knox]

First, it's difficult to tell if a guitar is lightly built just by picking it up. The top is the important part, and braces close second, so those would need to be measured. Back and sides do make some difference, but that's more species related. African blackwood can be built lightly by going thinner than usual, but it's still going to heavier than a similar mahogany guitar.

They both can work, although the perception is that lightly built guitars sound better, which I believe is generally true, but heavy can work.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by gr81dorn

I think the trend to light builds is to compensate for what time and nature provided in the first many decades of guitar production in this country.

Some early 1900's guitars were built very lightly: a few Martin 00's that I've seen were shockingly lightly braced. The trend was to make them beefier to reduce warrantee work, in some cases getting so "beefy" as to sound pretty dead. The modern trend is to make them less beefy, but, often, still heavier than the early 1900 instruments. In some cases, modern design and construction methods have allowed somewhat lighter designs. One example is "double tops" with carbon fibre reinforced lattice bracing.

[SprintBob]

The heaviest acoustic I own is my Santa Cruz 00 Skye because it has Cocobolo back and sides. But it is the loudest and extremely responsive/resonant so I think choice of tonewood factors in.

[colder]

I think it's just an internet meme that lighter is always better or makes for "better" tone. It's just different.

[Erithon]

Originally Posted by Red_Label

I like light builds in general. I may be risking soundboard warpage and cracking, but it usually makes up for it in sounding like an instrument that's so responsive and punchy, that it sounds like it's going to explode at any moment.

I fully concur.

Originally Posted by Rodger Knox

First, it's difficult to tell if a guitar is lightly built just by picking it up.

In a strict literal sense I agree, but I think it's pretty easy to tell how lightly a guitar is build and braced by tapping around the top and playing it a little. You don't need to measure brace width and top thickness.

Originally Posted by SprintBob

The heaviest acoustic I own is my Santa Cruz 00 Skye because it has Cocobolo back and sides. But it is the loudest and extremely responsive/resonant so I think choice of tonewood factors in.

Cocobolo is my favorite tonewood. It can definitely add weight. But I don't think a weighty guitar is necessarily the same thing as a heavily built guitar: the former is the sum of all factors while (to me) the latter refers only to the thickness of the materials comprising the body (braces, soundboard, back, and sides.)


In short, when we refer to a lightly built guitar (e.g. Martin Authentics) or a heavily built guitar (e.g. McPhersons) it is not about the actual weight, but about the construction design. As a fingerstyle player, I prefer lightly built instruments. But a player with a more aggressive touch or heavy strumming style may well find a lightly built guitar doesn't work as well for them.

[Rosewood99]

I think it depends on the builder. One isn't necessarily better than the other.

[Red_Label]

Originally Posted by Erithon

I fully concur.
As a fingerstyle player, I prefer lightly built instruments. But a player with a more aggressive touch or heavy strumming style may well find a lightly built guitar doesn't work as well for them.

I am a heavy strummer and picker. I only use stiff, thick, sharp Dunlop Jazz III XL picks. So I'm getting a real loud, percussive attack. But I still tend to love the explosiveness out of a lightly built guitar. I've always tended to be a fire hose though. Subtlety isn't a trait that's ever been found in much quantity in me.

[Gordon Currie]

I don't think light vs. heavy provides any tonal rules. In my experience it doesn't affect the tone as much as the playing response.

So an audience may not hear any significant difference, but *I* might experience the lighter one as giving me more immediate feedback. I imagine that would be largely due to a freer top and braces.

[yellowesty]

There seems to be a tendency to associate a light-weight guitar with a lightly-built guitar (and similarly to equate a heavy-weight guitar with a heavily-built guitar). There's not necessarily any connection betwixt the two.

The difference in weight of bracing and top thickness going from lightly-built to heavily-built is unlikely to be more than a few ounces. The difference between a light-weight guitar and a heavy guitar could easily be a couple of pounds -- even for guitars of the same size.

Great guitars can scale heavy for many reasons: heavier woods (ebony and rosewood are dense); fancy/heavy headstocks, neck bracing, tuners, or strap buttons, or intentionally weighted sides (the Gore/Gilet books recommend weighting the sides with a pound (400g.) of steel). But none of these weighty factors need indicate a heavily-built guitar. That's a matter of thickness and contouring of the top and the braces of the top -- and, similarly, of the back.

My impression is that preferences in guitar weight and balance (neck-heavy or neck-light) is influenced by playing style -- sitting (guitar in lap or on leg) or standing (with a strap). I'm not sure that there's any preference for a heavily-built guitar.

[George Henry]

I had a number of earlier Guilds; a lightly built Hoboken D-40, and much heavier Westerly built D-55 and D-50. The D-40 was alive and resonant and the tone lasted on a set of strings. The Westerly instruments sounded great when strings were new but quickly deadened when the strings aged. The D-55 had undergone a brace voicing procedure by Dave Stutzman of Stutzman Guitars.

The Oxnard Guilds are lighter because the overall build is lighter, especially the neck block (and probably the tail block), and the braces. It is obvious with the most casual of glances.

[justonwo]

It depends which part of the guitar is heavy.