acoustic guitar body size

G

Hi everyone

This is my random question of the day: what body size do you prefer and why?

zw44

i like mine slim ? ?

Squonk

36-24-36 ?

Just had to chuck in that one.

What size are you referring too?

G

sorry i mean like dreadnought and palour, etc...
and how does that effect the sound of the guitar?

MikeM

Does have an effect on the sound.

I think I like OOO - folk size..

Bob-Dubery

G wrote: sorry i mean like dreadnought and palour, etc...
and how does that effect the sound of the guitar?

Dreadnoughts were designed to be loud. Another innovation from CF Martin. They squared up the shoulders and removed much of the waist so that it was never less wide than the upper bout. This gave them volume and also a lot of midrange. For me they are the most boring sounding acoustic guitars.

That said, construction, wood and bracing also effect the sound. So a 40 year old dreadnought Martin may sound rather better than a recent top-range Cort or Ibanez in some curvaceous body shape or other.

All kinds of factors influence the sound of an acoustic guitar. Different makers have different philosophies and make different trade offs. Different combinations of wood give different tones.

Consider two of my acoustics...

On the left a Larrivee LV-05. On the right a Morgan OMR.

The Larrivee has a deeper body, also more body back of the bridge. It has mahogany back and sides to the Morgan's rosewood. Both guitars have sitka spruce tops and similar bracing layouts. However I'm told that Larrivee tend to go for lighter tops and heavier bracing whilst Morgan go for a thicker top and then brace lighter.

Both good guitars. The Morgan is darker, almost metallic sometimes, lots and lots of overtones in the sound. The Larry is louder, brighter and the balance is different, a little more even across the strings, though the separation between the strings is a little better (IE more separate) on the Morgan.

The Morgan, despite being smaller, is heavier. Some of these differences will be down to the tonewoods - Mahogany is generally brighter, has a little more mid range and is a little less complex in terms of overtones. It also weighs less.

Then I have this

Smaller than the other two and has a relatively shallow body. This is a very responsive guitar that you can get a lot out of with just a tickle, but hit it hard an you can overload the top (which is very lightly braced) and things start to blur. However it is loud and has great projection. If you get a dozen guys up on stage with acoustic guitars (and I've witnessed this) then a Smoothtalker will really cut through (and I've witnessed that too). But a less complex tone than either of the others - very strong fundamental and less overtones - and it has a pretty fast attack.

So sorry... that's a long winded way of saying that there's a bit more to it than the body shape, and "sound" has many components.

Sean

I've only ever owned and played Dreadnoughts. Your question has certainly got me asking myself why? ???

I suppose I've always been satisfied with them ? The volume aspect is important for me though because I often play unplugged in a small group setting. I'm currently using Gearhead's Fender DG3 while he's building one for me, and included in the specs I gave him was the dreadnought shape.

Squonk

@ Sean you have good friends, Extremely blessed ?

Sean

Squonk I know, the dude is a good Oke, and I've learn t more about guitars and gear than I ever would have otherwise...that is to say when I'm not suffering from information overload ?

Bob-Dubery

Sean wrote: I've only ever owned and played Dreadnoughts. Your question has certainly got me asking myself why? ???

I suppose I've always been satisfied with them ? The volume aspect is important for me though because I often play unplugged in a small group setting. I'm currently using Gearhead's Fender DG3 while he's building one for me, and included in the specs I gave him was the dreadnought shape.

What? Gearhead builds acoustics? Let's have some details.

Sean

Well, not from scratch (although he is planning to do so sometime in the future). He sourced some bodies from somewhere (guess you wanted more detail than that :-[), the neck he'll do himself, but I'll rather let him elaborate later.

Bob-Dubery

Yeah. You can get body parts and even whole guitars in kit form from Stewmac and the like. They only seem to come in dreadnought and 000.

What woods you going for?

AlanRatcliffe

Martin Guitars also sell kits, as do Luthier's Mercantile.

I prefer parlour to auditorium size as anything else is too big for me - I'm too used to electrics and nylons, never having been much of a steel string player. Coincidentally, the midrange strong voice of a parlour suits fingerpicking very well.

Gearhead

Well, er, no kits here. I bought 2 dreadnoughts and 2 classical bodies from a Hohner cleanout. They stopped their production on the laminated top models and were practically giving them away. Nevertheless, the stuff is well thought through and properly built. I figured I could not leave them there for the price and took the best 4 (of a couple of hundred). The one classical is a beaut with flame maple veneered sides and back, hopefully it will have not-too-awful tone... Will move on to building entire acoustics as soon as I finish these and know where to source 5mm sapele locally (don't hold yer breath).
So, Sean's guit starts life as a Hohner body with no neck and just a rectangular gap where the tenon comes in. It has (some or other?) mahogany sides and back, a laminate spruce top and will get sapele neck/heel/headstock and ebony fretboard and bridge. All the bits and pieces are here, now just to finish ongoing projects to free up time to build the dreadnought and get my beloved DG3 back...

CDee

Gearhead wrote: free up time to build the dreadnought and get my beloved DG3 back...

Sounds like Sean is holding the DG3 for ransom. ?

Keira-WitherKay

body sizes are deceptive....... tho. i have heard a classical 3/4 size body built by marl maingard and it had more natural bottomend than many full size nylons i know..... guitars vary so try em all..and if you planning to be a plugged in player most of the time... a smaller body will be more comfortable and help reduce feedback ....

yeah but try em all.... some might surprise you

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote: body sizes are deceptive....... tho. i have heard a classical 3/4 size body built by marl maingard and it had more natural bottomend than many full size nylons i know..... guitars vary so try em all..

When I bought my Morgan I traded in a Takamine dreadnought. Now the theory goes that a dreadnought should be louder than an OM, but I think that theory should be extended to read "all else being equal". The Morgan was certainly louder than the Takamine. There was also a Larrivee dreadnought at the shop that was so loud I nearly fell off the chair when I tried it.

So, yeah, there are these rules of thumb, but they are not absolute and you should just let the guitar speak for itself.

G

thanks for the feedback, on more question. is a parlor size guitar also called a 000?

Bob-Dubery

G wrote: thanks for the feedback, on more question. is a parlor size guitar also called a 000?

If you've seen Joan Baez or Dolly Parton playing their eensy-weensy Martins, those are parlour guitars.

In Martin terminology those are size "0" (zero) guitars. Martin have a body size in between 000 and 0. You will be unsurprised to learn that it is designated 00.