Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Martin acoustic volume vs Gibson


BC Mike 118

Recommended Posts

I am a confirmed Gibson acoustic lover and have a number of them including two SJ200's, a Dove, Hummingbird and a Songwriter Deluxe Studio. Recently I bought a Martin HD35 even though I had never considered owning one before but I could not resist the price. I couldn't believe the difference in acoustic volume. Much louder than the Gibsons, ever the SJ200's! Have any of you had this experience? The bracing is 1/4" and scalloped but can that make such a noticible difference in volume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

D35s and HD35s are generally cannons due (I’m led to believe) to the lighter back bracing and three piece back. Wonderful guitars!

 

Volume is a very subjective thing, and whilst loud is always good, in my experience as a session player it’s not always better per se. A friend has a ‘40s J45 which is really quiet-half as loud as my ‘67 J45. Under a mic though it really shines-amazing overtones and beautiful woody thump. I had a 2002 AJ which was VERY loud and sounded great in a room, but rather one dimensional when mic’d. It would also bleed onto vocal tracks relentlessly in an “in the room” vocal and guitar take due to the volume of it. It was great for ensemble work though, really handy for bluegrass style stuff around one mic.

 

I’d absolutely love to own a 35 series Mart, especially as my favourite songwriter of all time, Townes Van Zandt, of course played one. Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would list 'volume' as 4th or 5th in terms of priorities when I got my SJ200. Few describe them as cannons or banjo killers. . My J45 is louder but not as complex in tone.

As discussed in a thread earlier this week "Why do guitar manufacturers assume you want SUSTAIN?" we sometimes think that is the 'holy grail'.

I think, as we develop our ear for un-amplified acoustic 'sound' we realize volume, sustain, clarity, and that elusive quality 'tone' all compete within each guitar. Significantly tweak-able with strings, picks and whether you stand in front of it or hold it with the back firmly against your beer belly.

There is an old wives tale "Scotch is an Acquired Taste." but I think the same applies to guitars. We have different palettes. and different inner ears. So we hear the same sound differently. In general, Martins have built a reputation in BlueGrass as being able to compete with banjos sound (volume) wise. Taylor, again in general, has a reputation of consistently producing bell-like tones.

It sounds like (no pun intended) your new Martin will help you in your pursuit of refining your taste. Or ear ! Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as your Dove and J 200's maple is not a loud wood.

That's not it's forte ... Maple is known well for being true to what a player plays on it.

3 different guys can pick up the same maple guitar and it will bring out each of those styles with very high fidelity of notes.

 

Rosewood will be filled with overtones so if you make a mistake the overtones will cover it up.

I would think in order for a maple guitar to even get close to a rosewood guitar you'd have to put Heavy gauge strings on it.

 

 

Variety is the spice of life

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a young man I really wanted a J-200 (Michael Chapman influence). Later I fancied A D-28.

 

I never got either. I eventually got a Fylde (from Luthier Roger Bucknell himself in 70s). It was one of the loudest in his 2nds (not for retail) area.

 

A very loud one was a white wood guitar, which had the sweetest tone, but it sounded dull played hard. So I choose a more conventional model that responded well when played hard.

 

Now if all I had to go on was listening someone else playing those guitars I might have made the wrong choice.

Acoustic volume is important, but its only one component of the whole tonal palette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loudness only matters when you are close to the guitar. Projection, as example, is something different. While loudness is a component, projection is more like a sweet spot as the ear/brain synthesizes certain frequencies better than others. My loudest guitar is probably my 1955/56 Epi Ft-79. Not a lightweight instrument by any stretch of the imagination but that arched back makes a difference. But if you are standing in the back of the room you will be able to hear others better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is volume a criteria?

 

If you are referring to my original post you will note that I didn't discuss volume being a criteria, I merely made an observation regarding volume and wondered if other members had that experience. As far as criteria goes I don't go to my music store with a checklist, I just get in there and play until it feels right. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that anyone who has spent a good amount of time with Gibsons would not utter any surprise that are not the loudest guitars on the planet. If Gibson had that end in mind they might have built them with a more pinched waist and made them all long scale guitars. Imagine a Gibson slope shoulder or J-200 with a Kay-esque 26" scale neck slapped on. Scary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that anyone who has spent a good amount of time with Gibsons would not utter any surprise that are not the loudest guitars on the planet. If Gibson had that end in mind they might have built them with a more pinched waist and made them all long scale guitars. Imagine a Gibson slope shoulder or J-200 with a Kay-esque 26" scale neck slapped on. Scary!

 

I agree with Gibson it's mostly about the mids.

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess I can claim to have a lot of experience on the volume of Gibson and Martin (mostly) flat tops -- we have almost exactly 50 of each, all (but one) built before 1969 and many from before 1945. After 1980 -- not so much.

 

People began to put steel strings on flat top guitars in a serious way in the mid-to-late 1920s. Prior to that Gibson essentially had no flat top guitars and Martin flat top guitars -- built for almost 100 years -- used gut string. Gibson started in 1925 by essentially putting a flat tops on their L-0 and L-1 archtops, which started as ladder braced but evolved to X-brace by the late 1920s. Martins were always x-braced, but very lightly braced. Putting steel strings on the 0, 00, and 000 models of the day created amazing cannons (and still does if one is stupid enough to do it) but the guitars generally could not handle those stings. The late 1920s L-0 and L-1 also got a lot of use with the early blues players who loved loud -- but they would play anything and usually destroyed their instruments with hard playing. They "wore them out."

 

Those were the days before sound reinforcement and whatever sound made it to the audience had to come from the instrument -- thus the need for LOUD.

 

The really big bang of American Flat top guitars happened in the 1930s. Acoustic string band groups before then really did not use flat top guitars very much -- they were not loud enough to blend well with the other loud instruments -- banjos, fiddles, mandolins, accordions, etc.. But what got the attention of those players starting about 1932 were a class of large body steel string guitars introduced by both Martin and Gibson -- Martin D-1 and D-2 in 1931, Gibson Jumbo in 1934, Martin D-28 and D-18 in 1934, Gibson AJ and J-35 in 1936. This lead to the enthusiastic inclusion of these instruments in the acoustic kerosene circuit and traveling shows of the day, and it lead to over-stringing a lot of the instruments (Mapes Heavy Strings) to make them as loud as possible. Eventually players learned to use mediums and the guitar companies began a long progression of beefing up their bracing. So the early instruments were incredibly loud but calmed down a bit by about 40-41.

 

Although they had some identifiable tonal difference all the large body 30s guitars were very loud. But then two things happened. Sound reinforcement and mics became very common for performance and Gibson revamped its bracing in 1942 -- J-45 and SJ. Martin bracing changed evolutionary too and both became less loud -- but Martins remained LOUD and Gibsons less so: a difference that survived until today -- or at least until the crazy "recreated the old" craze that has been a driving force for both companies since about 1990. The longevity of this split can be understood by the different markets that valued the different brands. Martins served the serious loud (eg Traditional bluegrass market) --they delivered their instruments with high actions because they expected their customers to set their own actions. Gibson customers liked guitars ready to play, adjustable, and generally more flashy -- perfect for (say) 40s and 50s country on a sound reinforced stage.

 

The 1960s -- when wife and I started playing folk music -- was in some since another big bang for acoustic guitars. But very unlike the 30s. It was very inclusive and as such was not very loud in general. Power in the guitar was at best a secondary concern -- playability (there were no guitar techs to speak of in those days) and adjustability were king. Period Gibsons serviced the folk revival and country market very well -- Martin stayed the course and lost popularity for their high actions, no adjustable necks, and off the shelf lack of playability -- they were more aimed at pros. This is all clear in retrospect -- it was not obvious then.

 

My c. 1960 LG-1 was a killer loud folk guitar -- later it was a wimpy embarrassment when I tried to learn to play bluegrass.

 

Going back in my hole now.

 

All the best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess I can claim to have a lot of experience on the volume of Gibson and Martin (mostly) flat tops -- we have almost exactly 50 of each, all (but one) built before 1969 and many from before 1945. After 1980 -- not so much.

 

People began to put steel strings on flat top guitars in a serious way in the mid-to-late 1920s. Prior to that Gibson essentially had no flat top guitars and Martin flat top guitars -- built for almost 100 years -- used gut string. Gibson started in 1925 by essentially putting a flat tops on their L-0 and L-1 archtops, which started as ladder braced but evolved to X-brace by the late 1920s. Martins were always x-braced, but very lightly braced. Putting steel strings on the 0, 00, and 000 models of the day created amazing cannons (and still does if one is stupid enough to do it) but the guitars generally could not handle those stings. The late 1920s L-0 and L-1 also got a lot of use with the early blues players who loved loud -- but they would play anything and usually destroyed their instruments with hard playing. They "wore them out."

 

Those were the days before sound reinforcement and whatever sound made it to the audience had to come from the instrument -- thus the need for LOUD.

 

The really big bang of American Flat top guitars happened in the 1930s. Acoustic string band groups before then really did not use flat top guitars very much -- they were not loud enough to blend well with the other loud instruments -- banjos, fiddles, mandolins, accordions, etc.. But what got the attention of those players starting about 1932 were a class of large body steel string guitars introduced by both Martin and Gibson -- Martin D-1 and D-2 in 1931, Gibson Jumbo in 1934, Martin D-28 and D-18 in 1934, Gibson AJ and J-35 in 1936. This lead to the enthusiastic inclusion of these instruments in the acoustic kerosene circuit and traveling shows of the day, and it lead to over-stringing a lot of the instruments (Mapes Heavy Strings) to make them as loud as possible. Eventually players learned to use mediums and the guitar companies began a long progression of beefing up their bracing. So the early instruments were incredibly loud but calmed down a bit by about 40-41.

 

Although they had some identifiable tonal difference all the large body 30s guitars were very loud. But then two things happened. Sound reinforcement and mics became very common for performance and Gibson revamped its bracing in 1942 -- J-45 and SJ. Martin bracing changed evolutionary too and both became less loud -- but Martins remained LOUD and Gibsons less so: a difference that survived until today -- or at least until the crazy "recreated the old" craze that has been a driving force for both companies since about 1990. The longevity of this split can be understood by the different markets that valued the different brands. Martins served the serious loud (eg Traditional bluegrass market) --they delivered their instruments with high actions because they expected their customers to set their own actions. Gibson customers liked guitars ready to play, adjustable, and generally more flashy -- perfect for (say) 40s and 50s country on a sound reinforced stage.

 

The 1960s -- when wife and I started playing folk music -- was in some since another big bang for acoustic guitars. But very unlike the 30s. It was very inclusive and as such was not very loud in general. Power in the guitar was at best a secondary concern -- playability (there were no guitar techs to speak of in those days) and adjustability were king. Period Gibsons serviced the folk revival and country market very well -- Martin stayed the course and lost popularity for their high actions, no adjustable necks, and off the shelf lack of playability -- they were more aimed at pros. This is all clear in retrospect -- it was not obvious then.

 

My c. 1960 LG-1 was a killer loud folk guitar -- later it was a wimpy embarrassment when I tried to learn to play bluegrass.

 

Going back in my hole now.

 

All the best,

 

-Tom

 

Tom thank you for your comments. Do you have a web page showing your collection?

 

Mike in Vancouver BC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess I can claim to have a lot of experience on the volume of Gibson and Martin (mostly) flat tops -- we have almost exactly 50 of each, all (but one) built before 1969 and many from before 1945. After 1980 -- not so much.

 

People began to put steel strings on flat top guitars in a serious way in the mid-to-late 1920s. Prior to that Gibson essentially had no flat top guitars and Martin flat top guitars -- built for almost 100 years -- used gut string. Gibson started in 1925 by essentially putting a flat tops on their L-0 and L-1 archtops, which started as ladder braced but evolved to X-brace by the late 1920s. Martins were always x-braced, but very lightly braced. Putting steel strings on the 0, 00, and 000 models of the day created amazing cannons (and still does if one is stupid enough to do it) but the guitars generally could not handle those stings. The late 1920s L-0 and L-1 also got a lot of use with the early blues players who loved loud -- but they would play anything and usually destroyed their instruments with hard playing. They "wore them out."

 

Those were the days before sound reinforcement and whatever sound made it to the audience had to come from the instrument -- thus the need for LOUD.

 

The really big bang of American Flat top guitars happened in the 1930s. Acoustic string band groups before then really did not use flat top guitars very much -- they were not loud enough to blend well with the other loud instruments -- banjos, fiddles, mandolins, accordions, etc.. But what got the attention of those players starting about 1932 were a class of large body steel string guitars introduced by both Martin and Gibson -- Martin D-1 and D-2 in 1931, Gibson Jumbo in 1934, Martin D-28 and D-18 in 1934, Gibson AJ and J-35 in 1936. This lead to the enthusiastic inclusion of these instruments in the acoustic kerosene circuit and traveling shows of the day, and it lead to over-stringing a lot of the instruments (Mapes Heavy Strings) to make them as loud as possible. Eventually players learned to use mediums and the guitar companies began a long progression of beefing up their bracing. So the early instruments were incredibly loud but calmed down a bit by about 40-41.

 

Although they had some identifiable tonal difference all the large body 30s guitars were very loud. But then two things happened. Sound reinforcement and mics became very common for performance and Gibson revamped its bracing in 1942 -- J-45 and SJ. Martin bracing changed evolutionary too and both became less loud -- but Martins remained LOUD and Gibsons less so: a difference that survived until today -- or at least until the crazy "recreated the old" craze that has been a driving force for both companies since about 1990. The longevity of this split can be understood by the different markets that valued the different brands. Martins served the serious loud (eg Traditional bluegrass market) --they delivered their instruments with high actions because they expected their customers to set their own actions. Gibson customers liked guitars ready to play, adjustable, and generally more flashy -- perfect for (say) 40s and 50s country on a sound reinforced stage.

 

The 1960s -- when wife and I started playing folk music -- was in some since another big bang for acoustic guitars. But very unlike the 30s. It was very inclusive and as such was not very loud in general. Power in the guitar was at best a secondary concern -- playability (there were no guitar techs to speak of in those days) and adjustability were king. Period Gibsons serviced the folk revival and country market very well -- Martin stayed the course and lost popularity for their high actions, no adjustable necks, and off the shelf lack of playability -- they were more aimed at pros. This is all clear in retrospect -- it was not obvious then.

 

My c. 1960 LG-1 was a killer loud folk guitar -- later it was a wimpy embarrassment when I tried to learn to play bluegrass.

 

Going back in my hole now.

 

All the best,

 

-Tom

 

Thanks for that insight Tom. It was an education & a pleasure to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep...my D-41 is a cannon. Love it. But I also love the mellow, woody tone of my J-45. Not better or worse...just different.

 

This comment is spot on. My 1999 HD-28V is a cannon and does have the complex overtones etc. However, my J-45TV has that airy, wooden dry tone thump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you have wanted to see Motorhead play a 20db or 120db.

 

Then the question is why is anything a criteria?(Tone, projection, color, tonewood, bridge and nut material, pickguard, no pickguard. bridge pins, ect ect)

 

Motörhead volume has nothing to do with this discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson built its flattops along the lines of its archtops: punchy chop, clear projection, quick decay. They didnt need to be loud. They needed to cut through. For that sound, you dont want individual notes to stand out or sustain.

 

The extra string tension on martins long scale gutiars (OMs, Ds)is going to give them more pop than a Gibson. But even on the short scale models,Martin's focus on note to note separation is going to give a perception of loudness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as criteria is concerned, my main criteria is "Do I like the guitar?" Had an HD28 for many years. Nice guitar. Loud guitar. Not as loud as the J150 rosewood I had, but that was okay. Both were cannons in their own way. My Hummingbird is a mellow cannon. My Dove is a very loud guitar if one wants to play it that way. I don't necessarily want to play a loud guitar or a mellow guitar. Just want to play a guitar I like. If I like it, the other things will be taken care of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as criteria is concerned, my main criteria is "Do I like the guitar?" Had an HD28 for many years. Nice guitar. Loud guitar. Not as loud as the J150 rosewood I had, but that was okay. Both were cannons in their own way. My Hummingbird is a mellow cannon. My Dove is a very loud guitar if one wants to play it that way. I don't necessarily want to play a loud guitar or a mellow guitar. Just want to play a guitar I like. If I like it, the other things will be taken care of.

 

Exactly. 100% agree. In my original post I simply made a technical observation and with very little Martin experience wondered if the louder percieved volume on mine was an exception or the rule. That being said I have enjoyed the evolution of this thread and learned some thngs - :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...