"Dry" Tone

[mawmow]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

......................Dry <-----> Lush
Fundamental tones <-----> Overtones
.............Mahogany <-----> Rosewood
....................D-18 <-----> D-28

Before I understood the overtone notion, I was opposing tastes :
The dryness of Coca Cola to the rounder taste of Root Beer.

For example, the bunch of overtones of my Larrivee OM-09 (Sitka/Rosewood)
made my Taylor 512 (Sitka/Mahogany) appear to sound so dry.

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by jtacoustic

"Dry" is often used to describe the tone of certain instruments. What does that mean to you? and... why might a dry tone be desirable?

Lack of overtones/sustain.

I can't think of a single reason it might be desirable for my music, but I can for certain other styles. These are the guitars that last for a handful of seconds when I'm auditioning instruments.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by musicman1951

Lack of overtones/sustain.

I can't think of a single reason it might be desirable for my music, but I can for certain other styles. These are the guitars that last for a handful of seconds when I'm auditioning instruments.

LOL! I expect that you would hate the timbre of my favourite flatpicking / Travis picking guitar. In fact, the vast majority of players on AGF would put it down within seconds of picking it up. It's a cheap plywood archtop. It has a timbre as dry as a desert and as sparse as an icecap. But it spits fire when I dig in!

[R22]

This is a topic I've been pondering lately, but from a slightly different angle.

Other than wood type, what is different about the construction to make it drier?

The reason I excluded wood type in my question, is that I have three Mahogany B&S guitars. Two with Adirondack, and one with Sitka. They vary from each other quite a bit as far as dryness of tone.

My Eastman E10OM-TC has plenty of overtones, while my J45 is typically dry, with the 000-18 somewhere in the middle.

Is it in the bracing? Thickness of top, or B&S?

I apologize if I'm derailing the original topic, but I am curious as to how a builder sets about building a guitar with a dry tone.

[Br1ck]

The attack of a dry guitar is sharper. If you are fortunate enough to have developed speed, notes tend to be distinct instead of blurring together. If you are fortunate to know how to play complex chord voiceings, the interior notes can be heard distinctly instead of being swallowed up with overtones. A pre war J 35 is a marvel, as is pretty much any J 45 through the 50s.

It's a different guitar that will play better with certain styles, and many singers love them for taking up less sonic space. Like them or not, everyone should play a good J 45 just to know.

[UncleJesse]

I don't think dry has to mean quick decay. It's really the lack of overtones. Merrill Guitars and PreWar are two builders that make dry-sounding guitars that don't have quick decay.

[Scolaguitar]

I don't think of dry as lack of sustain or quick decay either. I think of crisp, lack of overtones, clean, direct yet can still be caverness and deep. That's sort of what my D18 does.

[Zissou Intern]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

I don't think dry has to mean quick decay. It's really the lack of overtones. Merrill Guitars and PreWar are two builders that make dry-sounding guitars that don't have quick decay.

I agree completely, Jesse. I was surprised that quick note decay (i.e. staccato, no bloom) was a criteria for being considered "dry".

[koolimy]

Originally Posted by R22

This is a topic I've been pondering lately, but from a slightly different angle.

Other than wood type, what is different about the construction to make it drier?

The reason I excluded wood type in my question, is that I have three Mahogany B&S guitars. Two with Adirondack, and one with Sitka. They vary from each other quite a bit as far as dryness of tone.

My Eastman E10OM-TC has plenty of overtones, while my J45 is typically dry, with the 000-18 somewhere in the middle.

Is it in the bracing? Thickness of top, or B&S?

I apologize if I'm derailing the original topic, but I am curious as to how a builder sets about building a guitar with a dry tone.

I am interested in this too. The only thing I know that affects the overtone content is whether the guitar has a live back or non-live back. When I shaved the back braces in my guitar I noticed an increase in overtone content. So I'm guessing that guitars w/ live backs have more overtone content than guitars w/ non-live or reflective backs.

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

I don't think dry has to mean quick decay. It's really the lack of overtones.

Agreed. I've never though of "dry" as involving quick decay, and yet I can see that a guitar with quick decay would seem drier than one with prolonged sustain, especially when playing a complex piece of music. Maybe that's the difference between "dry" and "muddy?"

[Zissou Intern]

There is a certain hollowness or "rounded out" aspect to what I would consider a dry sounding guitar.

[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

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

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.

That makes sense. I would still think that decay is secondary to overtones.

[Deliberate1]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

I don't think dry has to mean quick decay. It's really the lack of overtones. Merrill Guitars and PreWar are two builders that make dry-sounding guitars that don't have quick decay.

UJ, I have a new to me Merrill OM-18 and was listening to it with that very quality in mind. And, I have to say your are absolutely right. It has a robust sustain, even a blossom of sound, but without overtones. It is a very interesting and seductive combination.
David

[J Patrick]

…it’s a tough one to describe…I find that guitars I hear as dry sounding tend to have a quick response that’s almost brittle…a throaty and woody and straightforward tone that has a prominent midrange projection that may or may not have a lot of bass or treble to accompany it…..and yes more often than not there is a relatively quick decay…it’s a tone I rarely hear from rosewood guitars…I usually hear from maple guitars and sometimes hear from mahogany guitars