Loudness or tone??

[onewilyfool]

My friend has several guitars, and the common thread in his collection is that they are all loud. Now I can enjoy a loud guitar as much as the next guy, but I really am drawn more to tone type guitars than loud type. I mean, with a mic or a pickup and amp, even a Ukulele can sound big, but not all big sounding guitars have great tone. If you find a great tone and loud guitar in the same package, all the better……but I'm a tone guy, How about youse guys?

[vacamartin]

Volume has no place in my stable.............gimme that "ol' time tone" anytime

[Joe M]

Since I'm a converted electric player, I've got to have volume, and tone. HD28V, HBTV and SJ200TV. Surprisingly, my Hummingbird is louder than my 200 and almost as loud as my Martin. All three have tone to die for, but they are loud.....

 

 

Oh, and if I want to plug in, I pick up one of my electrics....

[duluthdan]

Tone, but with projection qualities, not necessarily loud, but it needs to have some sort of presence. That being said, I do miss the roar of my old D-28.

[j45nick]

Tone, since I mostly play by myself, for myself. If I want more volume, I pick harder. Works ever time.

[Motherofpearl]

Tone if not I'd play banjo lmao

[GuitarLight]

Tone over volume would win the day for me. A good guitar should be able to provide a healthy dose of both. More volume, strike a bit harder...less volume, strike a bit more lightly. But without the tone, the volume doesn't matter much to me. And Gibsons do a bang up job of delivering both!

[zombywoof]

I start with feel. If the guitar do not feel right than it does not really matter how loud it is or what it sounds like.

 

For me though I listen for a sound particularly the low end. Volume is generally something that takes me a bit to get a handle on. Got to see how the guitar cuts through the mix. I once got so frustrated with a spruce top Guild D-25 I ended up giving it away. Darn dulcimer could drown the thing out. The way I look at it though, if it was all about volume I would probably steer clear of round shoulder Gibsons because they are not even in the ballpark with the loudest guitars I have played.

[retrorod]

I would like sweetness and balance of tone first, and then volume on demand when played harder. Not surprising, my '48 SJ offers both....subtle or in your face. I have played other guitars that offer more gut-busting bass but lack the subtle nuance of the SJ.

 

I think there is no 'perfect guitar' for me. I appreciate each one for what 'it' has to offer. If I only had one, I would be appreciative....what a gift it is to play music!

 

 

 

[Rambler]

Want both? Get a National! Seriously, volume can be deceptive. No one denies the low-end power of an HD28 (which is why these are the "it" gutiars for bluegrass), but for cutting through in a song circle? HD28s gets lost in the mix, whereas a good mahogany box will cut through.

[milod]

Yes...

 

<grin>

 

Since my mentality is mostly that of a fingerpicker, even when I'm flatpicking, I'd say that the answer has to do with balance in a given situation.

 

In fact, I think the most difficulty lesson I encountered - and still suffer from - in shifting from acoustic to electric was the idea of playing "harder" to play louder and softer than "average pickin'."

 

Since I got my first AEs, both early Ovation AE guitars that I still have, I've not owned a pure acoustic.

 

So perhaps my perceptions are somewhat skewed by the fact that one might mess a bit with various tone controls either on the guitar or on an amplifier or PA board.

 

Then again... a miked acoustic ditto in a performance venue where sound reinforcement is called for.

 

So I'll go with "feel."

 

Even a nicely playable inexpensive AE with appropriate strings for the playing style can sound quite professional on stage or in recording.

 

As for "loud," it's a piece of cake to both be loud and have good tone, and reach "on stage" maximum technical skill with an AE.

 

One might not that such as Kottke are playing amplified flattops.

 

You get balance far more easily that way.

 

I've done also my share of "old time" and "bluegrass," but having onstage balance always is a concern because the player doesn't really have a feeling for that balance without a monitor - then trying to figure whether to bang harder on the strings or to back off a bit.

 

Feel... balanced sound for a given venue and style...

 

m

[SteveFord]

Tone and volume seem to go pretty much hand in hand with really good acoustics. When you pick up one that just resonates, well, that's the one to get.

[tpbiii]

What do you mean"or." If it does not have both, it is not an interesting guitar.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[BigKahune]

Loudness or tone?? . . . really am drawn more to tone type guitars than loud type. . . .

 

For me tone is always desirable, but projection (loudness) has to be there too.

 

Balance has been mentioned - that's kind of where I'm at. Not just balance in tone, but balance in the guitar's ability to project good tone at lower and higher volumes.

 

 

.

[Rambler]

Balance has been mentioned - that's kind of where I'm at .s

Depends. A fingerpicker like John Renborun or Stefan Grssman sure wants it. For bluegrass, no balance , you want the bass. Like Tom said, there's a minimum threshold of tone-vloume for a gutiar to be useful at all. Past that threshold its down to applciations. So an L00 is a pertty loud small box, but not string band loud, or singer-songwriter churning chords loud. A D28's got all the tone and power in the world, but its not necessairly what you want to pick a rag on (there can be such a thing as too much tone). The topic has us talking but it's really, as others have suggested, a false opposite, isnt it?

[JOESTONE]

You know it's all about that tone bout that tone not loudness.

[BigKahune]

... A D28's got all the tone and power in the world, but its not necessairly what you want to pick a rag on (there can be such a thing as too much tone). The topic has us talking but it's really, as others have suggested, a false opposite, isnt it?

 

Fair point, but I thought this was about personal taste. Comments would most likely be wider ranging in addressing specific applications/music/venues . . .

 

 

.

[Hall]

Synergy.

[Jayyj]

For me it's less about loudness than it is dynamic range. I much prefer a guitar that can get loud, but a guitar that sounds great played hard but dull and lifeless played gently isn't very interesting for me to play: I'm looking for volume when I dig in, sweetness and clarity when I play softly. If I had to choose I'd go with sweetness played gently over volume played hard - my L1 is very much in that category - so I guess I'd say tone over volume, but ideally I want both.

[MorrisrownSal]

To me the key "buzzwords" I look for in my keepers, which tend to mean surprisingly different things to different folks, are clear, balance, and responsiveness. I also like a little thump and growl.

[DogsPart2]

Volume has no place in my stable.............gimme that "ol' time tone" anytime

 

Absolutely !

[chasAK]

I would like sweetness and balance of tone first, and then volume on demand when played harder.

 

Well stated!!

 

 

 

[slimt]

I think it all depends on what and how you play your Guitar..I prefer the Fingerpicking style , and I do like a Guitar where it takes no effort to get a nice Punchy ring amost like it breathes.. and can stay that way through every Note or Chord..

 

you can control volume on a acoustic.

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: "My friend has several guitars, and the common thread in his collection is that they are all loud.

 

 

 

The indication, the implication that can be deduced from this, is that clearly, your friend is becoming hard of hearing.

 

This aging. Deludingly misinterpreted and misrepresented as maturity and experience as to what it is essentially important to listen for in a Guitar.

 

Is commonly commensurate with an evangelical zealousness for Projection and the heretication and rejection of all Instruments, with less than a sexually arousing, Vibrational Resonance.

 

 

 

In more ways than one then.

 

The solution is not to be found in a Guitar Store.

 

But in a Doctors Surgery and after Examination, perhaps a Pharmacy.

 

 

 

In Classical Music, and the Study of Musical Form and Performance, we find that Volume and Tone are never spoken of as Separate Entities.

 

We tend to think of them that way, because on Car Radios, Hi-Fi Amplifiers, Electric Guitars and Amplification and even on Large Format Recording Consoles.

 

The electronic circuits that govern and control all the features that allow for adjustment of Gain and different Frequencies of the Audio Spectrum are laid out in a manner that Separates Them.

 

 

 

But in a "Classic" Acoustical Instrument.

 

These Two Values are Co-Dependently and Symbiotically Enjoined.

 

When you Play Quieter, the Subdued Tonal Aspects, Changes the Instruments Personality.

 

And When you Play Louder, the Prominent Character of Tone, Releases and Transforms the Stridence of the Instruments Spirit.

 

In a Genuinely Spiritual Sense, the Mood and Tonal Colour of the Instrument can Alter to Portray a Sense of Human Emotion, which involves Subtle Nuances of Volume and Tone.

 

 

 

Just as with a Human Voice.

 

The Tone of Voice is Everything.

 

If you need to consider how much this can change.

 

Think about how quickly the Dynamics and Tone of a Woman's Voice can Alter.

 

When she Momentarily Ceases Scolding Her Husband, to Answer a Call with a Pleasant Telephone Voice.

 

 

 

You will Appreciate from this Analogy.

 

That it is not Simply Volume and Tone that are Involved.

 

The Manner and Style of Attack, the Degree of Control in Decay, Actively Contribute.

 

For Instance, when a Drummer Strikes a Crash Cymbal and Grabs it's Edge, the Tonal Effect will Change.

 

 

 

How much more so then, for a Far More, Complex Instrument?

 

 

 

To my mind.

 

What is Really Important.

 

Is the Instruments Dynamic "Headroom".

 

The Spectrum of its Colour Palette. The Width of its Tonal Range.

 

The Compelling Capability of its Voice, to Convincingly Convey a Full Range of Emotional Expression.

 

The Salient Point Being, when you Adjust and Affect the Volume of its Projection, its Tonal Voice will Substantially Alter as a Natural Consequence.

 

 

 

Let's think about The Human Voice for a Moment.

 

As a Conductor, working with Soloists, and Thousands of Singers in Choirs over the Years.

 

I understand that quite apart from the Pitch, Tonal Range and Character of Soprano's, Contralto's, Tenors, Basses and even Baritones, (and indeed there are many other Ranges with their Advantages and Limitations).

 

Irrespective of these Distinct Tonal Personalities and Values. There is within every Type of Singer that could be thought of. As an Inherent, Basic Quality of Singing, the Ability to Possess and Utilise both what is known as Subjective Tone and Objective Tone.

 

The Difference can be Clearly Heard. Subjective Tone is capable of Greater Pianissimo, it starts Quieter, but is Strictly Limited in How Loud it is Capable of Going. Contra-wise, Objective Tone is Strictly Limited in its Pianissimo, How Quiet it can Go. Yet it is capable of Projecting a Voice to a Forte of a Far Greater Crescendo, altogether.

 

 

 

Simply put, Subjective Tone is Intimate or even Distant, but can Express itself Loudly.

 

Whilst Objective Tone can be Quiet, not so Intimate or Distant as Subjective Tone, but can Express itself with Great Power and Fullness of Projection.

 

They have an Equal Breadth of Range in Dynamics, but Starting and Ending at Different Points. The thing is, that with few exceptions, Singers can Switch from Subjective to Objective Tone in the Middle of a Song and Often Do. Usually in a Chorus.

 

 

 

Here's a couple of examples, the first was a No1 Hit, involving Session Colleagues of mine, from many years ago. The Voice doesn't simply Change in Volume or Pitch, its Modulated into a Whole New Range of Tonal Colour.

 

 

 

The second is worth listening to just for Paul's Choice of Guitar Chords and is a Song especially written by him for Cilla's Hit TV Series. Indeed, it could be said that the Song was Specifically Composed by Paul McCartney with this Singers Natural Subjective to Objective Tonal Shift in Mind, and makes it a Distinctive Feature of the Song, using Production Values to Enhance and Match.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdq6w2Btmm0

 

 

 

The point is.

 

All Production Techniques apart, you can easily hear where the Voice moves from Subjective to Objective Tone, Very Clearly Indeed. Obviously this will Sound Different with Different Singers involved.

 

But the way the Vocal Tone is Produced and Projected from within the Body is different, and often Experienced Singers employ a Different Mic Technique to Accommodate this Difference in Level as they Move from One Type of Tonal Projection to Another.

 

Interestingly, Cilla's fifteenth Studio Album featured Vocals Recorded and Produced by Gibson Enthusiast and Les Paul Player, (and Cliff Richards former Lead Guitarist) Terry Britten, in his Private Recording Studio using a EMI REDD Recording Console, similar to that used by "The Beatles", designed and built in house by EMI.

 

Terry Britten was the Producer of American Singing Artist Tina Turner's later Huge Hit Successes, and like Cilla, Tina had a Definite Thing about Projecting Objective Tone. She had Belted Out Songs over Bad P.A's for so many years, so Powerfully to reach her Audience, that by the time Terry worked with her, she had Great Difficulty in even being able to begin to use any form of Subjective Tone.

 

Terry had to coach and coax her to Sing in a way, she was simply no longer able to, because of all the years on the Road. Singing quietly into his Ear for Intimate Verses, before Opening Up with Objective Tone for the Full Blown rousing Choruses. He also had to utilise Two Mic's Differently Positioned and Set at Entirely Different Levels to Accommodate the Dynamic Range Involved that she struggled with. This is another way to deal with the need for "Mic Technique".

 

 

 

How does all this equate to Guitars?

 

Well we need to appreciate the Fundamental Character of an Individual Guitars Voice.

 

Some will Facilitate a High Range, some be Clear and Bright, whilst others will be Deep and Full with an Expressive Warmth.

 

Yet again, others will be "Bandwidth Limited", and not be too Bright nor too Deep, but have a Middle Character like a Human Voice that Easily Projects Through a Crowed Mix.

 

Strangely, some Guitars that Excel Acoustically do not Record Well. And Again, some Instruments that are Acoustically Challenged, Brilliantly Shine in Superiority when you place the Right Kind of Mic in front of them in a Recording Studio.

 

But whether it's a Guitar or a Piano that is under discussion, you can Design, Build, and Purchase an Instrument that is Capable of Delivering Cut Through Tone, (few Lone Instruments can Acoustically Cut through an Entire Orchestra, but some can) Projecting Volume, or Design them for Tonal Beauty. Sometimes, a Balance between many Desirable Characteristics are Part of the Design. Sometimes, a Clear Compromise is Made to Accommodate a Clear Goal.

 

 

 

But.

 

Some Guitars have a Wide Palette of Colour.

 

A Fulsome Spectrum of Tonal Expression and a Potentially Powerful Voice that has Spare Headroom of Sheer Tonal Projection.

 

They can be Played Louder and Louder, but you don't get the Sense that the Instrument is Suffering from Attack, it can Accommodate and Project the Loudness, without Becoming Unpleasant to the Ear.

 

Other Instruments have More Limited Ranges in Volume and their Expression of Tonal Colour, but are Very Good at Expressing a Particular Sonic Personality, they have a Distinctive Voice and Character, and so Excel at Performing, but within the Limitations of that Role.

 

The Problem, comes when Inexperienced Guitarists, (albeit that they have Played for Years) get a Certain Ideology in their Minds, which can Overtake their Awareness of these Far Broader Sensibilities, Outlined Above. They Approach Guitars with "Blinkers", and are Searching for a Strictly Limited Set of Criteria, and Reject Instruments that do not Conform to these Preordained Characteristics.

 

 

 

They Fail to Hear with "Sonic Vision".

 

Thus Fail to Appreciate the Possibilities and Potential of Instruments.

 

That do not Demonstrate a Voice that they Indentify and Predetermine as Possessing Desirable Characteristics.

 

One Guitar I have, which I have never, ever really fully liked or taken to, never the less, has a Great Action and Fabulous Sound on a Recording.

 

Whereas, most Guitarists would have rejected this Guitar for the reasons stated, to have done so would have lost me a quite Sensationally Wonderful Recording Instrument.

 

 

 

So.

 

Many Guitarists, to me.

 

Usually, their Frame of Reference, is altogether Too Tight.

 

The History of Recording is Strewn with Examples where the "Wrong Instruments" were used by Great Artist and Musicians to make the Most Famous Musical Recordings of the Decade.

 

Indeed, I would argue that "The Striking Impact of the New" can Liberate and Stimulate a Whole New Generation, a Musical Evolution, and even a Revolution in Sonic Sound, that can become the Defining Hallmark Characteristic of an Era. There are Many Example of This.

 

 

 

Open Your Ears to the Possibilities.

 

At the end of the day, it is the Artist that Performs.

 

And the Way They Use what they have at their Disposal that Counts.

 

After all, Mr. Eric Clapton Sounds Great, whether he plays a Gibson, Martin or Fender.

 

But as you might expect, he's always at his Finest, Playing a Gibson. I would argue he melds better with a 335 and Sings Better with a Wider Range as a result of matching its Sweetness of Voice.

 

At my Local Church Hall, where a Group were Playing he was friends with, Eric just turned up and Jammed All Night with them at the Height of His Initial Popularity in this Country. It was a very nice surprise visit!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVaYwUAOeTY

 

 

 

Of course, unlike Eric, who just needs a Razor. Some Artists, definitely lack, Good Looks.

 

They are Unquestionably, Significantly and Deeply Challenged in the "How Attractive Do You Look on Stage" Department.

 

Then it would Appear to Advantageous to Play a Very Plain Looking Guitar, because who on earth wants to Play a Guitar, that looks, Far Better on Stage, than the Artist Themselves?

 

This Little Understood, Often Subconscious, Psychological, Motivational Driver and Powerful Factor of Behavioral Choice. Tellingly Explains the Continuing Popularity of Certain Alternative Guitar Brands, over a Long Period, that typically lack the Overwhelmingly Attractive, Striking Design Aesthetics and Potent Stage Presence of Gibson Guitars.

 

 

 

Deep!

 

Isn't It?

 

 

 

But the Basic Principal, is that a Plain Looking Guitarist.

 

Will need a Guitar that will not Upstage Them in the Good Looks Department.

 

Whereas a Fit Looking, Handsome Guitarist will fail to be Challenged by the Fine Looks of a Gibson.

 

This is a Clearly Measurable Phenomenon that All Major Artists, come to understand, and Why Elvis Ended Up with a SJ-200!

 

 

Elvis of course, with the Assistance of Sensational Stage Costuming, was Good Enough Looking to Own One!

 

 

So Are You Good Enough Looking to Play a Gibson?

 

 

And will Women Weep and Faint?

 

 

When You Walk on Stage?

[mountainpicker]

Wow Anthony, that was a mouthful (and a lot of capital letters) but I get where you are coming from. And, I agree about Clapton and his red Gibson which is still my favorite of all his different tones. As for loud versus tone, I'm a pretty aggressive (flatpicking) player so I can get more volume out of just about any guitar via my attack and I've come to appreciate Adirondack spruce if you really want volume/headroom. As an aside, I think that you have to practice playing an acoustic guitar loud to learn how best to do it. Tone is a whole other thing and is so subjective that meaningful comparisons are elusive. I pretty much agree with what zombywolf says on page one, all in all. I acquired a J-185 TV about a month ago and I think I've finally found the Gibson I've been looking for. It has balance and cut and tone and volume and if I really lean on it it has tons of volume AND it has a bass end, that growl. The jumbo body was something I had never considered before. My J-50 is in real danger of going on the block. In conclusion though, I think you CAN have it all but the search will be long and possibly fruitless in the end. How's that for the ultimate guitar acquisition rationalization?