Studio Needs in an Acoustic

[adam79]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I suggest a Gibson J 45 or something similar. The mid range is accentuated, the attack is highlighted and they have much less sustain than say a Martin OM.

Oh ya, cool...one I've actually tried, and liked a lot. That was before I had this criteria, but thinking back, it does fit. Plus it's on the cheaper side of my budget .

[adam79]

Originally Posted by rmp

with the budget and the "Studio" thang - an SJ200 would reign supreme

What's the difference between the SJ an J? I'm pretty sure the SJ200 is the newer one, but that's all I know. I've been wanting to try one forever, but like most of the guitars on my list, I've never seen it locally.

[Jeffreykip]

Originally Posted by adam79

Oh ya, cool...one I've actually tried, and liked a lot. That was before I had this criteria, but thinking back, it does fit. Plus it's on the cheaper side of my budget .

Wow. I’d love for a J45 to be on the cheaper side of my budget.

[sinistral]

I’m still not sure what a “wooly”sounding guitar sounds like. Since this is the custom sub-forum. I’m curious if the luthiers who frequent here would understand what you meant if you asked them to build you a wooly sounding guitar. Can you point to a recording in which the guitar sounded wooly?

[adam79]

Originally Posted by sinistral

I’m still not sure what a “wooly”sounding guitar sounds like. Since this is the custom sub-forum. I’m curious if the luthiers who frequent here would understand what you meant if you asked them to build you a wooly sounding guitar. Can you point to a recording in which the guitar sounded wooly?

Ok, so I snagged this from a thread over on gearspace...vitreouswindows wrote,

'It's a texture - the more aggressive aspect of 'silky'. I never associated 'wooly' with lack of clarity, but rather a more 'grainy' sound - not quite as smooth to the ears - a 'roughness'. This can either be a feature or a liability depending upon the circumstance.'

[adam79]

Originally Posted by Jeffreykip

Wow. I’d love for a J45 to be on the cheaper side of my budget.

Same here, in reality, budget should read credit card...and unless the guitar I choose opens up new dimension of sound and vision, it's getting returned after studio.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by adam79

My first thought was a Mahogany body. Something that's opposite to Maple's clarity of every note in a chord.

Originally Posted by adam79

I'm thinking of the midrange frequency often referred to as 'woolly'

Originally Posted by adam79

I want an acoustic that's tight

Honduran Mahogany has a bias towards the mids. You might want to demo some Mahogany bodys with both Adi and Sitka tops. Adi will be more fundamental and lean toward the "tight" side while Sitka would give you more overtones and less clarity which you should be able to differentiate. Perhaps this would be a good place to start?

Also if you are looking for a studio guitar then an OM or OO are generally easier to record than a larger body.

[adam79]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Honduran Mahogany has a bias towards the mids. You might want to demo some Mahogany bodys with both Adi and Sitka tops. Adi will be more fundamental and lean toward the "tight" side while Sitka would give you more overtones and less clarity which you should be able to differentiate. Perhaps this would be a good place to start?

Also if you are looking for a studio guitar then an OM or OO are generally easier to record than a larger body.

What would be an example of a Mahogany body w/ Adi top? I've never heard of Adi.

[John Osthoff]

When Tim says. "Adi" he is referring to Eastern Red Spruce most often called Adirondack Spruce. It was used extensively by guitar manufactures before 1940ish (Pre-war.)

I slightly disagree that Sitka has more overtones than Adirondack, but would say that Adirondack has a bit more clarity. Each piece is different, so your milage my vary.

I have no idea what wooly means referring to tone. I think I know what you mean when you say tight, but many adjectives relating to tone are subjective. Tight for example to means very quick attack and not a lot of sustain. (Both attack and sustain can be measured.) Someone else may refer to tight as have a very strong fundamental without a lot of overtones. (also measurable,) but a different than the first example

It is romantic to use nice adjectives to describe tone, but one must be careful to make sure we are on the same page when using some of these terms.

[rollypolly]

If you want dry , focused midrange and you want something like a cigar box guitar, an old Gibson LG-0 or B-15 all mahogany comes to mind. I had one for a bit and it definitely had loads of mid range and plenty of character. Not sure it's "wooly" but the other descriptors you used seem like a good match.