Which one of these two guitar tones is more pleasant to your ears?

[Vihar]

I'm curious about your opinion regarding the guitar tones, not the players or the music itself.

1. Parker archtop

2. Martin OM

Can you explain with a couple words why you picked the one you did?

[mr. beaumont]

Impossible comparison. Both sound great for what's being played on them, though.

[rsclosson]

Impossible comparison. Both sound great for what's being played on them, though.

I have to agree. Apples and oranges.

[Vihar]

I thought if anything, these tone were different enough that one could easily pick the preferred one. People don't usually like apples and oranges equally either.

[NSJ]

The first one: to me it has the softer, lush timbre of a classical guitar. The second one is more boomy and harsh, comparatively speaking.
This is my bias: I’ve never bonded with a flat top or a gypsy jazz guitar and don’t own any. I love nylon guitars and jazz boxes the most. That said, I don’t own any purely acoustic steel string jazz boxes, either. But that will change. Erich Solomon is making me a special guitar.

[wintermoon]

agreed, you're comparing a fingerpicked archtop to a flat picked flattop.

[mr. beaumont]

This is really a situation where I'd have to hear them played in a more similar way. And even then, not sure what that gets me...my guess is here that if the Martin were played like the Parker, it wouldn't sound as balanced and sweet (though a Martin 000/OM is a great fingerpicking guitar) and if you did that percussive style of strum on the Parker, the Martin would sound way better. But maybe not.

Maybe I'm just always looking for excuses to have different guitars around...they all do something well.

[sgosnell]

I prefer the archtop, by far. Its tone is more rounded and pleasant. The Martin is more nasal, harsher. I've never been a big fan of the Martin sound.

[Vihar]

We are not comparing guitars here, we are comparing guitar tones. The playing style is part of the tones in question. The reason I named the guitars is for convenience only.

[Freeman Keller]

That's why I own both a carved archtop and an OM (and a bunch of other things....) Very different critters

[NSJ]

This is really a situation where I'd have to hear them played in a more similar way. And even then, not sure what that gets me...my guess is here that if the Martin were played like the Parker, it wouldn't sound as balanced and sweet (though a Martin 000/OM is a great fingerpicking guitar) and if you did that percussive style of strum on the Parker, the Martin would sound way better. But maybe not.

Maybe I'm just always looking for excuses to have different guitars around...they all do something well.

A distinguished member I know here has played the Parker. He said it has one big advantage over other arch tops. You can HIT it HARD from comping and it remains responsive.

[hot ford coupe]

Apples and oranges is the best way I heard these guitars compared. I wouldn't choose on the basis of the guitar, I would choose which style I liked better. I like what was played on the Parker the best.

[rsclosson]

Based on the criteria the OP set, I would have to go with the arch top.

[Tal_175]

Is the Parker plugged in or only mic'ed?
Listening through phone speakers, but it sounds like pickups are involved.

[Stringswinger]

I like both equally. I also suspect that if you recorded me playing both (playing the same piece either fingerstyle or with a plectrum), that it might be hard to tell the difference.

[John A.]

They're both good, valid sounds for what is being played. I'd have to hear the same player playing the same thing on each of those guitars to say which sounds better, and even then it might be a tie. I like apples and oranges about equally (depending on the specific kind of each).

[mr. beaumont]

A distinguished member I know here has played the Parker. He said it has one big advantage over other arch tops. You can HIT it HARD from comping and it remains responsive.

Interesting...I don't think of an archtop that sounds good played hard as a rare thing.

The thing I find remarkable about the Parker is it's balance and sustain.

[rpjazzguitar]

I like the first sound.

Since they're different songs by different players, I don't have an opinion about which guitar is better. Just which sound is more pleasing.

I hear a hint of harshness in the Martin, as played here. That could be a matter of technique or the pick or ??? and not the guitar.

[Jimmy blue note]

I like the first sound.

Since they're different songs by different players, I don't have an opinion about which guitar is better. Just which sound is more pleasing.

I hear a hint of harshness in the Martin, as played here. That could be a matter of technique or the pick or ??? and not the guitar.

Comparisons of guitars are as much a statement about mic placement, recording EQ and recording production magic than it is about a specific instrument.
An archtop fills a room differently than a flat top. Where you're sitting (or mic'ing) really effects the impact of an instrument. But what we CAN say is "Which clip do you like?".
I'll bet you can take either of those instruments, and mic each one in a flattering and optimum way, and in a way that's not so sensitively done. Not so much a comparison of instruments than recordings. Maybe?

[deacon Mark]

THey both sound good and really I cannot vote at all. Two different styles of music and my guess is both would work with either style. It would be interesting to hear the same thing played by but using the opposite guitar. Otherwise we are just comparing what we like. Personally, for myself I don't really care for the sound of flattop guitars and I don't play them. They are not good for jazz and I can play flattop stuff on an archtop. In fact, I generally think may things done on flattops would sound much better on an archtop.

[Archie]

imo an archtop will never beat an acoustic, if the competition is 'which sounds better acoustically'.

Archtops are focused and designed to do one job really well.

I do not quite understand the burning desire for archtop makers to make acoustic guitars out of archtops.
It seems like a quest for the Holly Grail. The journey may give them purpose but they will never actually succeed in finding it.
Yet many have tired, and many more will try.

Archtops simply have too much mid and not enough sustain.

I think Ribbecke did pretty well but that's a hybrid.

[deacon Mark]

imo an archtop will never beat an acoustic, if the competition is 'which sounds better acoustically'.

Archtops are focused and designed to do one job really well.

I do not quite understand the burning desire for archtop makers to make acoustic guitars out of archtops.
It seems like a quest for the Holly Grail. The journey may give them purpose but they will never actually succeed in finding it.
Yet many have tired, and many more will try.

Archtops simply have too much mid and not enough sustain.

I think Ribbecke did pretty well but that's a hybrid.

Cannot say I agree at all with that statement. Purely personal on what each person's ear hears. I think flattops have too much sustain and are more limited in ability to separate notes. To me this makes complexed jazz chords sound less than ideal. In the same way I find flattops generally a one trick pony with some exceptions. Archtop are way more versatile just due to the easy of what can be changed without any major work on the guitar. Different bridges, action, set-up, and tailpieces..................

[Litterick]

I preferred the Martin for the breadth of its timbre.

[Vihar]

I liked the tone created with the Martin because to my ears it had more of a vocal quality with just the right amount of bump in the high midrange, with less high frequency detail compared to the tone coming from the Parker in the 1st example, resulting in an overall more balanced sound with a more natural roll-off slope. I would describe the treble content of the Parker vid's sound kind of "plasticky", for some reason. Might be the pickup blended in through a DI, I don't know. While I can't evaluate this from a recording, the 2nd tone with the Martin felt louder and more dynamic as well, of course that's easier to achieve with a pick.

[ccroft]

Today I liked the archtop. Tomorrow I might like the Martin. I think it's possible to love many different qualities of guitar sound.

It's hard to characterize 'more pleasant'. Depends on the music and the listener's mood.
And maybe the weather and what's for dinner.