Archtop in lieu of OM?

[OKCtodd71]

So if I want to use my all solid carved archie in lieu of buying a 000/OM right now, would swapping the ebony saddle for one of Tusq/bone contribute to moving it a bit more to flat top tone? I know it is a different beast, b&s solid maple, floating bridge, etc. but it would at least be a more traditional "touching point" of string to guitar. Is there any particular string brand/material that you'd suggest? I'm thinking Martin retro monels....but can't say exactly why.

Thinking something along the lines of this:
https://www.amazon.com/ULTNICE-Archt...bridge%2C+bone

Thanks.

[kayakman]

I use Martin Retro`s on my 38 L5, there great...

[devellis]

To my ear, an archtop has a punchier sound than a flat-top. Even for an oval-hole archtop, I think that's true. For an f-hole archtop, it's even truer. I think going from ebony to bone for the saddle would enhance, rather than diminish that tendency. Also, I think Retro Monels emphasize the fundamental more and, again, I think that is what the archtop already does well and you'd want to move in the opposite direction to get more of a flat-top sound.

You could mess around with different strings to see what happens but I'm a believer that strings act as filters, removing but not adding anything to the sound inherent in the guitar. Now, different strings may remove less of something you're after than the strings yo usually use. But I don't think strings can really add what the guitar isn't inherently producing. And I think archtops are inherently punchy, with less sustain and fewer complex overtones than a typical OM.

Playing style (like where you hit the strings) and pick choice (if you play with a pick) may actually alter the sound more. And they're easy, inexpensive ways to experiment.

You might just want to enjoy your archtop for what it is and not really try to get it to be what it isn't. By all means explore different approaches that may give you tone colorations you haven't yet exploited. But I think expecting an archtop to sound like an OM is going to be quite a challenge.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by kayakman

I use Martin Retros on my '38 L5, they're great...

Originally Posted by devellis

To my ear, an archtop has a punchier sound than a flat-top. Even for an oval-hole archtop, I think that's true. For an f-hole archtop, it's even truer. I think going from ebony to bone for the saddle would enhance, rather than diminish that tendency. Also, I think Retro Monels emphasize the fundamental more and, again, I think that is what the archtop already does well and you'd want to move in the opposite direction to get more of a flat-top sound...I think archtops are inherently punchy, with less sustain and fewer complex overtones than a typical OM.

Playing style (like where you hit the strings) and pick choice (if you play with a pick) may actually alter the sound more. And they're easy, inexpensive ways to experiment.

You might just want to enjoy your archtop for what it is and not really try to get it to be what it isn't. By all means explore different approaches that may give you tone colorations you haven't yet exploited. But I think expecting an archtop to sound like an OM is going to be quite a challenge.

I use Retro MM13's on my Godin 5th Avenue and they made a world of difference; as Bob states, they moved the response squarely into that classic archtop "bark" zone that you're used to hearing from those old '30s/40s Big Band comp boxes - I'm an old archtop player from way back so that's exactly the sound I was after - but if you're expecting the ring and sustain of a 000/OM you're not going to get it (I borrow my wife's 000-16RGT for that). I suspect you're thinking in terms of fingerstyle which, contrary to popular belief, you can do on a properly set-up archtop; you'll need to adapt your style a bit to fit the characteristic archtop response, though (and you might want to consider a set of fingerpicks) - a well broken-in 16-incher makes a great choice for older styles like ragtime and early acoustic blues, but unless technique and timing are dead-on they're merciless when it comes to revealing any flaws on your part...

[Wade Hampton]

Here’s an easy, inexpensive experiment for you to try: swap out the ebony adjustable bridge for one made from rosewood. I got into archtop guitars for a while, and found that just that one simple, easily reversible modification could really warm up the sound of some archtop instruments. I no longer own any archtop guitars, but have a couple of mandolins that I’ve kept rosewood bridges on. It works surprisingly well on some instruments.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

[campusfive]

So, I think the lack of sustain is really the big difference between something like an OM and a good acoustic archtop. The punch and projection you get in exchange for the lessened sustain are obviously helpful trade offs for some situations.

I've got a Waterloo WL-14 that strikes me as the kind of thing that an OM might bring, and two L-5's (a 1932 and a 1939) so I know acoustic archtops.

While I spend most of time gigging chunking rhythm, I spend the rest of the time working on 30's-style chord-melody. My 1932 L-5 is very sensitive and responsive and has great sustain for an archtop. But the first thing I notice when I pickup the Waterloo is the enhanced sustain.

All that said, I wonder how sensitive your carved top archtop is. Many carved top archtop guitar just aren't designed or built for acoustic response as a priority, so if it's not on the lightly-built, lightly finished, well broken-in side of things, a saddle or string change isn't really going to do that much.

A string change from flats or normal nickel roundwounds to something like monel or bronze will probably be the best bet. I don't think a bone saddle is going to make the difference you're looking for. But if you had a tune-o-matic, then going to ebony would be a big difference.