It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
However, in general, people go for lighter built acoustic guitars in the belief that they'll be more resonant. Heavier acoustics are "believed" to be overbuilt or have excessively heavy finish applied. On the flipside a heavier built guitar may be more robust.
All that said, if I were to pay a guitar that sounded and felt better than something lighter, the weight wouldn't put me off.
Whether you like the sound, well that's a matter of taste and there are no right or wrong answers. It is what you like. Personally, I have always liked the more disciplined sound of a heavier build. On the other hand, two of my seven are very lightly built. They are very different, very responsive. Some things sound great on them .... and some things sound much better on a heavier guitar.
Which is better? Les Paul or Strat? Ans: they are different. Both are good. Play the one you prefer. If you like them both, play both!
Having said all that, bear it in mind that there are two ways to build an acoustic back: you can have a live back (which is reasonably light and is designed to move and make a sound) or you can have a dead back (which is designed to simply reflect sound from the top and not move at all). Sides are always "dead", tops are always "live", the back can be either. So you could have a very heavy guitar (if you weigh the whole thing) which plays like a paper-light guitar because it has a very light, responsive top. Or maybe vice-versa.
My Atkin 47 is a smaller, mahogany-er affair, weights next to nothing and is really loud when playing, but I think doesn't fill a room so well.
I don't think there is a single rule where heavier/lighter = better
That said, by far the worst expensive 'high end' acoustic I can remember playing was also extremely heavy, much more so than I think I've ever noticed a proper acoustic guitar be before, and it sounded dead and frankly crap.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
Interesting. I think the same theory applies to a few makers (the Somogyi disciples and others) who use double sides for their instruments to create a louder instrument.
It was a PRS Martin Simpson Private Stock model. It sounded like a cheap Takamine and weighed about as much as a Les Paul.
(Slight exaggeration, but it felt like it!)
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
ah the ones you need to strum with a lump hammer to get the soundboard moving
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
A Maestro Raffles, Martin D28 and a Lowden O35.
The same lightweight and responsiveness that make them so beautiful unplugged - would probably make them absolute dogs if played amplified...
Every thing about the guitar was heavy duty.
Was it Sobell or NK Forster?