Acoustic guitar body shapes
- Thread starter lex666
- Start date
ericmeyer4
New member
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
Are you going to be finger picking or mostly strumming because that may influence the shape you look for.
It seems that generally that larger body styles are better for strumming and smaller body styles are better for finger picking.
Are you going to be finger picking or mostly strumming because that may influence the shape you look for.
It seems that generally that larger body styles are better for strumming and smaller body styles are better for finger picking.
lex666
New member
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
I actually do both. Some songs I will finger pick, others I will use a pick. Sometimes, a combination of the 2 within the same song.
I actually do both. Some songs I will finger pick, others I will use a pick. Sometimes, a combination of the 2 within the same song.
ericmeyer4
New member
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
Have you checked out the acoustic guitar forum? There is almost too much good information there.
www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/index.php
Have you checked out the acoustic guitar forum? There is almost too much good information there.
www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/index.php
ImmortalSix
John Mayer's Mankini
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
I find just the opposite.
I played several 00, 000, and "OM" (Martin's way of saying it) guitars last year, and all of them had this incredible THUMP in the bass (especially the Martins).
I used to have a big goofy jumbo acoustic, and it was loud and full, but not with much bass focus at all.
My current ride is a Guild dreadnought, and it's middle of the road.
But I found, in my experience, that the 000 style guitars have a LOT of low end focus.
This is exactly the opposite of what I have read both here and everywhere else, but hey,
I find just the opposite.
I played several 00, 000, and "OM" (Martin's way of saying it) guitars last year, and all of them had this incredible THUMP in the bass (especially the Martins).
I used to have a big goofy jumbo acoustic, and it was loud and full, but not with much bass focus at all.
My current ride is a Guild dreadnought, and it's middle of the road.
But I found, in my experience, that the 000 style guitars have a LOT of low end focus.
This is exactly the opposite of what I have read both here and everywhere else, but hey,
Last edited:
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
I was just describing what I usually hear when trying acoustics, but there are so many variables with them that it's hard to account for exactly what's going on. Go and play three of the same make from the same manufacturer and you'll find three guitars that make very different sounds. Then throw in the difference that the wood used for the back, neck, and top can make, different strings, different ways that people attack the guitar, and it's very much the kind of thing that you just have to decide for yourself.
Do you still have that jumbo? What brand was it? I really like the size and shape of those guitars, but can't find any that aren't boomy.
I find just the opposite.
I played several 00, 000, and "OM" (Martin's way of saying it) guitars last year, and all of them had this incredible THUMP in the bass (especially the Martins).
I used to have a big goofy jumbo acoustic, and it was loud and full, but not with much bass focus at all.
My current ride is a Guild dreadnought, and it's middle of the road.
But I found, in my experience, that the 000 style guitars have a LOT of low end focus.
This is exactly the opposite of what I have read both here and everywhere else, but hey,
I was just describing what I usually hear when trying acoustics, but there are so many variables with them that it's hard to account for exactly what's going on. Go and play three of the same make from the same manufacturer and you'll find three guitars that make very different sounds. Then throw in the difference that the wood used for the back, neck, and top can make, different strings, different ways that people attack the guitar, and it's very much the kind of thing that you just have to decide for yourself.
Do you still have that jumbo? What brand was it? I really like the size and shape of those guitars, but can't find any that aren't boomy.
ImmortalSix
John Mayer's Mankini
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
Oh yeah, of course. (that every individual guitar responds differently)
The guitar I had was a copy of that Epiphone EJ200 --- I got it at the local crappy music store; I think it's brand was "Memphis" or "Nashville" :laughing:
I traded it to a college buddy of mine for some microphones and mic stands.
I felt that it was loud, loud, loud, and had a really even balance between lows, mids, and highs. But, of course it was cheap and although it had good balance, it sounded like a cardboard box, in a general sense, and so I chose to never gig it.
Oh yeah, of course. (that every individual guitar responds differently)
The guitar I had was a copy of that Epiphone EJ200 --- I got it at the local crappy music store; I think it's brand was "Memphis" or "Nashville" :laughing:
I traded it to a college buddy of mine for some microphones and mic stands.
I felt that it was loud, loud, loud, and had a really even balance between lows, mids, and highs. But, of course it was cheap and although it had good balance, it sounded like a cardboard box, in a general sense, and so I chose to never gig it.
guitfiddle
firstlessonologist
Re: Acoustic guitar body shapes
The body styles got bigger in the eternal quest for volume. Volume is different than projection...that's what the audience hears.
Volume is what the player hears.
Parlor guitars were the norm until the volume quest started. Martin used OOO for the smallest, OO for the next size up (also the thinnest of the three.) and OM or O for the biggest ones. The OM stands for Orchestral Model, and it usually has a 25.4 scale, whereas the OOO, and OO usually have a 24.9 scale.
The Dreadnaught was an attempt to make a good guitar for the Bluegrassers to use, so they'd not be drowned out by the banjo.
Gibson's Jumbo was their answer to bigger-is-better. Unfortunately, the law of diminishing returns sets in at that point, and further increases to the size are too cumbersome to try and play, which makes the Dreadnaught the undisputed king of acoustics, cause there are more of them made than any other style.
Still, a good OM just KILLS for Bluegrass in the right hands.
The body styles got bigger in the eternal quest for volume. Volume is different than projection...that's what the audience hears.
Volume is what the player hears.
Parlor guitars were the norm until the volume quest started. Martin used OOO for the smallest, OO for the next size up (also the thinnest of the three.) and OM or O for the biggest ones. The OM stands for Orchestral Model, and it usually has a 25.4 scale, whereas the OOO, and OO usually have a 24.9 scale.
The Dreadnaught was an attempt to make a good guitar for the Bluegrassers to use, so they'd not be drowned out by the banjo.
Gibson's Jumbo was their answer to bigger-is-better. Unfortunately, the law of diminishing returns sets in at that point, and further increases to the size are too cumbersome to try and play, which makes the Dreadnaught the undisputed king of acoustics, cause there are more of them made than any other style.
Still, a good OM just KILLS for Bluegrass in the right hands.
