Larges most acoustically resonant body?

[Steve_Karl]

Hi there,

Just curious to find out what the largest most acoustically resonant Warmoth body option is?

My problem is that my nylon strung strat is just too quiet when unplugged.
It's a chambered mahogany with a maple top.

It would be nice to get a bit more acoustical volume and I'm just thinking of possibilities.

Thanks!

 

[TBurst Std]

Well my thought is to look to if they still do Spruce tops. Resonance acoustically comes from stiff back and sides coupled with the lightest, and still stiff top

 

[Cagey]

I have a "hollow" (as opposed to chambered, but still cut from solid block) Alder Tele with a brass bridge that's surprisingly loud, but that's relatively speaking. That is, compared to any other steel-strung electric. I suspect it would still be pretty disappointing volume-wise if it were strung up with nylon. There just isn't a whole lot of mass/inertia in those strings, so there's not much energy transfer.

 

[Sovereign_13]

Their largest "hollow" body is probably the Mooncaster, but even that's built like Cagey's Tele.  If you want acoustic resonance, you might try a maple Mooncaster with a spruce top (you'd have to call them and ask about the spruce top, but I think it's still listed on the "body woods" section of the website for lam tops).  At least you'd be mirroring the typical construction of an acoustic guitar or bowed instrument.

Keep in mind, though, that even with a hollow body, those guitars aren't designed to amplify acoustic sound.  Unless you're just noodling unplugged and want to hear it, you're probably going to need a small amp to be heard by anyone else.

 

[swarfrat]

I have a sketch I want to build some day. The basic idea is that the bridge is anchored to a diving board inside that is designed to take  both the tension and torque, leaving the top to be as thin and unbraced as you want. One day when I'm old and gray. (Which is a lot closer than it used to be.)

 

[Cagey]

Their largest "hollow" body is probably the Mooncaster, but even that's built like Cagey's Tele.  If you want acoustic resonance, you might try a maple Mooncaster with a spruce top (you'd have to call them and ask about the spruce top, but I think it's still listed on the "body woods" section of the website for lam tops).  At least you'd be mirroring the typical construction of an acoustic guitar or bowed instrument.

Not even then. There's a block running down the center of that body internally. Not really a "block" per se, but an unrouted area so it's still essentially solid from the neck pocket to the tailpiece. Similar to my Tele, or any of the bodies they used to cut "hollow". It's a weight reduction move, not a tone thing.

The Mooncaster bodies are replicas of the Fender Starcaster, designed to look like a smallish f-hole acoustic, but there's really nothing acoustic about them.

 

[Sovereign_13]

Sorry, I meant mirroring in terms of wood choice, not necessarily in terms of actual construction.  Only true-blue archtops even come close to a real acoustic instrument, but even then it's not really an acoustic guitar.

 

[Cagey]

I have a sketch I want to build some day. The basic idea is that the bridge is anchored to a diving board inside that is designed to take  both the tension and torque, leaving the top to be as thin and unbraced as you want. One day when I'm old and gray. (Which is a lot closer than it used to be.)

I'm guessing that would make it quieter. Without transfering the vibrating string energy to the top, the top will stand still for the most part, so no sound projection. Be like separating the voice coil from the cone of a speaker.

 

[swarfrat]

No the bridge is anchored to the top. It's just that the torque and tension is balanced out so the top doesn't have to be so thick to support those. The diving board means that the bridge (and thus the top) are free to vibrate up and down.

 

[Cagey]

I see. Makes more sense. Be an interesting experiment, as the pull on the bridge is the bane of the top's existence.

 

[TBurst Std]

What you have is largely the JLD Bridge Dr.  It was originally designed to cope/offset belly bulge issues.  It now comes factory on some makes, Breedlove etc

 

[Kostas]

They have no info on Mooncaster so I can't see if it's a hollow or a chambered body. The Thinline I have is what I think the body with most wood removed

https://postimages.org/

While it's louder unplugged from a solid body like my strat it's not as loud as a true hollow body guitar as my ES-330 that's completely hollow and with a bigger body. The ES-330 is a good couch guitar when you can't have or don't want an acoustic, when the guitar arrived I was so impressed about the natural tone I spent about five minutes playing unplugged. Probably the plywood construction adds to that but I think it makes sense that a bigger & thicker body will have more depth from a strat. From the Fender models the Telecaster is the best option if you don't start adding contours and ruin the thickness of the body. I imagine a guitar with a thicker body like the ES-295 will have even more depth & volume.

 

[Cagey]

The Mooncaster looks internally very similar to the "hollow" Tele you have pictured.

 

[swarfrat]

Aha. I wasn't aware of the JLD, but I guess it means it's a good idea. I see his has a rather large and round rod to take up the torque - my drawing this morning was more or less from fuzzy memory, but I'd worked pretty hard to sketch out something that would balance both torque and tension while still allowing vertical displacement. That drawing may not be the be last design I drew but you can get the idea from it. I was planning on a fairly wide (like 1") but thin (1/8") strip of spruce, and as long as possible to make sure it gives little resistance to vertical flex as possible, the idea being to absorb the torque with geometry instead of beefy bracing.

 

[Steve_Karl]

Thanks for the info. and talk everyone.

I guess maybe I should continue to try to find a 'real' classical guitar.

I went out last Thurs. and played about 10 at the local brick'n'mortar but nothing rang my bell.
Even the feel of the $2200.00 Martin was ... ehhh ... kinda blahhh compared to my warmoth.
All of them had really way to high action and most of them sounded pretty unimpressive.

I'll keep looking.

 

[Cagey]

Sooo... are you looking for an acoustic or an electric? If an acoustic and you haven't had a chance to fondle a Taylor, I'd highly recommend you hunt down a dealer. Even their less fancy models sound/play remarkably well right off the wall. They're not inexpensive, but they cost less than Martins while being comparable instruments.

 

[Steve_Karl]

Ideally it would be great to find an acoustic that I could really love from the first touch.
That 'has' happened before ... where the first few notes just tell me that this is it ... gotta have it ... but it's been a long time.

My Adamas II (in 1982) was a buy like that.
There were quite a few them on the wall when I went looking ... and I went there wanting a dark red or brown one.
Played all of the dark reds and browns and ehhh ... nothing.
The last one hanging there was the only blue one and I'd been avoiding it because of the colour.
I figured what the hey ... one more and I'm outa here ... but as soon as I played a few notes ... it owned me.

I knew it was a keeper. Had a higher that what I was use to action but it still was really something.
Turned out that it had quite a few shims under the bridge and I was able to lower the action quit a bit.
and restring it with 10's as opposed to 12's.
Even really low and with 10's on it, I can tune it in D, C, or even B like a baritone and it still plays like a dream.

So ... I did originally try to find one of these in stock somewhere:
https://www.guitarcenter.com/Ovation/Elite-AX-Mid-Depth-Cutaway-Acoustic-Electric-Nylon-String-Guitar.gc
but no luck. Would have to order it and then have 45 days to return if not happy.
I 'might' try that. Not sure.

I did play 2 Taylors over there ... ok but neither really spoke to me - decent sound but the action would need some work for me.
I might go back with a more open mind an other day and check them all out again.

The problem with the fixed bridge idea is that it takes time and money to try something that might just be a big fail.

 

[Kostas]

I did play 2 Taylors over there ... ok but neither really spoke to me - decent sound but the action would need some work for me.
I might go back with a more open mind an other day and check them all out again...

I haven't heard an Ovation since the late 80's - early 90's but I always felt they were made to be amplified, it was their strong point even though their preamps now must be ancient. Between these two brands Taylor is in another level, IMO. They have a more natural acoustic tone and the more you go up the range it gets richer and deeper. I haven't heard much but I liked them all except the baby Tayolr that was stiff and sounded small.

As far as the action, if you are paying for a Taylor you expect from the store to put the strings of your choice and set the action where you want.

 

[Steve_Karl]

Yea Ovation ... made to be amplified but they're still loud enough.