Flat top vs. Archtop - difference in sound?

[Audgen]

Right now, I'm playing a 1960's(?) Gibson J-45 with a DeArmond soundhole pickup(Lightnin' Hopkins style)thru an old Sears Silvertone tube amp. I changed to Chromes strings a while back and really like the tone I get now. So, Flat tops vs. Archtops, whats the deal? Anybody else playing a similar setup?

Audgen

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Well, at least half your sound is going to be your pickup and your amp, claims I.

But acoustically, an archtop is more midrangy, with less of that top end sparkle. This is often reinforced because folks put flat wounds on archtops and acoustic strings like bronzes on flat tops. Archtops tend to have less sustain, too.

Of course, guitars vary a lot. Archtops can have different bracing and may have carved or laminated tops of varying thickness. The more I think about it, the more variables there are.

[Steve Hoffman]

Flattop: Linear freq. response for the most part.

Archtop: Cut the bass below 500 cycles by 5 db, cut the top after 10k by 5 db, add 5 db around 6k.

In other words, EQ'd for projection to a far distance. A flat sounds good a foot away. An archtop sounds good 20 feet away while the flat just dies.

This is acoustically of course. You add a pickup and (well, it's cheating) you have something else.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Archtop: Cut the bass below 500 cycles by 5 db, cut the top after 10k by 5 db, add 5 db around 6k.

Translation: midrangy?

[kamlapati]

No, no, no! It's much more than just EQ differences, it's dynamic range, and it's the envelope too. I guarantee that in a jam my L-5 can overwhelm a Martin Dreadnought. And the fast attack of the note on a good archtop will cut through much more band noise than any flattop.

Archtops are often stereotyped as jazz instruments, even here. In the days when they were more common they were used for country, classical and folk music as well. In the days when you could try out an L-5 next to a D-28, and for nearly the same price, archtops were the kings of guitar. I say try them, listen carefully, appreciate them for their strengths, and use them for everything!

Oh yeah, and my acoustic archtop evangelism continues with samples on my website:

Circle Round the Sun - Standards

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Archtops are often stereotyped as jazz instruments, even here. In the days when they were more common they were used for country, classical and folk music as well. In the days when you could try out an L-5 next to a D-28, and for nearly the same price, archtops were the kings of guitar. I say try them, listen carefully, appreciate them for their strengths, and use them for everything!

The Carter Family!

[Steve Hoffman]

Translation: midrangy?

Uppermidrangy, lowertreblerangy.

I have an acoustic Gibson Super 400 non-cutaway from 1947 that is without a doubt the best guitar I've ever played. Everything about it, the neck feel, the look, the build and of course, the SOUND. Never seen a pickup on it, never will. I love that thing. Well worth the outlandish amount of money I paid for it.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I have an acoustic Gibson Super 400 non-cutaway from 1947 that is without a doubt the best guitar I've ever played.

That is very cool. They don't make then like that any more.

[mongrel]

I inherited an Epi Caballero flat top made in the early '60's in Kalamazoo. Lovely little guitar with mahoghany body and neck. Put a set of Chrome flats on it and an old deArmond soundhole pickup. Unamplied, there was almost no volume. Amplified, any sixth or fifth string note plucked below the 7th fret would result in instantaneous feedback that you could feel in your gut. This occurred at any volume level and at any angle from the amp speakers up to the length of the cord--around 12 feet. Got rid of the guitar and picked up an electric archtop and never looked back.

[Steve Hoffman]

That is very cool. They don't make then like that any more.

They don't. As I've written before, I'm convinced the non-cutaway style adds much more body and projection to the sound. It's just beautiful. Want it amplified? Put a microphone next to it! Forget a pickup..

Something about the asymmetrical design of a cutaway just kills the projection aspect of the guitar design. Don't believe me? Try two L-5 acoustics, one a non-cutaway and one a Venetian from around the same vintage (if you live near a vintage guitar store it's pretty easy to do). The non-cutaway is louder and more tuneful. So what if you can't reach the tippytop frets? No true vintage jazz guy worth his weight in salt needed to!

[brad4d8]

Steve said >In other words, EQ'd for projection to a far distance. A flat sounds good a foot away. An archtop sounds good 20 feet away while the flat just dies.<
Which is probably why they sound so different than a flattop from the player's perspective. It's hard to play one and listen from 20 feet in front

and also >I'm convinced the non-cutaway style adds much more body and projection to the sound. <

I've read that Johnny Smith revoked his Guild endorsement because he wanted them to design and build a non-cutaway and then alter the instrument to add the cutaway. I don't know if it's true. I also don't know how much difference it would make in the finished product.

Brad

[Steve Hoffman]

I don't think it would have made ANY difference but the fact that they wouldn't even try it for Smith soured him on Guild. Too bad. The Guild AA is an amazing guitar (as you know).

[JohnW400]

@ Steve

wow, nice cheesecake. huba huba (cat calls, whistles ect)

[Steve Hoffman]

Looking at that pic I uploaded I realize I posted the wrong Super 400. That was a 1948 that I had my eye on but THIS below is the exact guitar I got. Note the unique pickguard. Only a few '47's had it. Was it worth 7K? To me it was. It sounds so amazing. Not thin at all but full and rich but still with that archtop projection. I can imagine how this baby would have cut through an entire big band. It's just the best sounding acoustically of the 20 archtop guitars I own..

[JohnW400]

7k is cheap for that I think. My 2000 Super 400ces was $6500 new and I know it doesn't sound as good

[Steve Hoffman]

7k is cheap for that I think. My 2000 Super 400ces was $6500 new and I know it doesn't sound as good

Well, my 1947 was "cheap" because:

1. It was NOT a cutaway.
2. It had no pickup.

Both of those things I actually like about the guitar but trust me, no one else would. If the thing was a Venetian cutaway and had two original pickups on it in that minty condition it would have cost $25,000.00 at least.


Please note, the modern Super 400 CES guitars are designed to sound good electronically. The acoustic sound is compromised by how the top is made these days in favor of making sure the pickups sing on the thing. At least that is what a Gibson guy told me last year. You can't compare acoustically a modern Gibson arch with humbuckers with a vintage acoustic version. They will never match acoustically but the stiff front that kills the acoustic sound will enhance the 'buckers....

I have an L-5 CES from 2006 that is pretty dead acoustically but sounds amazing through the pickups. I asked my Gibson guy about it and he told me the above. If you want a true acoustic archtop, you have to get an old one. Even if you ordered an acoustic version from Gibson you'll get the same thick deader top of the electric version without the pickup cuts in the wood. Won't sound like an oldie though. I think the art of doing that has gone to the indie guitar makers...
And so it goes..

[JohnW400]

FYI

archtop.com: Current Inventory- Acoustic and Electric Guitars

They have a 1928 L-5 and a 1998 Super 400 non cut/no pup. Both over 9k. And I'll bet that the 1998 has the heftier top that you mention.


Also there's a Trenier model non cut but that's for a different thread (I think)

[Steve Hoffman]

Heh, I love Joe but he's most always thousands of bucks over a realistic price. His 8k is someone else's 5k..

Times are tough. I saw the Gibson '47 Super 400 on eBay from Chicago Music Exchange for 12k. Called 'em up directly and offered a lowball price. I shaved $5,000.00 off their asking price. Much to my surprise they agreed. They would have never sold that guitar. It would have sat there for the next 20 years. So, we both made out. Probably cost them 500 bucks from some old guy.

[Audgen]

So, which would be closer to an acoustic archtop, a flat-top or an archtop with a pickup or two routed in? It seems like it would be the flat-top. There aren't a lot of places to play archtops around here. I've never even seen a carved top in person, so I have no idea how they compare side by side.

I do have feedback issues, but it sounds so nice when its not feeding back. Any tips that might help?

Thanks for the info!

Audgen

[Steve Hoffman]

An archtop guitar is mainly for jazz when amplified. It has a fat, thick tone that's very dynamc. Sort of the opposite of a Les Paul which is ironic since the same pickups are in both. But that's a solid vs. hollow body thing.

Acoustically, a flat-top is what you play for yourself to enjoy. An acoustic archtop is what you play for others to enjoy. Simple as that.

Let me put it another way. Take old records. A Hank Williams or Ernest Tubb country record. You cannot even hear their Martin guitars on there. On a Don Gibson or Mother Maybelle Carter/Carter Family record, you can hear the guitars easily. They played acoustic archtop Gibson guitars.

You really need to try an archtop with a floating pickup. It's a unique sound, not for everybody and certainly not for use with distortion pedals or whatever. You want distortion? Use a small underpowered amp. You want clean? Use a SS or 40 watt tube amp. If you are going to really blast, don't use a hollowbody guitar.

You already know this, I'm sure. You need to play an archtop and see if you like it. Most rock and blues players don't. That's why a 1959 Gibson L-5 CES is $20,000.00 and a 1959 Gibson Les Paul is $100,000.00.

[gianluca]

Oh yeah, and my acoustic archtop evangelism continues with samples on my website:

Circle Round the Sun - Standards

I enjoyed your L-5 acoustic standard.
great tone: the guitar, ok, but even the player...
I can't afford an L-5, sigh, but I own a THE LOAR LH600, similar tone but, ok, no comparation.
just a question: which strings did you use on it?

i'm going to try some d'addario 0.13-0.56 phosphor/bronze FLATwound (or half round): did you never try flat on your acoustic archtop?

[brad4d8]

So, which would be closer to an acoustic archtop, a flat-top or an archtop with a pickup or two routed in?

I may be accused of blowing my own (guitar's) horn (I own one though it's not in my signature list), but I've found that the Guild F-50 blond is a good compromise between archtop and flattop. Because of its arched back and big size, it is a very good rhythm instrument for jazz type playing. Is it as good as a full acoustic archtop? No, but I think it's a little better than a laminated archtop with pickups routed out, and used models can often be found for $1500 or less.
Just my 2 cents.
Brad

[Audgen]

Thanks Brad. I remember playing a Gibson Gospel a long time ago that was a flat top with an arched back. It was hard to tell much about it because the strings on it were old and rusty. I liked it but walked away out of frustration. That's gotta be the most annoying thing about guitar shopping(or browsing in my case 99% of the time). It seems like shop owners would want their guitars to sound as good as possible and strings are so cheap, especially for them. Sorry that's way off topic, just a pet peave of mine that I'm sure many share. Thanks, Audgen

[brad4d8]

It seems like shop owners would want their guitars to sound as good as possible and strings are so cheap, especially for them.

I have a friend who runs a small guitar shop, mostly imports at under $1000. He makes it a point to change the strings on all his guitars every 3 months. I've been in shops with $3000+ guitars that had strings that were so corroded I had trouble tuning. However, many shops will put on a new set of strings if you ask and seem like a possible buyer.
Brad

[kamlapati]

Gianluca,

Thanks for the kind words. The acoustic archtops sound really good for sure, even when I play them!

I use GHS VIntage Bronze mediums on my L-5. I think they are an 85/15 alloy. They have slightly less treble than the 80/20s. I have never liked the sound of phosphor bronze on these guys. My L-5's are heavy guitars, that like to be hit hard, and they like big strings. I really dislike flatwounds on these guitars, as they do no justice to the guitar's acoustic qualities. Just my opinion for my tone and style.

On my Grimes I use GHS Bright Bronze 80/20 mediums. On my recent Trenier (listen to new clip up on my site today) I am using D'Addario Phosphor Bronze lights, and I like them. It's a much lighter x-braced guitar, much warmer than the L-5, and the light phosphor bronze strings sound good.

I have played the Loars in stores and they were light weight, so I think you will get good (but different) tones with either lights or mediums. You should try the flatwounds yourself, and other varieties of strings too, it really makes a difference and you can use them to fine tune your tone.

Good hunting!