What about a one piece blank for electric guitar bodies vs a two or more piece blank? Is there a real significant difference in the sound?
James
What about a one piece blank for electric guitar bodies vs a two or more piece blank? Is there a real significant difference in the sound?
James
I hear no difference. I hear no difference with the number of pieces an acoustic/archtop is made out of. You'd be shocked to know how many archtops are actually 4 piece tops as opposed to a simple bookmatch. Many many have little "wings" at the lower bout. Makes no difference in my opinion.
Do others concur with Johns opinion/observations? I am asking because I have a friend who wants to buy blanks form me. But is insisting on a one piece blank. He feels that this is an important detail that too many builders overlook. Is he just falling for hype?
James
Even Stradavari sometimes resorted to "wings". The top doesn't vibrate appreciably that near the edge, The sides hold it rigidly. A careful matching job,and it would be hard to spot. It is silly to think otherwise.
As for 2 piece tops,ask him if he knows all Strad's violins had 2 piece book matched tops. Guaneri even made a few violins with KNOTS in the top. No one knows why. There is a story that he was in jail at the time,relying on the jailer's kind daughter to bring him wood. There's no proof of that though. The fact remains that his violins still sounded good,knots and all.
Last edited by george wilson; 08-29-2013 at 2:39 PM.
For electric guitars, other than aesthetics, I don't think there's a nickle's worth of difference in the sound of a 1 piece vs 2 piece. For my best instruments by sound: the Telecaster - 3 piece, 1 Les Paul - 1 piece, 1 Les Paul - 2 piece, both G&L ASAT's - 1 Piece Blank, ES335 - 2 piece, both Ibanez's - 2 or more pieces (one is a neck-thru model).
For electrics and archtops, I don't hear any difference between 1 piece vs 2 piece on high end (sound, not price) instruments. For low end guitars (sound) and "cheap" guitars there is a difference in sound, but I can't say it is attributable to the number of pieces to the top or back. There are far too many other variables that come into play.
So to answer simply, I fully agree with John and George on that issue.
Shawn
"no trees were harmed in the creation of this message, however some electrons were temporarily inconvenienced."
"I resent having to use my brain to do your thinking"
It does not matter especially in electrics. Too many young guys get some silly notion in their heads and can't be gotten off of their beliefs. Old guys do it to. Everyone wants to believe that have found the mythical secret of great tone. Trouble is,they end up ignoring the REAL things that do contribute to tone.
+1 George.
I'd rather have great touch, a great amp and a plywood bodied guitar than no touch, a modeling amp and $3k beauty queen electric.
The truly great players *may* be able to find a sound or tone in a high end solid body electric that eludes mere mortals. But even the talented ones rely more on their technique and amp than the guitar. The significance of the electric stringed instrument to the final timbre is greatly exaggerated, IMO.
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Sorry to bump an old thread but the last time I saw Eric Johnson (House of Blues in NOLA) there was a HORRIBLE hum coming from some raggedy old piece of gear he had up there. After a couple of songs he apologized and made some comment about "these things happen when you have to use antique gear" and just had the mix guy cut him out between songs, so that it wasn't as noticeable to the audience, but he never figured out what it was and fixed it.
I was trying to explain to my girlfriend at the time while we were on the way to the show that "no one drives around in the car listening to EJ, it's just a good show because he sounds good and he's a great live player". Needless to say she didn't get it, all she had to say about the show on the drive home was "that hum was awful".
There's SOME truth to Eric's OCD, but he's over the top I think if he took a couple of months and worked with someone, we could get him up and running with modern equipment and maintain whatever it is he wants to hear. Some of the fuzzes can be difficult to duplicate just due to the scarcity of the components and the fact that a lot of the vintage components varied wildly in their specs. It's not just that it's vintage equipment....it's a specific example of the equipment that has the magic. Everything else in his setup is really straight-forward and can be exactly duplicated in reliable ways.
Incidentally, there are some pedals where I can tell the difference between a wall wart and a battery. It has to do with how they filter the power differently, source current differently, etc....mostly to do with the initial attack of the note. There's no reason for it, though, because we understand what's going on pretty well these days.
I'm not a musician, firstly, but have a basic understanding of these debates from reading them over the years.
I get that EJ likes his old school gear and for studio use, hey, that's great. But the bottom line in my anecdotal situation is, a person who saw him live for the first time didn't like the show because of a gear malfunction. So while that old stuff may be great in the studio, I can't see the feasibility of travelling with it on the road.
i agree about taking old gear on the road. It is way beyond its expected functional life, Taking it on stage,after its been banged around by a bunch of pot head "roadies",is asking for disaster. I don't know what old gear he might be using,but tubes by nature are delicate.(I don't know how the tube(s) in the first fused artillery shells survived being fired,but they did!) They had electric circuits inside their noses which included at least 1 tube. They could be timed to burst NEAR the ground,to spray shrapnel on troops,or near aircraft to do the same. At the time,they were nearly miraculous pieces of equipment,and highly secret.