Dreadnought or OM

Universal8

I’m still looking for the right one but I’ve been wondering if I should broaden my horizons when it comes to body shape. I only really play at home or jam with a mate. Is a dreadnought overkill ? Would an OM size do the trick ? I only use a pick , if that makes any difference. 

Winny_Pooh

You really need to try them, it's a matter of taste rather than volume.

A rosewood dread tends to generate more low end, but that doesnt mean it sounds louder. 

Some OMs have wider nuts for fingerstyle players.

mgaw

OM may be a more comfortable option, also more versatile...I love dreadnoughts but ended up going back to OMs purely for the ease and versatility.

Perhaps more importantly look at the style of music you play

earwighoney

Most things can be played on most different shapes of acoustic guitar, but IMO for an acoustic guitar ergonomics are the most important aspect for playability.

Try a few different ones out to find which one suits you the most.

ICBM

Purely personal taste. I'm a little guy who plays mostly fingerstyle, so by all accounts you would think that I would choose an OM, but in practice I just prefer the deep, more open sound of a Dreadnought. I have had a really good OM as well (Martin OM-21) which I did love the sound of, but the neck was too wide for me - OMs are more commonly found with wide necks than Dreadnoughts are, although you can find examples of each the other way round. I don't find the body size of a D a problem, in fact I like Gibson Jumbos as well.

Schnozz

I like to play with a thick pick so a Dreadnought really does it for me.

I have an OM as well that's easier to play on the couch with fingers/thin pick, but the Dread is where it's at for me - As ICBM says, it's a more balanced sound.

Universal8

Thanks for the reply’s. Size of the guitar isn’t an issue ( I’m 6’ 4” ) , it was more a case of volume. I’ll try and play some, though not that easy without appointments.

monquixote

I got a Martin OOO recently and that's a cool guitar for someone who plays mostly electric and doesn't want to be super loud.

I think the scale is a bit shorter than an OM.

Kilgore

I'm mainly a fingerstyle player and gravitate towards 000, OM, 00 etc.

I don't find dreads uncomfortable as such, just a bit awkward. Bout and waist size isn't the issue, it's the depth of dreads that I don't like. 

earwighoney

Universal8 said:

Thanks for the reply’s. Size of the guitar isn’t an issue ( I’m 6’ 4” ) , it was more a case of volume. I’ll try and play some, though not that easy without appointments.

Volume and body size do not always correlate as one might expect, one of my smaller guitars is the loudest guitar I own.

Aside from the dread and OM, there are other body sizes eg a Grand Auditorium which will have the same width lower bout as a dread but a more curved body shape and a higher waist.

TheBigDipper

It's not just the volume a guitar will make when you play it in a certain way. It's also the way it responds to your playing style.

My Brook Taw (sort of OM sized, 24.5in scale) loves being played gently and sings out when I do. Strum it hard and the quality of the sound degenerates fast without it getting much louder in the room.

My L'Arrivee L-01 (sort of Jumbo-sized, 25.25in scale) loves being strummed hard and sounds good when I do. Not quite so delicate or responsive when played with the fingers, although it's alright, just a bit flat sounding.

Teyeplayer

I really think you need a good one of each. I always find it amazing that guitarists routinely have multiple electrics but then don’t do the same with acoustics. There’s as many bases to cover in the acoustic camp.

Redlester

If you are able, go to a shop with a good range and try the guitars that take your fancy. Take a friend if you can so they can be a second opinion, but also play guitars for you to hear as well. 

Sounds like you’re after a blend of the right sound for you plus playability plus comfort. Don’t be surprised if you end up with a Dreadnought though. A good one is surprisingly versatile. 

malcolmkindness

The OM body shape is the most versatile, so if you only have one guitar this would be the best choice.

ICBM

malcolmkindness said:

The OM body shape is the most versatile, so if you only have one guitar this would be the best choice.

That seems to be a common opinion, but I disagree.

A good Dreadnought will do everything an OM can *and* has a bigger sound for heavy strumming. That's why I have one.

earwighoney

ICBM said:

malcolmkindness said:

The OM body shape is the most versatile, so if you only have one guitar this would be the best choice.

That seems to be a common opinion, but I disagree.

A good Dreadnought will do everything an OM can *and* has a bigger sound for heavy strumming. That's why I have one.

I'm largely in agreement, IMO there seems to not be as much appreciation for the straight braced Martin D18/28/35's of yesteryear but I think there are some of the most versatile instruments out there, aside from being superb for heavy strumming as one might expect they are great for fingerstyle playing as well, being the instruments of choice of some highly regarded fingerstyle players like John Fahey & Michael Hedges.

I have a very lightly braced OM which is a delightful guitar for playing fingerstyle, but not a great guitar for playing with a pick.

sunshinewelly

for me the OM shape is definitively  more comfortable to sit down and play - if its good enough for Clapton (000 but same body size as OM)  and Mayer then its good enough for me

I am 6 foot 2 and fine dreads a bit uncomfortable

Redlester

Years back I used to think that ‘small body= a picker; dreadnought= a strummer”. 

What changed my mind was getting seriously into playing and listening to some great players. Davey Graham in the 60s? One of the finest pickers ever and mostly all on a Gibson J-50. Lots of John Renbourn’s fine earlier work was played on a Guild Dreadnought. Another of the finest pickers ever is Ralph McTell, and he’s a J-45 man! 

Then there’s Bert Jansch, a great player of 000 and 0M models until the mid 70s but who played a Yamaha dreadnought so beautifully for years.

It really is horses for courses, which is why I have found shopping for an acoustic when I’ve done it a long but enlightening process. I find everything about acoustics extremely subjective, which is why it’s good to chat about them on forums like this, but you can’t beat getting your hands on one and really trying before buying. Possibly easier said than done with Covid-19 ongoing of course, but potentially worth the effort. 

Let us know when you get something you like! 


     

Epsilon

Spoon or fork? Depends what you want to do with it.

Cranky

I'll never understand the argument that smaller bodies make for better fingerpicking.  If anything, their inherently reduced bass and overall volume suggest the opposite.  I get that they can be more comfortable to hold, especially for those with shoulder pains and whatnot, but personally I just can't enjoy the thinness of a OM.  It's all about the dreadnought for me.

For me, the primary thing to consider are tonewoods and scale length.  Mahogany is usually warmer with a deeper bass and more subdued mids and highs.  It's supposed to make for a better rhythm acoustic, good for singer-songwriters, good for country, blues and bluegrass.  Rosewood is a better acoustic for rock music, for lead playing, etc because of it's penchant for brighter tones that'll cut through a mix.  Maple is supposedly the brightest yet, though I've not played a maple acoustic. 

Some swear that Adirondack spruce tops are better than Sitka spruce.  Solid cedar tops sound pretty remarkable to me, as well.

These days there are some substitute woods because of environmental protections: walnut is starting to replace rosewood, sapele replacing mahogany.  I had a Gibson spruce-walnut combo for a spell, it was rather bright and I liked it but I sold it for reasons explained below.

A shorter scale will also make for something a little brighter and, in my experience, faster action.  But it's also my experience that a short scale (like many Gibsons), especially with a thinner neck, can be difficult to quickly change chords on because of the reduced space for fingers and some extra strain on the grip.  So if I only had one acoustic, I wouldn't have a shortscale because I find rhythm playing (my favorite aspect for an acoustic) difficult for prolonged periods even though I think they sound perfectly nice.

ICBM

Cranky said:

Maple is supposedly the brightest yet, though I've not played a maple acoustic.

I would say maple is not so much bright, as very even across the frequency range. I’ve never come across a true Martin-type Dreadnought in maple to compare with a D-28, but I have a Gibson Dove which is very balanced from deep lows to clear highs. The neck on that is also maple though, which does affect the sound.