Archtop question...

[tonyguitargoat]

I'm new to the forum, and at last have a chance to ask experienced archtop players this question - to what extent are archtops supposed to have a decent acoustic sound? Most of the archtop players I listen to (George Benson, Barney Kessell, Tal Farlow, Kenny Burrell, Bireli Lagrene, etc) play large-bodied instruments, but use their guitars only in electric mode. In fact I seem to remember Barney Kessell on a TV program saying something to the effect that the body (of his Gibson) has little or no effect on the sound. Are any of these guitars ever meant to be played acoustically? I ask this because I've been trying cheaper jazz guitars - Epiphone, Aria, Samick - which look great, sound good electrically, but have a lot less volume and tone than a flat-top acoustic, and I'd like to use the guitar acoustically too - maybe for recording rhythm guitar parts. Maybe a more resonant body would just add feedback problems when used onstage? Would I be better looking for a 'real' acoustic archtop I like the sound of and adding a pickup? Thanks in advance for any advice...

[mahayana]

A great question- there are a handful of modern luthiers working on acoustic archtops with an aim at increasing the resonance/volume. But you're right, most electric archtops are real "quiet" guitars when they're not plugged in. A carved or formed top just doesn't vibrate as efficiently as a flat, thin piece of straight-grained spruce. Nothing wrong with adding pickups to acoustic guitars (or just pointing a mic at them).

I believe that some of the older acoustic archtops, from the '50s and before, had decent volume. Let us know what you find (new or old) that you like.

[mjo]

Some thoughts on archtops:
The brands you've been trying are, most likely laminated construction. This is great for reducing or eliminating the feedback problems that go with a solid wood guitar, it also gives the guitar a very timid voice acoustically.
If you want the best acoustic response, you'll definately need to look at solid wood construction. A spruce top / maple back and sides was the standard for the "good old days". These were loud enough to cut through with the big bands, though you might say in a mostly percussive way.
There are plenty of archtops out there with a very good acoustic voice, though they're not cheap.
All in all, I don't think you'll find an archtop that can match the sheer volume of a solid flattop but, archtop design is more about complex / rich tone than volume.
Eastman makes an archtop with a traditional round sound hole that may do a bit better in the volume department, they also make an arch-back/flat-top model that may be worth checking out.

Hope that's somewhat helpful !
-best,
Mike

[namaste]

For the price I don't think you can beat the Hofners. I just picked one up at J Hale for a terrific price (New President). They have a solid carved top, laminated back and sides. I used to have a violin finished one that was almost as loud as an acoustic guitar. Feedback is there, but can be tamed with amp placement and eq.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/jazzalta/hof1.jpg

[oldtimer3739]

The Gibson 175 and all ot its copies arer made with a laminated top, hence low volume acoustic sound. Most of the good archtops are real wood (Spruce is preferred for the top, Hard Maple for the bottom) hand-carved and tap-tuned top, bottom and internal bracing. These instruments start at about $3000 and go up from there.
I recently purchased a Stroup guitar from Luthier Gary Stroup in Colorado. Gary tells everyone interestred in his instruments that they are NOT finished with a fancy, shiny paint job and will have other flaws but he does produce a great instrument for sound and playability at a cost of $800 to 1200. This is a hand made, carved and tuned top and bottom specifically made to the buyer's specification. The top is usually high grade Sitka Spruce and the bottom and sides are usuall high grade hard Maple. His guitars are hand made using the Benedetto archtop book as a guideline. Mine is a 16" lower bout with a Sitka Spruce top, Maple back and sides, Mahogany neck and an Ebony 25"scale keyboard. The fingerest, adjustable bridge and tailpiece are Benedetto Ebony pieces. The pickup is a neck-mounted Kent Armstrong floating pickup with adj pole pieces. The best feature of this guitar is the acoustic sound it exhibits. It is outstanding and comparable to guitars costing $4000 and up! I have previously owned a 1967 Gibson Johnny Smith, a 1929 D'angelico (Excel I think) and several other good instruments. All were clearly "finished" much nicer than my Stroup guitar but the Stroup is louder acoustically and and produces a really great jazz wood tone for single-string improvising. The sound I get when playing changes is probably the better (outstanding clarity and separation) than any of my previous instruments. It looks very much like a Benedetto but the cost was 10% to 15% less. I found it necessary to have the neck set up to achieve the action I needed for an arthritic left hand condition. I spent a lot of time with Gary on the telephone and found him to be very friendly and willing to answer any question I had about his instruments. He is totally up front about the flaws in the finish of the instruments and I believe this is a "best buy" for those of us who can't normally afford to buy a custom hand made intrument. For anyone who is interested, his website is listed below. (http://www.stroupguitars.com/gallery17.html)

[dconeill]

The original archtop guitars were meant to be used in the rhythm sections of big bands - hence they emphasized loudness and "cutting power" over everything. They were not about "rich complex tone" as some other replier stated. I've played several 40's and 50's archtops over my life, and while I'm no expert, they've got nothing on the tone of a good flattop. They are loud, though.

The original electric guitars were based on the the professional guitars of the day, e.g., the Gibson L-5. They were acoustic guitars with pickups mounted to the neck/pickguard or built into the top. The players who grew up in those days stayed with what they were used to. As time went by manufacturers started offering plywood electric guitars (e.g., Gibson ES-175) that would give most of the "feel" of an acoustic archtop but would be somewhat resistant to feedback. So many players moved to the plywood instruments, and acoustic archtops with attached pickups became somewhat less common. Just like you're seeing greybeards today playing Strats and Les Pauls, the players of the day stuck with what they were familiar with.

As far as what guitar would be best for your purposes, it depends what sound you're trying to achieve. I'd suggest listening to a variety of guitar recordings, try to narrow in to the sound you're looking for, and find out what kind of guitar those players are using.

If you opt for an acoustic archtop with a suspended pickup, you're in for some spending. Eastman and Heritage are two brands that come to mind, but carved spruce top guitars with maple sides and back (the archtop archetype) are expensive - 4 figures at best. If, on the other hand you think a plywood archtop floats your boat, those are somewhat cheaper. Be aware, however, that the high end of the plywood archtops (Gibson ES-175, Ibanez Pat Metheny or George Benson) overlaps the low end of the carved spruce top guitars.

[ajzino]

Looking for a vintage Epiphone Triumph, no cutaway made in NY,NY. I've tried many sites with no luck. Any advise?

[ajzino]

Besides the not having a figured top and no binding what is the difference between a Les Paul Studio and the standard models? I know the studio is a bit lighter.

[archtopper]

I think collectively the replies have covered most of what I would have said about archtops. The only thing I can add about the volume of archtops (and most of this has been mentioned by one other reply) and that is, that the volume and how it works is one of the most missunderstood thing about archtops today. You see, they came about as rhythm intrument to fattern the rhythm section not as a solo instrument. They used flattops in big bands originaly and they were resonably loud of cause, because they are a very responsive instrument but when pushed they became very boomy and the sound did not hold together very well. The archtop on the other hand was not as responsive as a flattop and needed to be pushed but the sound was not boomy and was very centred (Middy and bright but not a ringy bright sound) so it blended very well with the bass and was able to cut very cleanly when pushed.
As one replier mentioned they were percussive. So, no one wants a sloppy boomy drum sound and nobody wanted a sloppy guitar sound with lower harmonics clashing with the bass.
However, today the archtop guitar is mostly played plugged inn, and the soloist like to have a very fat bottom end sound, but this kind of sound is no match for the traditional rhythm acoustic sound they had before amplification came along.
If you would like to visit my site archtopguitarsandbooks.com you will see a nice selection of archtops. My email, if you want to talk further is [e-mail] I hope I have been of some help and added a little extra to the good advice and information from the other repliers.

[jazzguyfromnc]

As far as newer acoustic archtops, Eastman has several nice models worth checking out...

[gtr]

I use a newer Stromberg.Plays excellent,and although made to be an electric,it still cuts.

[jazzalta]

After a 3 year hiatus, I ended up with a Godin Fifth Avenue Kingpin. Great guitars, low cost. Check them out: www.godinguitars.com/godin5thaveseriesp.htm