I play flat tops and archtops and I love them both. My archtops are purely acoustic. If you want to hear the differences illustrated by great players listen to Lonnie Johnson and Eddy Lang. Johnson got a sweet bendy light string tone that could only come from a flat top and Lang got a pure, powerful heavy string tone that was pure archtop. The combination is magic. Incidentally, I go to an acoustic jam session occasionally and I bring either my 'The Loar' chinese L5 influenced archtop or my Collings OM2H. The collings is a truly wonderful instrument but the Loar cuts through better than anything. I have a thirties Gibson L4 (round hole archtop) and that;s pretty good too.
I have both archtop and flattop guitars and I love both kinds, but they are different animals. For live, unplugged gigs, the flattop is king and that is what it was designed for. It's loud, has plenty of bass, and rings out clearly. Good flattops also compress a bit when you dig into them, which is a nice sound. Archtops are usually softer in volume with a balanced tone but are brighter overall. There is usually far less bass produced as well. The consistency noted in the video is all there and that makes an archtop a better solo instrument for finer, more intricate, and detailed playing. Some archtops are quite loud, though, and can be easily heard in a large room without micing or amplification. They project very well. In the studio, flattops have a nice scooped-mid, "stringy" sound, and work well as long as the lower-mids are attentuated or shelved. I actually prefer an archtop for acoustic strumming parts on a track as the lower-mids are already naturally attenuated and it produces a bright overall tone, allowing it to cut through the mix without requiring much if any headroom -killing volume boost.
@@LovepreetSingh-lp7hw Most start with a flattop. They are usually less expensive for their quality and are very versatile. There may be some archtops that are inexpensive as well. Don't think too much about the sound itself. As you progress, your playing will improve the sound whatever guitar you play.. The part of the guitar that matters most for beginners is the neck and the string action. Your guitar should be comfortable to play so that you want to practice and learn and play ail the time. That's how you get good at it. The hours spent will reward you. Be curious, you never stop learning. Good luck and have fun.
Hmmm.... what the late Dick Boak calls 'dullness of tone' in an archtop, others call 'clarity'. What he calls 'openness of tone' in a flattop others call call 'mudiness'. Myself, I couldn't disagree more with Boak's perspective.
It seems to me that he just preferred flat top guitar sound and so he describes the acoustic archtop in more negative terms. He didn't mention the unique sharp attack and percussive sound of chords which was one of their main features in pre-amplified music.
Props to Mr. Boak. A legend in the acoustic guitar world. However, as he stated, he doesn't understand the archtop. My Andersen 17 archtop (admittedly, not the loudest of archtops) will bury a dreadnought guitar with its volume. The higher I raise the action (an easy option with an adjustable bridge), the louder it gets, and it can get loud. If you start including older designs like Epiphones, Strombergs, Gibson, etc. (which are even louder parallel braced instruments) they do project much more than a flat top. To the flat top's credit, it typically has a rich and resonant sound, but many of those frequencies that make the guitar so beautiful in intimate settings, are lost in louder venues and among larger groups. An archtop is more expensive to make. I have found lower priced flat tops are often nicer sounding than lower priced archtops. But, when you have a chance to play a great archtop don't do so for a few minutes, play it for a few hours. Spending some time with it will begin to reveal how versatile these guitars are, as well as the reality that they are much more robust. I am addressing acoustic archtops. Not laminated archrops (which can make great amplified guitars).
I was at a concert at The Winery in NYC. David Grisman played his archtop mandolin in duet with an excellent guitarist playing a Martin. I wasn't sitting that far away but the flat top Martin was hard to hear, didn't cut at all, while Grisman's Archtop mandolin was clear cut and sounded great. I play both types. The flat top sounds nice, close, and "mic'd" (uhhh hummm) too, but the archtop needed nothing that evening.
Interesting video mish mash. I just got a Heritage Archtop Golden Eagle a few weeks ago after being blown away at the store. It is everything I've ever wanted my flat top boutiques to do and never been able to get it. 11's, 12's, Acoustic 12's they all sound great. I can't believe it took me so long to realize that I don't even like flat tops much
Excellent commentary by Mr. Boak. Some like to compare the flat-top to the archtop, but because of the difference in stringing they are almost two different instruments. Archtops are designed, and sound best with heavy gauge strings. If someone puts the same heavy gauge on a flat-top, they will eventually destroy it by pulling the bridge from the body. The archtop is the granddaddy of the electric guitar.
I just bought one of the recent "Masterbilt" Olympic reissue attempts and -- even though it's not even close to the real thing Rawlings plays -- I love it. The smaller archtops were marketed as student models, but there's something about them that's very appealing tonewise, a sort of textured timbre that can be very expressive. My little Epi import -- which isn't even a proper archtop because it's top is formed rather than carved -- will never replace my flat top, but I suspect it will get something near equal time. Oh, and the very good Shadow pickup system is a major bonus. Unfortunately, it seems that model has been discontinued and prices for the remaining new ones are skyrocketing -- I was lucky enough to score a factory second from a reputable refurbisher and I couldn't be happier.
TONES OF ARCHIES ARE AMAZING. I KNOW PEOPLE COMMENT ON THE EXTRAORDINARY TONE ON MY ARCH-TOP TENOR UKULELE. WHEN I WAS TRYING IT OUT PEOPLE CAME OVER TO COMMENT ON THE TONE OF THAT PARTICULAR UKULELE. ONLY THING DIFFERENT FROM TE REST OF THE 60 PLUS UKULELES IN THE SHOP WAS THE ARCH-TOP. JUST SAYIN,,,,
you have to look at the motive, Martin is not gonna go and tell you Gibson archtop guitars are great…. the flat top has its tone and personality and archtop has its own as well,
The Selmer-Maccaferri style 'Gypsy Jazz' guitars (popularized by Django Reinhardt) were/are flat-topped (not arched) and they have a bridge with strings pushing down at the top. SO in a way, this kind of guitar is perhaps a flat-top / archtop ;-)
For real?? This guy needs to learn more about what he is talking about before making anymore videos. Lots more accurate info on Wikipedia if any one wants to learn more.
This coming from a guy who , apparently, thinks paper glued together in a press and coloured dark brown is a substitute for real wood on a fretboard. Richlite anyone? And what is his issue with Gibson and Les Paul? Clearly there are issues here.
My beloved 1967 D-18 succumbed to pulled/split (at the seam!) top syndrome, which Martin refused to correct under warranty. Instead, they removed the fretboard, planed down the neck to compensate for the problem, reinstalled the fretboard, and filled the split with a crude looking splint. The guitar was never the same. 😞 Of course, you're correct -- a flat top with steel strings is inherently unstable, especially with the heavier strings favored by bluegrassers. Nowadays, my flat top is a relatively inexpensive small-bodied model with strung with 11s that sounds fine -- and if it develops serious problems, I can afford to replace it rather than buying a luthier his next boat. :-)
I can't tell if Boak actually doesn't understand, or if he is trying to obfuscate. Why even bring up Les Paul, if you're talking about archtop acoustic guitars?! Did LP _ever_ perform with a non-amplified archtop acoustic? Not that I'm aware of; certainly not during his heyday, when he was either playing a solid-body electric concealed within an Epiphone archtop body, or a solid-body Gibson. And it's absurd to claim that "most archtops are plugged-in anyway". I can't count how often I've played, or seen others perform, unplugged. Spleesh. _This guy_ is an expert on guitars?!
There is a well known picture of Rhubarb Red (a young Les Paul) holding an L-5 from about 1930. So maybe he did play an acoustic archtop? He did have great taste in guitars. I agree with your entire comment.
Just revisited and this guy is a CLOWN. Doesn’t understand the arch top and doesn’t build them and that gives him room to talk? I love archtops, I have a vintage Gibson L3 arch top, I have a J55 flattop reissue and I also have a Martin D18. I go to the J55 and L3 over the Martin every time. In fact I think I want to sell the Martin but everyone tells me not to. I don’t play it that much, it sounds good I just like the Gibson J55 more. Both same exact wood too
I bought a nice new Martin OM-21 about seven years ago. Besides keeping it in a humidified cabinet when not playing it, the few thousand dollar guitar fell apart. Binding first, neck twisted, the Martin repair guy on 14th Street in Manhattan said I didn't humidify it! After I showed him a picture of my humidor he did the repair, a lazy shabby job. I sold it; the last new Martin I'll ever buy. I then bought a Collings OM2HT, that been great. I love acoustic archtops, have a couple. New Martin guitars suck (IMO) and are made by a cooperation interested in money (think CBS, Norlin, etc) (thank you Chris IV) and not much else but money.
@@greeremalachi926 I actually traded my D18 for a 000-18 and while it’s a nice guitar, sounds good, I still prefer my vintage L3 or my Epiphone Zenith archtop, AND my Gibson J55 reissue. Since I’ve been keeping the Martin in good condition, I plan on trading it for another Gibson arch top. I heard Gibson will be coming out with some historic archtops in the near future so I’ll probably trade it for one of them, if model is right. I want a 16” L5 from the late 20s. The 000-18 I have is in ambertone and has a Adirondack top. I just prefer the J55 and the archtops
I play flat tops and archtops and I love them both. My archtops are purely acoustic. If you want to hear the differences illustrated by great players listen to Lonnie Johnson and Eddy Lang. Johnson got a sweet bendy light string tone that could only come from a flat top and Lang got a pure, powerful heavy string tone that was pure archtop. The combination is magic. Incidentally, I go to an acoustic jam session occasionally and I bring either my 'The Loar' chinese L5 influenced archtop or my Collings OM2H. The collings is a truly wonderful instrument but the Loar cuts through better than anything. I have a thirties Gibson L4 (round hole archtop) and that;s pretty good too.
I have both archtop and flattop guitars and I love both kinds, but they are different animals. For live, unplugged gigs, the flattop is king and that is what it was designed for. It's loud, has plenty of bass, and rings out clearly. Good flattops also compress a bit when you dig into them, which is a nice sound.
Archtops are usually softer in volume with a balanced tone but are brighter overall. There is usually far less bass produced as well. The consistency noted in the video is all there and that makes an archtop a better solo instrument for finer, more intricate, and detailed playing. Some archtops are quite loud, though, and can be easily heard in a large room without micing or amplification. They project very well.
In the studio, flattops have a nice scooped-mid, "stringy" sound, and work well as long as the lower-mids are attentuated or shelved. I actually prefer an archtop for acoustic strumming parts on a track as the lower-mids are already naturally attenuated and it produces a bright overall tone, allowing it to cut through the mix without requiring much if any headroom -killing volume boost.
What should I buy as a beginner ..archtop or flattop
@@LovepreetSingh-lp7hw Most start with a flattop. They are usually less expensive for their quality and are very versatile. There may be some archtops that are inexpensive as well. Don't think too much about the sound itself. As you progress, your playing will improve the sound whatever guitar you play..
The part of the guitar that matters most for beginners is the neck and the string action. Your guitar should be comfortable to play so that you want to practice and learn and play ail the time. That's how you get good at it. The hours spent will reward you. Be curious, you never stop learning.
Good luck and have fun.
@@Glicksman1 thanks sir for guidance
@@LovepreetSingh-lp7hw Your very welcome. Enjoy playing music. It's the best, most satisfying thing you can do, including sex.
Hmmm.... what the late Dick Boak calls 'dullness of tone' in an archtop, others call 'clarity'. What he calls 'openness of tone' in a flattop others call call 'mudiness'. Myself, I couldn't disagree more with Boak's perspective.
It seems to me that he just preferred flat top guitar sound and so he describes the acoustic archtop in more negative terms. He didn't mention the unique sharp attack and percussive sound of chords which was one of their main features in pre-amplified music.
Someone who likes oranges and doesn't really understand why people like apples should not really be talking too much about apples ;-)
Props to Mr. Boak. A legend in the acoustic guitar world. However, as he stated, he doesn't understand the archtop.
My Andersen 17 archtop (admittedly, not the loudest of archtops) will bury a dreadnought guitar with its volume. The higher I raise the action (an easy option with an adjustable bridge), the louder it gets, and it can get loud. If you start including older designs like Epiphones, Strombergs, Gibson, etc. (which are even louder parallel braced instruments) they do project much more than a flat top.
To the flat top's credit, it typically has a rich and resonant sound, but many of those frequencies that make the guitar so beautiful in intimate settings, are lost in louder venues and among larger groups.
An archtop is more expensive to make. I have found lower priced flat tops are often nicer sounding than lower priced archtops. But, when you have a chance to play a great archtop don't do so for a few minutes, play it for a few hours. Spending some time with it will begin to reveal how versatile these guitars are, as well as the reality that they are much more robust. I am addressing acoustic archtops. Not laminated archrops (which can make great amplified guitars).
tl;dr: "We don't make it, and I don't like or understand it, so I'm going to talk badly about it."
That’s actually what I got from this video
@@TheTrollMastah me too
Indeed
I have a 1965 Epiphone archtop thinking about installing a DeArmond pick up what do you guys think
dullness of tone and less power? :D
listen to a good pre war L-5, for example. an then talk about it again.
My favorite acoustic ever! I have a 1931 L3
I was at a concert at The Winery in NYC. David Grisman played his archtop mandolin in duet with an excellent guitarist playing a Martin. I wasn't sitting that far away but the flat top Martin was hard to hear, didn't cut at all, while Grisman's Archtop mandolin was clear cut and sounded great. I play both types. The flat top sounds nice, close, and "mic'd" (uhhh hummm) too, but the archtop needed nothing that evening.
Interesting video mish mash. I just got a Heritage Archtop Golden Eagle a few weeks ago after being blown away at the store. It is everything I've ever wanted my flat top boutiques to do and never been able to get it. 11's, 12's, Acoustic 12's they all sound great. I can't believe it took me so long to realize that I don't even like flat tops much
Excellent commentary by Mr. Boak. Some like to compare the flat-top to the archtop, but because of the difference in stringing they are almost two different instruments. Archtops are designed, and sound best with heavy gauge strings. If someone puts the same heavy gauge on a flat-top, they will eventually destroy it by pulling the bridge from the body. The archtop is the granddaddy of the electric guitar.
Wow😲-has this guy ever listened to The Tone Dave Rawlings produces when he plays his 1935’ Epiphone’ Olympic!!!!!!!!
I just bought one of the recent "Masterbilt" Olympic reissue attempts and -- even though it's not even close to the real thing Rawlings plays -- I love it. The smaller archtops were marketed as student models, but there's something about them that's very appealing tonewise, a sort of textured timbre that can be very expressive. My little Epi import -- which isn't even a proper archtop because it's top is formed rather than carved -- will never replace my flat top, but I suspect it will get something near equal time. Oh, and the very good Shadow pickup system is a major bonus. Unfortunately, it seems that model has been discontinued and prices for the remaining new ones are skyrocketing -- I was lucky enough to score a factory second from a reputable refurbisher and I couldn't be happier.
This probably has ken Parker’s blood boiling
TONES OF ARCHIES ARE AMAZING. I KNOW PEOPLE COMMENT ON THE EXTRAORDINARY TONE ON MY ARCH-TOP TENOR UKULELE. WHEN I WAS TRYING IT OUT PEOPLE CAME OVER TO COMMENT ON THE TONE OF THAT PARTICULAR UKULELE. ONLY THING DIFFERENT FROM TE REST OF THE 60 PLUS UKULELES IN THE SHOP WAS THE ARCH-TOP. JUST SAYIN,,,,
you have to look at the motive, Martin is not gonna go and tell you Gibson archtop guitars are great….
the flat top has its tone and personality and archtop has its own as well,
Has anyone ever made a combination of Arch/Flat top?
The Selmer-Maccaferri style 'Gypsy Jazz' guitars (popularized by Django Reinhardt) were/are flat-topped (not arched) and they have a bridge with strings pushing down at the top. SO in a way, this kind of guitar is perhaps a flat-top / archtop ;-)
YES! Tom Ribbecke makes the "Halfling" guitar right in California. I heard they do exactly that! Sound great.
For real?? This guy needs to learn more about what he is talking about before making anymore videos. Lots more accurate info on Wikipedia if any one wants to learn more.
This coming from a guy who , apparently, thinks paper glued together in a press and coloured dark brown is a substitute for real wood on a fretboard. Richlite anyone? And what is his issue with Gibson and Les Paul? Clearly there are issues here.
completely underrated video.
Not so completely ;)
The intention behind the archtop was to make a better guitar. But most archtops were poorly designed, so they sounded muffled.
In summary: Confirmation bias.
Flat-tops have tops that are under too much tension. That's where the twang comes from. That's probably why you see so many cracked tops.
My beloved 1967 D-18 succumbed to pulled/split (at the seam!) top syndrome, which Martin refused to correct under warranty. Instead, they removed the fretboard, planed down the neck to compensate for the problem, reinstalled the fretboard, and filled the split with a crude looking splint. The guitar was never the same. 😞 Of course, you're correct -- a flat top with steel strings is inherently unstable, especially with the heavier strings favored by bluegrassers. Nowadays, my flat top is a relatively inexpensive small-bodied model with strung with 11s that sounds fine -- and if it develops serious problems, I can afford to replace it rather than buying a luthier his next boat. :-)
Archtops rule. Period.
I can't tell if Boak actually doesn't understand, or if he is trying to obfuscate.
Why even bring up Les Paul, if you're talking about archtop acoustic guitars?! Did LP _ever_ perform with a non-amplified archtop acoustic? Not that I'm aware of; certainly not during his heyday, when he was either playing a solid-body electric concealed within an Epiphone archtop body, or a solid-body Gibson.
And it's absurd to claim that "most archtops are plugged-in anyway". I can't count how often I've played, or seen others perform, unplugged.
Spleesh. _This guy_ is an expert on guitars?!
There is a well known picture of Rhubarb Red (a young Les Paul) holding an L-5
from about 1930. So maybe he did play an acoustic archtop? He did have great taste in guitars. I agree with your entire comment.
Dude is clearly biased. Archtop guitars have always been a threat to the future of CF Martin & Co.
What utter, useless BS.
Agreed. Nothing here but hot air.
@@bigswingface5847 totally agree
Just revisited and this guy is a CLOWN. Doesn’t understand the arch top and doesn’t build them and that gives him room to talk? I love archtops, I have a vintage Gibson L3 arch top, I have a J55 flattop reissue and I also have a Martin D18. I go to the J55 and L3 over the Martin every time. In fact I think I want to sell the Martin but everyone tells me not to. I don’t play it that much, it sounds good I just like the Gibson J55 more. Both same exact wood too
I bought a nice new Martin OM-21 about seven years ago. Besides keeping it in a humidified cabinet when not playing it, the few thousand dollar guitar fell apart. Binding first, neck twisted, the Martin repair guy on 14th Street in Manhattan said I didn't humidify it! After I showed him a picture of my humidor he did the repair, a lazy shabby job. I sold it; the last new Martin I'll ever buy. I then bought a Collings OM2HT, that been great. I love acoustic archtops, have a couple. New Martin guitars suck (IMO) and are made by a cooperation interested in money (think CBS, Norlin, etc) (thank you Chris IV) and not much else but money.
@@greeremalachi926 I actually traded my D18 for a 000-18 and while it’s a nice guitar, sounds good, I still prefer my vintage L3 or my Epiphone Zenith archtop, AND my Gibson J55 reissue. Since I’ve been keeping the Martin in good condition, I plan on trading it for another Gibson arch top. I heard Gibson will be coming out with some historic archtops in the near future so I’ll probably trade it for one of them, if model is right. I want a 16” L5 from the late 20s.
The 000-18 I have is in ambertone and has a Adirondack top. I just prefer the J55 and the archtops