"Dry" Tone

[KevinH]

I've often thought of the term "dry" as meaning a lack of overtones, as many have noted earlier.

Some months ago, I still owned a Waterloo WL-S Deluxe, the "driest" guitar I've ever had. I recorded some plucks of single strings, in a small clothes-lined closet to minimize wall reflections. I did the same thing with my Taylor 522, which I'd say is the opposite of dry. And then I plotted the frequency spectra for the two guitars. Surely, I thought, the Waterloo would show a relative lack of overtones. Here is an example, of plucking (with a pick) the open D string on each guitar. Sorry for the low-res image, but I had to squeeze it down to the tiny size allowed by the AGF bot.

o.jpg

This compares the frequency spectra for the Waterloo (blue) and Taylor (orange). The little black dots show the frequency of the fundamental (146.8 Hz for the open D string), labeled as "0", the first overtone (293.6 Hz), labeled as "1", and so on. Notice how the peaks for the various overtones for the Waterloo tend to be about the same height as for the Taylor. It would seem that the overtones, i.e. the various peaks, for the two guitars are comparable in magnitude*.

So, either our ears are sensitive to very small differences in the peaks, or there is something else to the story besides overtones, or else my Taylor is just as "dry" as the Waterloo. But it sure doesn't sound like it.

The guitar is full of mysteries.


* Note, the 3rd overtone, labeled as "3", is diminished for both guitars. This is a natural consequence of the location I plucked the strings, which was 1/4 of the string length from the saddle.

[Russ C]

That’s great Kevin. I think there’s more than overtone magnitude or distribution going on .. and I think there’s a tendency in many of us to adopt an explanation or wording that sounds credible and accept it as fact.
Of course lack of overtones may well be a factor in what some call dry, which may be different to what someone else calls dry.

[Zissou Intern]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

I think it is on a spectrum and there are guitars that have a very “dry” tone, guitars with a very “lush/wet” tone and a variety that fall somewhere in between those two.
I do think that the decay of the note is related. The longer the note of each string sounds out, the more opportunity for overtone content. A quicker decay, the notes get out of the way of each other.
In my experience, not all lush guitars are muddy sounding so maybe not all dry guitars are clear sounding either. So many variables and so challenging to describe the tonal qualities that each of us hear.
Best,
Jayne

I agree with you, Jayne; not all lush guitars are muddy, not in the least. Some are muddy, but that muddy sound happens when they lack clarity. I have really only heard that in rosewood, rarely in mahogany, and I don't ever remember it in maple or walnut.

I also think that the notes on a dry sounding guitar do not get in the way of each other. They are fundamental with less overtones. That's where I hear a hollowness to the notes, quick decay or no. One of my old friends, and a long time bluegrasser (played guitars, mandolins, banjos, and fiddles) used to say about a dry guitar or mandolin, "It sounds like a hollow log." I think that may be what J Patrick is referring to when he says, "a throaty and woody and straightforward tone that has a prominent midrange projection".

[drtedtan]

Originally Posted by KevinH

I've often thought of the term "dry" as meaning a lack of overtones, as many have noted earlier.

Some months ago, I still owned a Waterloo WL-S Deluxe, the "driest" guitar I've ever had. I recorded some plucks of single strings, in a small clothes-lined closet to minimize wall reflections. I did the same thing with my Taylor 522, which I'd say is the opposite of dry. And then I plotted the frequency spectra for the two guitars. Surely, I thought, the Waterloo would show a relative lack of overtones. Here is an example, of plucking (with a pick) the open D string on each guitar. Sorry for the low-res image, but I had to squeeze it down to the tiny size allowed by the AGF bot.

Attachment 75062

This compares the frequency spectra for the Waterloo (blue) and Taylor (orange). The little black dots show the frequency of the fundamental (146.8 Hz for the open D string), labeled as "0", the first overtone (293.6 Hz), labeled as "1", and so on. Notice how the peaks for the various overtones for the Waterloo tend to be about the same height as for the Taylor. It would seem that the overtones, i.e. the various peaks, for the two guitars are comparable in magnitude*.

So, either our ears are sensitive to very small differences in the peaks, or there is something else to the story besides overtones, or else my Taylor is just as "dry" as the Waterloo. But it sure doesn't sound like it.

The guitar is full of mysteries.


* Note, the 3rd overtone, labeled as "3", is diminished for both guitars. This is a natural consequence of the location I plucked the strings, which was 1/4 of the string length from the saddle.

Those small differences in overtones are what makes one guitar sound different from another, e.g., the tone or timbre of the instrument. Bigger differences in overtones are what cause a guitar to sound different from a banjo, a tenor sax, a vibraphone, or other instrument.

I think, though, that what most people here are calling overtones or reverb is actually the sympathetic vibration/resonance of the open strings ringing along with the string(s) that were actually played. For example, when you play the low E string and then quickly mute it, you’ll still hear the high E string, the B string and, less loudly, the G string ringing because they are harmonically related to the low E string.

[TedBPhx]

My two main acoustics are an 814 and a GT K21e. I call Koa the dry sound. Even EQ and the natural compression from the hardwood top give an experience that is quite pleasant. Each note is distinct. Great for showing how sloppy I really am. Rosewood’s harmonic slur is more forgiving.

[jtacoustic]

Thank you all for your take on "Dry" guitars. Interesting perspectives.

[BluesKing777]

Is this one dry enough for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn62fqXu-Yo


BluesKing777.

[High_Colorado]

BluesKing777 Is this one dry enough for you?




I think that 1930 moves right into Dry AND truly Woody!

Pretty instrument! Watched it twice.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

Agree - no overtones and an emphasis on the fundamental. A dry tone to my ears is when you pluck a string and the note clearly sounds then dies quickly.
Best,
Jayne

Mmmmm, not quite, IMO. Many of my guitars (Ovation) sound dry, but they have LOTS of sustain.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by KevinH

I've often thought of the term "dry" as meaning a lack of overtones, as many have noted earlier.

Some months ago, I still owned a Waterloo WL-S Deluxe, the "driest" guitar I've ever had. I recorded some plucks of single strings, in a small clothes-lined closet to minimize wall reflections. I did the same thing with my Taylor 522, which I'd say is the opposite of dry. And then I plotted the frequency spectra for the two guitars. Surely, I thought, the Waterloo would show a relative lack of overtones. Here is an example, of plucking (with a pick) the open D string on each guitar. Sorry for the low-res image, but I had to squeeze it down to the tiny size allowed by the AGF bot.

Attachment 75062

This compares the frequency spectra for the Waterloo (blue) and Taylor (orange). The little black dots show the frequency of the fundamental (146.8 Hz for the open D string), labeled as "0", the first overtone (293.6 Hz), labeled as "1", and so on. Notice how the peaks for the various overtones for the Waterloo tend to be about the same height as for the Taylor. It would seem that the overtones, i.e. the various peaks, for the two guitars are comparable in magnitude*.

So, either our ears are sensitive to very small differences in the peaks, or there is something else to the story besides overtones, or else my Taylor is just as "dry" as the Waterloo. But it sure doesn't sound like it.

The guitar is full of mysteries.


* Note, the 3rd overtone, labeled as "3", is diminished for both guitars. This is a natural consequence of the location I plucked the strings, which was 1/4 of the string length from the saddle.

522s, to me, are definitely dry guitars, particularly because of the mahogany top.

[Tempotantrum]

My ears hear "Dryness" most often in vintage guitars. The aforementioned J45s (check out Scott Nygaard's Gibson) and Tony's Rice's famous D28. To me the pinnacle acoustic tone is a "Dry" rosewood guitar. Quick, fundamental notes that are crisp and clear with the "hollow log" sound. Mandolins are often discussed in the same manner with Loar's being among the driest. Not everyone likes that tone either - it may be an acquired taste.

[jtacoustic]

"Lush, rich, sustaining, overtone rich" all sound like good things to me in an acoustic. That said, I see "dry" as a descriptor on many new guitars as a highly desirable attribute. Take the Collings OM-1 JL for example... Known for it's vintage dryness. Most J-35/45 types also.

[PineMarten]

I wonder if it's about how the overtone content changes over the course of the note, rather than overall levels? Perhaps in a dry sounding guitar the overtones are all present in the initial attack portion of the note but the sustaining portion is simpler, making for clear sounding chords? But that would be a complex thing to quantify.