The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-21-2019, 11:12 PM
gruuv gruuv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 477
Default The Vintage - Modern Tone Spectrum

Greetings AGF Faithful,

I’m hoping you will join me in an unscientific, subjective experiment by helping to put together a spectrum from Vintage to Modern tone by builder. For fun, let’s limit it to OM/000/GC body size/shape.

I understand that we’re already running into problems characterizing tone as “modern,” for example, because it is personal and subjective. But, for the sake of argument, someone might place Martin OM’s way down on the vintage end of the spectrum, and Taylor GC’s far to the modern end.
Where would, for example, Huss & Dalton, Collings, Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, etc. fall? Any other builders you’d include?

Feel free to add qualifiers and descriptors (big bass response, refined, etc.) and explain why you’re placing each where you are. I know there is a wealth of experience with a wide variety of instruments here, so I’m very curious to hear about them.

Thanks and enjoy!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:27 AM
Paddy1951 Paddy1951 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruuv View Post
Greetings AGF Faithful,



I’m hoping you will join me in an unscientific, subjective experiment by helping to put together a spectrum from Vintage to Modern tone by builder. For fun, let’s limit it to OM/000/GC body size/shape.



I understand that we’re already running into problems characterizing tone as “modern,” for example, because it is personal and subjective. But, for the sake of argument, someone might place Martin OM’s way down on the vintage end of the spectrum, and Taylor GC’s far to the modern end.

Where would, for example, Huss & Dalton, Collings, Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, etc. fall? Any other builders you’d include?



Feel free to add qualifiers and descriptors (big bass response, refined, etc.) and explain why you’re placing each where you are. I know there is a wealth of experience with a wide variety of instruments here, so I’m very curious to hear about them.



Thanks and enjoy!
I have often wondered how great was the sound/tone spectrum say, 100-150 years ago? We know what Martins and Gibsons sounded like. Surely, there were other builders even if smaller and not as well known. What did their guitars sound like-where would they fall on the spectrum? OR is the tonal spectrum a modern phenomenon?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:48 AM
gruuv gruuv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy1951 View Post
I have often wondered how great was the sound/tone spectrum say, 100-150 years ago? We know what Martins and Gibsons sounded like. Surely, there were other builders even if smaller and not as well known. What did their guitars sound like-where would they fall on the spectrum? OR is the tonal spectrum a modern phenomenon?
It’s a good question. The internet age has certainly allowed for the proliferation of builders.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:48 AM
mercy mercy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Inland Empire, So California
Posts: 6,246
Default

Well you leave out some very well known guitars with that spread. I would place Gibson further to the left of Martin and the European builders like Lowden to the left of Taylor, or maybe to the right depending on how you look at it. So my thinking is Gibson is more bassy than Martin and has less overtones. Then you go to the right with more overtone content and brightr which to me is the modern sound.
Taylor is modern in a different way with fewer overtones but brighter in general. So maybe its not a linear graph but a v shaped plot starting with Stella's up to Lowden and from Stella's down to Taylor
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:55 AM
merlin666 merlin666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada Prairies
Posts: 2,957
Default

What do you mean with "vintage"? This can be 1) a guitar built at a certain time period/year that has seen little use and was well preserved by a collector 2) a new guitar that is built to specifications and using methods/tools of a certain period/year 3) an old and used guitar of specified brand.

I would assume that there is a huge range of tone spectrum just between guitars of these three definitions or even within one of the definitions. So the question should be where as a group they are distinct enough to separate them from more "modern" designs.

And yeah where do you draw the line between "modern" and "vintage" - and specific decade from 30s to 80s could be applied.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:24 AM
J Patrick J Patrick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,679
Default

...I get the gist of the thread...and from experience owning and playing a fair number of both vintage and new instruments I think understand the differences you are referencing...for me the difficulty of making an accurate assessment lies in the fact that you are comparing dozens of modern builders to basically two companies...Martin and Gibson....

....suffice it to say that the closer a modern day builder emulates and reproduces vintage guitars... the closer in vintage tone they will likely be...the further they stray from those designs the more likely they will produce instruments with the modern or at least different tone...

...I personally find that vintage voiced instruments agree more with the styles that I play so I gravitate towards them....the more modern sounding instruments that I have owned have been the most likely to be moved along for that reason...

...I hesitate to name specific builders because many modern builders can and do roll either way...with some notable exceptions that others will almost certainly point out...that said I will try to play along....these are the builders I have direct experience with...

Vintage: Martin Gibson Santa Cruz Bourgeois

Modern: Breedlove Taylor Larivee Lowden

straddling the line: Collings Huss&Dalton

....as I mentioned above...many companies roll both ways and I think most of my picks do... to varying degrees...

Last edited by J Patrick; 01-22-2019 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:25 AM
Osage Osage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy1951 View Post
I have often wondered how great was the sound/tone spectrum say, 100-150 years ago? We know what Martins and Gibsons sounded like. Surely, there were other builders even if smaller and not as well known. What did their guitars sound like-where would they fall on the spectrum? OR is the tonal spectrum a modern phenomenon?
I'm a collector of old trade publications, jobber catalogs, instrument company catalogs, photographs and other things related. One thing that you'll notice is that the word "modern" gets used a lot. Archtops in the 20's and 30's were advertised as having a "modern sound". When x-bracing came into fashion, they were touted as being for the "modern player". etc....

Another interesting thing is that in the 00's and teens, very few professional players seemed to be playing Matrin's. At least not professional players from New York, where a lot of this literature comes from. During that era, they were predominantly playing smaller luthier builds from the many Italian makers in New York City. These makers are often called the Italian Guild by current collectors. They were also advertised as having a "modern" sound.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:08 AM
bufflehead bufflehead is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 3,689
Default

Rather than ascribe modernity according to brand, I would go with bracing, as follows:

Vintage = ladder bracing
Modern = X bracing (with forward-shifted X bracing being a bit more modern.)
Postmodern = V bracing
__________________
1 dreadnought, 1 auditorium, 1 concert, and 2 travel guitars.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:49 AM
merlin666 merlin666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada Prairies
Posts: 2,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bufflehead View Post
Rather than ascribe modernity according to brand, I would go with bracing, as follows:

Vintage = ladder bracing
Modern = X bracing (with forward-shifted X bracing being a bit more modern.)
Postmodern = V bracing
I think you're missing several bracing styles that are steeped in classical guitar design and were probably way more common than "V bracing" will ever be. Here just some examples of what Ovations were braced like in the mid 70s, this may be "modern" for some, and "vintage" for other people:

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:04 AM
brencat's Avatar
brencat brencat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,645
Default

Here is how I hear them:

- Martin (dark timbre, bass biased, midrange scooped)
-
- Goodall TR (Traditional series) (vintage voice, slight mid scoop, very strong bass and great sustain, super resonant, loud. Think 70% Martin, 20% Gibson, 10% Collings)
- Santa Cruz (vintage voice, strong but not booming bass, midrange enhanced, tons of harmonic nuance. Think 70% Martin, 30% Gibson)
- Bourgeois (vintage voice, more midrange than Martin, puts out exactly what you put into it)
-
- Huss & Dalton (Bass timbre of Martin with Collings mids and highs. Think 60% Martin, 40% Collings)
-
- Collings (Cutting, in-your-face-all-the-time clarity, massive volume, tight quick bass (OMs don't have enough IMO), plays like a coiled spring and outputs 125% of what you put into it)
- Webber (A slightly mellower Collings with similar mids and highs)
-
- Taylor
__________________
Merrill | Martin | Collings | Gibson

For Sale: 2023 Collings D2H 1 3/4 Nut, Adi Bracing, NTB -- $4250 shipped

Last edited by brencat; 01-22-2019 at 11:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:06 AM
AndrewG AndrewG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Exeter, UK
Posts: 7,674
Default

Wow, what a question! Do we mean 'vintage' as in an old guitar today, or how the thing may have sounded when new? If it's the latter we can have no idea-especially on a guitar up to a century old.
If it's the former that's going to depend hugely on environmental factors influencing the wood over many years. F'rinstance, can we say that the same brand of 000 that lived it's whole life in a predominantly humid climate, will have matured in the same way as one brought up in the Nevadan desert?

Within those two examples I would guess we already have quite a wide tonal spectrum. The 'modern' tonality we hear in more projecting brightness and higher mids is surely something we could also hear in a vintage instrument...

Ok, that's my bit. Can I just watch now?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2019, 03:58 PM
gruuv gruuv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 477
Default

See, this is why I love AGF. This thread is already delivering!

Okay, I can already tell I won't be able to keep up with it, which is a good thing! But, before I get too far behind, I'll address some specific comments with a mega post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercy View Post
Well you leave out some very well known guitars with that spread. I would place Gibson further to the left of Martin and the European builders like Lowden to the left of Taylor, or maybe to the right depending on how you look at it. So my thinking is Gibson is more bassy than Martin and has less overtones. Then you go to the right with more overtone content and brightr which to me is the modern sound.
Taylor is modern in a different way with fewer overtones but brighter in general. So maybe its not a linear graph but a v shaped plot starting with Stella's up to Lowden and from Stella's down to Taylor
Awesome! I like the way you're approaching this with the V rather than linear. I tend to think in a more linear fashion, but your variation here helps to address some of those inherent problems with trying to categorize tone the way I've asked for it to be categorized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin666 View Post
What do you mean with "vintage"? This can be 1) a guitar built at a certain time period/year that has seen little use and was well preserved by a collector 2) a new guitar that is built to specifications and using methods/tools of a certain period/year 3) an old and used guitar of specified brand.

I would assume that there is a huge range of tone spectrum just between guitars of these three definitions or even within one of the definitions. So the question should be where as a group they are distinct enough to separate them from more "modern" designs.
Agreed. This is where the tone comes into play (subjectivity caveat in place) - for the purposes of this thread, "it doesn't matter how you got there." In other words, whatever the build technique, age of the instrument, etc. what does it sound like; i.e. what tone is it producing, and where does it fall on that tonal spectrum?

Quote:
And yeah where do you draw the line between "modern" and "vintage" - and specific decade from 30s to 80s could be applied.
Entirely subjective, but we could possibly land in similar spaces based on terms like "brighter" or "darker," a la the Gibson/Martin vs. Taylor examples. Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Patrick View Post
...I get the gist of the thread...and from experience owning and playing a fair number of both vintage and new instruments I think understand the differences you are referencing...for me the difficulty of making an accurate assessment lies in the fact that you are comparing dozens of modern builders to basically two companies...Martin and Gibson....
This in and of itself is pretty crazy to think about, but I agree with you. The same can be said for Fender in the electric bass realm (my main instrument). You've got boatloads of builders clamoring to make "a better jazz bass," all the while people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for a '62 Fender Jazz. Then you've got builders like Ken Smith who have found a niche in Gospel with an extremely "modern" tone.

Quote:
....suffice it to say that the closer a modern day builder emulates and reproduces vintage guitars... the closer in vintage tone they will likely be...the further they stray from those designs the more likely they will produce instruments with the modern or at least different tone...

...I personally find that vintage voiced instruments agree more with the styles that I play so I gravitate towards them....the more modern sounding instruments that I have owned have been the most likely to be moved along for that reason...

...I hesitate to name specific builders because many modern builders can and do roll either way...with some notable exceptions that others will almost certainly point out...that said I will try to play along....these are the builders I have direct experience with...

Vintage: Martin Gibson Santa Cruz Bourgeois

Modern: Breedlove Taylor Larivee Lowden

straddling the line: Collings Huss&Dalton

....as I mentioned above...many companies roll both ways and I think most of my picks do... to varying degrees...
Good list! You've jumped off the cliff and named names... and so it begins. Only joking - I understand the hesitation in trying to categorize specific builders this way, but I think it's part of fun, healthy discussion on the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osage View Post
I'm a collector of old trade publications, jobber catalogs, instrument company catalogs, photographs and other things related. One thing that you'll notice is that the word "modern" gets used a lot. Archtops in the 20's and 30's were advertised as having a "modern sound". When x-bracing came into fashion, they were touted as being for the "modern player". etc....

Another interesting thing is that in the 00's and teens, very few professional players seemed to be playing Matrin's. At least not professional players from New York, where a lot of this literature comes from. During that era, they were predominantly playing smaller luthier builds from the many Italian makers in New York City. These makers are often called the Italian Guild by current collectors. They were also advertised as having a "modern" sound.
This also is fascinating, thanks for posting it! Reminds me of the "nothing new under the sun," and "history is doomed to repeat itself" adages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bufflehead View Post
Rather than ascribe modernity according to brand, I would go with bracing, as follows:

Vintage = ladder bracing
Modern = X bracing (with forward-shifted X bracing being a bit more modern.)
Postmodern = V bracing
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin666 View Post
I think you're missing several bracing styles that are steeped in classical guitar design and were probably way more common than "V bracing" will ever be. Here just some examples of what Ovations were braced like in the mid 70s, this may be "modern" for some, and "vintage" for other people:

Very good contributions, thanks! Bracing is certainly a primary contributor to instrument tone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brencat View Post
Here is how I hear them:

- Martin (dark timbre, bass biased, midrange scooped)
-
- Goodall TR (Traditional series) (vintage voice, slight mid scoop, very strong bass and great sustain, super resonant, loud. Think 70% Martin, 20% Gibson, 10% Collings)
- Santa Cruz (vintage voice, strong but not booming bass, midrange enhanced, tons of harmonic nuance. Think 70% Martin, 30% Gibson)
- Bourgeois (vintage voice, more midrange than Martin, puts out exactly what you put into it)
-
- Huss & Dalton (Bass timbre of Martin with Collings mids and highs. Think 60% Martin, 40% Collings)
-
- Collings (Cutting, in-your-face-all-the-time clarity, massive volume, tight quick bass (OMs don't have enough IMO), plays like a coiled spring and outputs 125% of what you put into it)
- Webber (A slightly mellower Collings with similar mids and highs)
-
- Taylor
Now we're cookin' - thanks, Brendan! You were one of the AGF'er I had in mind when starting this thread, because I know you've got a lot of experience with various builders. I'll be interested to see others' thoughts on your thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
Wow, what a question! Do we mean 'vintage' as in an old guitar today, or how the thing may have sounded when new? If it's the latter we can have no idea-especially on a guitar up to a century old.
If it's the former that's going to depend hugely on environmental factors influencing the wood over many years. F'rinstance, can we say that the same brand of 000 that lived it's whole life in a predominantly humid climate, will have matured in the same way as one brought up in the Nevadan desert?

Within those two examples I would guess we already have quite a wide tonal spectrum. The 'modern' tonality we hear in more projecting brightness and higher mids is surely something we could also hear in a vintage instrument...

Ok, that's my bit. Can I just watch now?


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2019, 04:56 PM
merlin666 merlin666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada Prairies
Posts: 2,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brencat View Post
Here is how I hear them:

- Martin (dark timbre, bass biased, midrange scooped)
-
- Goodall TR (Traditional series) (vintage voice, slight mid scoop, very strong bass and great sustain, super resonant, loud. Think 70% Martin, 20% Gibson, 10% Collings)
- Santa Cruz (vintage voice, strong but not booming bass, midrange enhanced, tons of harmonic nuance. Think 70% Martin, 30% Gibson)
- Bourgeois (vintage voice, more midrange than Martin, puts out exactly what you put into it)
-
- Huss & Dalton (Bass timbre of Martin with Collings mids and highs. Think 60% Martin, 40% Collings)
-
- Collings (Cutting, in-your-face-all-the-time clarity, massive volume, tight quick bass (OMs don't have enough IMO), plays like a coiled spring and outputs 125% of what you put into it)
- Webber (A slightly mellower Collings with similar mids and highs)
-
- Taylor
Some of these are building in very small numbers that also include custom instruments. But how about Guild - they only started building flat-tops in the mid 50s, so would they be considered more at the modern or at the traditional end of the spectrum, or smack in the middle?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2019, 05:00 PM
Goodallboy Goodallboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East TN
Posts: 6,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brencat View Post
Here is how I hear them:

- Martin (dark timbre, bass biased, midrange scooped)
-
- Goodall TR (Traditional series) (vintage voice, slight mid scoop, very strong bass and great sustain, super resonant, loud. Think 70% Martin, 20% Gibson, 10% Collings)
- Santa Cruz (vintage voice, strong but not booming bass, midrange enhanced, tons of harmonic nuance. Think 70% Martin, 30% Gibson)
- Bourgeois (vintage voice, more midrange than Martin, puts out exactly what you put into it)
-
- Huss & Dalton (Bass timbre of Martin with Collings mids and highs. Think 60% Martin, 40% Collings)
-
- Collings (Cutting, in-your-face-all-the-time clarity, massive volume, tight quick bass (OMs don't have enough IMO), plays like a coiled spring and outputs 125% of what you put into it)
- Webber (A slightly mellower Collings with similar mids and highs)
-
- Taylor

I’m going to endorse this assessment! I think this has nailed it across the board and done it quite well. Of course it’s all subjective but this mirrors how I hear these instrumentss.
__________________
McCollum Grand Auditorum Euro Spruce/Brazilian
PRS Hollowbody Spruce
PRS SC58
Giffin Vikta
Gibson Custom Shop ES 335 '59 Historic RI
‘91 Les Paul Standard
‘52 AVRI Tele - Richie Baxt build
Fender American Deluxe Tele
Fender Fat Strat
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-23-2019, 12:38 PM
gruuv gruuv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodallboy View Post
I’m going to endorse this assessment! I think this has nailed it across the board and done it quite well. Of course it’s all subjective but this mirrors how I hear these instrumentss.
Good to hear - thanks for chiming in! I’m anxious to try a Goodall TROM - I have a feeling I’ll be a huge fan.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Tags
bourgeios, collings, huss & dalton, martin, santa cruz

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=