Solid/Carved or Laminated Archtops

[zigzag]

I understand that the ES-335 has a laminated archtop. I am curious to know if laminated bodies are simply cheaper to make or do they offer different (i.e. improved) tone or higher volume in hollow or semi-hollow designs? Do they vibrate more or sustain longer?

[bobouz]

A carved solid spruce top is the ideal standard for an acoustically delivered tone in an archtop.

It should produce the fullest, richest, and most resonant tone without amplification.

 

From there, pressed solid spruce tops are less expensive to build but can also deliver good tone.

 

Then would come a pressed & laminated spruce top, in general with less ability to resonate.

 

Electrification & resulting feedback created the need for a stiffer soundboard,

which eventually led to laminated maple tops as an ideal standard for electric archtops.

 

These are generalizations, so from piece to piece you might find interesting exceptions,

such as a laminated maple hollowbody with wonderful projection & depth of tone.

[Versatile]

An interesting post...

 

And the answer is yes... :unsure:

 

Many iconic tone guitars of top quality have laminated tops...ES's various...175, 335, 330, 135, 137 etc etc...

 

Arguable advantages being durability and consistency over solid wood

 

There is a saying that a good laminated guitar will beat a 'poor' solid guitar

 

Then again there is the skill in selecting woods for solid guitars, which can minimise the likelihood of bad ones

 

Solid archtops are generally much more expensive

 

Although, Gibson aside, there are some high VFM carved solid guitars and orchestral instruments coming out of the Far East like never before...

 

V

 

[Twang Gang]

I think the lamination came along mostly as a strength issue, it can be thinner and lighter yet stronger than a solid carve. But tone wise there are so many other factors that you can't really say one is going to sound better than another.

[BigKahune]

.

Laminate is much cheaper then carving an archtop out of a thick piece of prime tonewood. Gibson's high-end archtops still employ carved tops.

 

The CS-336 and it's upscale sister the CS-356 are what Gibson calls tonally carved. The semi-hollows have a back, center block, and sides that are carved from one single piece of mahogany and the top is carved maple. Very cool and interesting instruments.

 

The reason people pay the money for expensive carved-top archtops is the sound/tone is (supposedly) better.

 

 

.

[bobouz]

Back in the day, I'd buy old acoustic archtops at flea markets.

Usually paid $10-$40 a pop for them back in the '70s,

and would fix them up to trade for something better.

 

A very interesting one was a late '40s Gibson L48.

It had a pressed solid mahogany top,

and a flat braced back (just like a flat-top acoustic).

 

But the best one was a 1930's Ward, made by Gibson.

The top was an X-braced piece of carved solid spruce.

Beautifully full & punchy tone.

 

There are lots of variations on the basic archtop theme,

and in different ways, they can all be quite satisfying.

[badbluesplayer]

In general, solid tops will have "better" tone and have more volume and projection. Solid tops will resonate more and longer.

 

Laminated tops don't vibrate as well as solid tops.

 

But whether one or the other sounds good or better as an electric guitar is a much more complicated question. Especially if the guitar is being played with distortion or at high volume.

[Flintc]

My understanding was that laminated tops started being put onto fully hollow guitars to fight feedback, which allowed the guitarist to turn up the amp and be heard in the orchestra. Adding the center block for the semi-hollow turned archtops into basically solid body guitars anyway, at which point I'd guess the laminate was kept for cost reasons. And I notice Gibson is advertising their 2013 ES-339 without F-holes, which they say is yet another effort to reduce feedback.

[badbluesplayer]

My understanding was that laminated tops started being put onto fully hollow guitars to fight feedback, which allowed the guitarist to turn up the amp and be heard in the orchestra. Adding the center block for the semi-hollow turned archtops into basically solid body guitars anyway, at which point I'd guess the laminate was kept for cost reasons. And I notice Gibson is advertising their 2013 ES-339 without F-holes, which they say is yet another effort to reduce feedback.

 

Oh geez - I just noticed that they have a dealer exclusive 339 "Traditional Pro" with no F holes. It sure has a solidbody look. Not for me, but looks pretty good. I don't think I would have used the "Traditional" moniker for this model, though.

[BigKahune]

.

@Flintc - Yes, feedback, expense. . No f-holes. Man, that's interesting -

[kaicho8888]

.

@Flintc - Yes, feedback, expense. . No f-holes. Man, that's interesting -

 

 

The "no F hole" BB King Lucille started it according to the Memphis tour to minimize feedback.

 

I still cannot get used to the missing "F" hole. It's a nice detail...perhaps a simulated "F" hole could have been used.

[Teobeck]

Old thread but interesting, as I have made a study of this issue for several years. I compared three of the guitars I own with my laminate Gibson ES-335 for tone; the guitars carved out of solid woods with solid tops are: 1) Samick Royale 2) Fret King Elise (339 size) and 3) Gibson Midtown Custom. All of the guitars have two PAF alnico 2 humbuckers. I use Fender Vibrolux, Bassman and Deluxe Reverb amps with Weber alnico speakers. I have been playing classic R&B, blues and funk for over 50 years. I only play clean. I am still gigging in Atlanta, GA.

 

I find that none of the solid wood guitars have the resonance of my laminate 335, particularly on complex barre chords and funk. The 335 projects better than the others. I also have a laminate Epi 339 with Alnico II Pro pickups, and even though smaller, it still has great resonance and projects better. The Gibson Midtown Custom was close, but it has less bass resonance, and is brighter, more focused, not as smooth.

 

Conclusion: Laminate construction semi hollows are more melodic, fill up the sound space better on rhythm and blend better, and make any singer more comfortable as a result, when playing my styles.

 

I am fortunate that my son plays a Les Paul, and handles the rock leads. When playing rock rhythms (Bad Company, ZZ Top, Led Zep, etc.) I still prefer the laminate 335. It's my desert island guitar.

 

Thanks

[badbluesplayer]

Old thread but interesting, as I have made a study of this issue for several years. I compared three of the guitars I own with my laminate Gibson ES-335 for tone; the guitars carved out of solid woods with solid tops are: 1) Samick Royale 2) Fret King Elise (339 size) and 3) Gibson Midtown Custom. All of the guitars have two PAF alnico 2 humbuckers. I use Fender Vibrolux, Bassman and Deluxe Reverb amps with Weber alnico speakers. I have been playing classic R&B, blues and funk for over 50 years. I only play clean. I am still gigging in Atlanta, GA.

 

I find that none of the solid wood guitars have the resonance of my laminate 335, particularly on complex barre chords and funk. The 335 projects better than the others. I also have a laminate Epi 339 with Alnico II Pro pickups, and even though smaller, it still has great resonance and projects better. The Gibson Midtown Custom was close, but it has less bass resonance, and is brighter, more focused, not as smooth.

 

Conclusion: Laminate construction semi hollows are more melodic, fill up the sound space better on rhythm and blend better, and make any singer more comfortable as a result, when playing my styles.

 

I am fortunate that my son plays a Les Paul, and handles the rock leads. When playing rock rhythms (Bad Company, ZZ Top, Led Zep, etc.) I still prefer the laminate 335. It's my desert island guitar.

 

Thanks

 

Good points!

[ksdaddy]

I expect to get shouted down on this one. Oh well. I've owned many archtops, from plywood Kays to L-7s and a Heritage Golden Eagle. Probably two dozen or more. In 2005 I built a semi-hollowbody along the lines of a Gretsch Tennessean. I used leftover pressed (arched) from the old Gretsch factory in Booneville, AR. They are still available once in a while on ebay. I made parallel braces for it with a block right where the bridge would be, in the event I decided to use a stop tailpiece (I didn't). I used a trapeze and it now has a Bigsby.

 

Taking into consideration the lack of body depth and the fact it has pickups and knobs all over the top, I have never heard a thin body have so much full, robust tone with that much resonance.

 

To what do I attribute this? I can't answer that. Maybe I just hit it lucky. I didn't see the need to overbrace it, maybe that had something to do with it. Did the center block help transfer energy? No clue. I certainly didn't plan it to sound as good as it does and I view it as a happy mistake. The point I'm trying to make is that just because it's solid and carved doesn't mean it will sound good, and just because it's laminated doesn't mean it will sound bad.

 

As many of you know, I have an extensive collection of old aluminum necked Applause guitars (44 as of today). I have also owned many "real" Ovations, and still have a few. The Applauses have plywood tops and sound better, in my opinion. Is it the bracing? Probably. In my brain, I've pondered whether a laminate top could be thinner than a solid top and/or have a different bracing pattern. I wonder sometimes if manufacturers don't change anything else. In other words, they use the same bracing pattern and top thickness on a solid top vs laminate top model. It would seem that, given those restrictions, the laminate top would be less likely to vibrate. But if a laminate top were stronger, then the braces COULD be lighter and allow it to vibrate better.

 

Don't mind me, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

 

Don't even get me started on the half dozen or so plastic topped Ovations I have. I've never heard tone like that out of a cheap guitar. They sound like a 55 gallon drum with strings.

 

 

[jimmyl51]

That is one BEAUTIFUL guitar! Where did you learn woodworking i.e. up there in Caribou where Susan Collins is from? jim in Auburn

[Spoonful]

Interesting subject. I remember reading an interview with Bill Collings. He builds some pretty incredible guitars. In terms of semi hollows he has models that are carved wood and laminate. Initially he was doing carved wood. He found that for producing guitars with a consistent type tone, laminated wood worked best. The results were more predictable.

 

My experience playing both models of Collings I-35s, Gibson ES-335s, Gibson ES-339s and as someone else mentioned the CS-356, if I wanted to sound like other guitarists or most recordings, I would choose a laminate. If I wanted a unique sound, I would go with the carved wood model. Personally, I like the unique voicing of the carved tops and I also like that consistent 335 sound too.

[Danny W.]

Old thread but interesting, as I have made a study of this issue for several years. I compared three of the guitars I own with my laminate Gibson ES-335 for tone; the guitars carved out of solid woods with solid tops are: 1) Samick Royale 2) Fret King Elise (339 size) and 3) Gibson Midtown Custom. All of the guitars have two PAF alnico 2 humbuckers. I use Fender Vibrolux, Bassman and Deluxe Reverb amps with Weber alnico speakers. I have been playing classic R&B, blues and funk for over 50 years. I only play clean. I am still gigging in Atlanta, GA.

 

I find that none of the solid wood guitars have the resonance of my laminate 335, particularly on complex barre chords and funk. The 335 projects better than the others. I also have a laminate Epi 339 with Alnico II Pro pickups, and even though smaller, it still has great resonance and projects better. The Gibson Midtown Custom was close, but it has less bass resonance, and is brighter, more focused, not as smooth.

 

Conclusion: Laminate construction semi hollows are more melodic, fill up the sound space better on rhythm and blend better, and make any singer more comfortable as a result, when playing my styles.

 

 

 

You are generalizing from too few data points while comparing guitars from several manufacturers and concluding that the difference you hear is because of just one factor and that it applies to all guitars, regardless of construction or build quality or a number of other things that can affect sound.

 

I've owned many guitars with solid woods and many that are laminate and as I've weeded down my collection to a more manageable size I've found that I've invariably chosen the solid-wood guitars over similar laminates--in fact, I now own only one laminated guitar, a custom ES-355 that is quite excellent, but not necessarily better than one of my solid-wood CS-356's. It sounds great, but so do the others--I don't hear any particular magic in it that I could ascribe to it having laminated woods in the body.

 

From this (all laminates)

 

 

To this (four solids and one laminate)

 

(There were more laminates but I didn't want to post too many photos)

 

In fully-hollow-body guitars I've found that I have a clear preference for solid wood with carved tops over pressed laminated woods. I've owned a number of really nice laminated guitars that just never seemed to sound as good to me as my closest equivalent carved-top. The laminates I owned that I thought sounded the best were made by Roger Borys, but eventually I decided that for me, nothing beats a Gibson L-5.

 

Danny W.

[AlanC]

You are generalizing from too few data points while comparing guitars from several manufacturers and concluding that the difference you hear is because of just one factor and that it applies to all guitars, regardless of construction or build quality or a number of other things that can affect sound.

 

I've owned many guitars with solid woods and many that are laminate and as I've weeded down my collection to a more manageable size I've found that I've invariably chosen the solid-wood guitars over similar laminates--in fact, I now own only one laminated guitar, a custom ES-355 that is quite excellent, but not necessarily better than one of my solid-wood CS-356's. It sounds great, but so do the others--I don't hear any particular magic in it that I could ascribe to it having laminated woods in the body.

 

From this (all laminates)

 

 

To this (four solids and one laminate)

 

(There were more laminates but I didn't want to post too many photos)

 

In fully-hollow-body guitars I've found that I have a clear preference for solid wood with carved tops over pressed laminated woods. I've owned a number of really nice laminated guitars that just never seemed to sound as good to me as my closest equivalent carved-top. The laminates I owned that I thought sounded the best were made by Roger Borys, but eventually I decided that for me, nothing beats a Gibson L-5.

 

Danny W.

 

So nothing beats an L5. Mmmmm? I own an L5 and luv it, but not quite there yet on that point. Having said that not sure what beats it. But what I do know is nothing beats a great arch top. And I mean nothing!! Lol. Hope that's not too confusing as its not meant to be meaningless!

[Danny W.]

So nothing beats an L5. Mmmmm? I own an L5 and luv it, but not quite there yet on that point. Having said that not sure what beats it. But what I do know is nothing beats a great arch top. And I mean nothing!! Lol. Hope that's not too confusing as its not meant to be meaningless!

You edited out "for me,"

 

I've owned quite a number of fine archtops that weren't L-5s and I still own and play other models of Gibson carved-top guitars, but I do all my jazz gigs with an L-5. As a matter of practical elegance, I haven't found anything I like better for live performance.

 

 

Someone else might have a completely different opinion and that's fine. Just means more L-5s for me <_<

 

 

Danny W.

[JimR56]

I think the whole notion that one type of guitar sounds "better" than another type is somewhat ridiculous. Quality of tone is a highly subjective thing, and besides that, two different players are going to get a different tone from the same guitar. The only thing that really matters in terms of choosing an instrument is selecting guitars (and amps) that please YOU the most for sound, playability, etc. Most of us have more than one guitar anyway, in order to have access to creating different tones for different applications (okay, that's only one reason, but I think it's a major one).

 

In my 35+ years of playing, I've had all sorts of Gibson archtops (a Barney Kessel model, a Johnny Smith, Super 400C, Super 400CES's, an ES250, ES350's, ES5, L5's, L5CT, 330's, 335's, 345's, 355's, and a Gibson-made Epiphone Sheraton), and a vintage D'Angelico New Yorker. I enjoyed all of them, and not only the variety of sounds from different models, but the fact that different examples of the same models often felt and sounded different from each other. I couldn't have gotten the same sound from my ES330 that I got from my ES250, but I would never claim that one tone was "better". Better for a certain song or style, perhaps, but I don't think that's what the OP was referring to (just pure tone).

 

There are certain qualities of tone (an example would be Kenny Burrell playing a hand-made, carved top 1956 D'Angelico New Yorker with a DeArmond 1100 pickup) that are somewhat unique and only attainable due to the quality of the a guitar's construction and amplification system, etc, but even I would admit that such a tone is only "better" to MY ears than say Herb Ellis playing an ES175 with humbuckers through a solid state amp. Wes Montgomery's tone with an L5CES is nothing like Joshua Breakstone's tone with an L5CES (and I'm glad that's the case, because players achieving their own sound is an important aspect of being a great musical artist, imo). At any rate, tone creation is a somewhat mysterious thing (due to the variety that comes with touch and attack) and it's all matter of taste.

[JimR56]

I expect to get shouted down on this one. Oh well. I've owned many archtops, from plywood Kays to L-7s and a Heritage Golden Eagle. Probably two dozen or more. In 2005 I built a semi-hollowbody along the lines of a Gretsch Tennessean. I used leftover pressed (arched) from the old Gretsch factory in Booneville, AR. They are still available once in a while on ebay. I made parallel braces for it with a block right where the bridge would be, in the event I decided to use a stop tailpiece (I didn't). I used a trapeze and it now has a Bigsby.

 

Taking into consideration the lack of body depth and the fact it has pickups and knobs all over the top, I have never heard a thin body have so much full, robust tone with that much resonance.

 

To what do I attribute this? I can't answer that. Maybe I just hit it lucky. I didn't see the need to overbrace it, maybe that had something to do with it. Did the center block help transfer energy? No clue. I certainly didn't plan it to sound as good as it does and I view it as a happy mistake. The point I'm trying to make is that just because it's solid and carved doesn't mean it will sound good, and just because it's laminated doesn't mean it will sound bad.

 

 

You won't get shouted down by me. I'll bet that guitar sounds great.

 

After being a Gibson purist for 30+ years, I got a 1960 Gretsch Country Gentleman a couple of years ago. These guitars featured "trestle" bracing, which creates something like a cross between a hollowbody sound and a Gibson semi-hollow (with a solid block down the center) sound. More airy than a 335 sound, but with much of the sustain. I've been in heaven since I got this instrument, particularly when playing chord/melody arrangements where sustain is such a great thing to have available.

 

[Danny W.]

My BB KIng Lucille has a back and top made of laminated maple/poplar/maple and has no f-holes and sound damn good with or without distortion. I don't care if your guitar is solid or hollow or semi-hollow you can make them feedback.

My main guitar for non-jazz gigs throughout the '90's was a BB King Custom, which I thought was a great guitar:

 

 

Too heavy for me to want to play now. Even back then I often swapped off with an SG/LP Custom for a few tunes to give my back a break.

 

Danny W.

[AlanC]

You edited out "for me,"

 

I've owned quite a number of fine archtops that weren't L-5s and I still own and play other models of Gibson carved-top guitars, but I do all my jazz gigs with an L-5. As a matter of practical elegance, I haven't found anything I like better for live performance.

 

 

Someone else might have a completely different opinion and that's fine. Just means more L-5s for me <_<

 

 

Danny W.

 

There might be lots of L5's out there for you but I have 2 that won't be coming for sale. And I'm thinking about a 3rd. Thinking about a new L5 CT for maybe early in 2014.

 

 

[jdgm]

I have 2 archtops and 2 laminated tops, 1 of which is a new ES175. Very subjective but the notes and chords seem perhaps a bit livelier and fuller on the archtops. The 175 has its own distinct acoustic tone and quality...but to my ears doesn't sustain in quite the same way as the archtops. Depends too on what strings.

 

The 1st (and 4th) of the 'Virtuoso' albums by Joe Pass is/are all played acoustically on his ES175; by the time of 'Virtuoso 3' he is pictured on the cover with a beautiful D'Aquisto and the album sound is more a combination of the guitars acoustic and electric signals, and markedly different. You could say it is better in some ways but at that high level, what he is playing transcends whatever tone the guitar has - IMO.

 

Great topic!

[jimmyl51]

Danny I have to ask you if through the years you had ever considered the old Guild jazz guitars of the 1950's/very early 1960's? I used to be into Gibsons early on and still have a few of their jazz guitars having owned most of them early on through the years but am now into the old Guild jazzers as they used to be very reasonable pricewise however are now getting into the Gibson price ranges..............jim in Maine