Cittern/Zouk/OM Comparison

[EdSherry]

I am fortunate in that, over the years, I have acquired a number of CBOM-family instruments (four citterns, three zouks, five OMs).


The instruments I currently have (in rough order of quality) are:

Sobell Cittern (by far and away the best I have)

Fylde OM

Peterson Model 2 (koa) 'zouk

Fylde Cittern (5-course, longer scale length)

Nathan Sweet OM (labeled as distributed by Lark in the Morning, but clearly many years ago)

Nathan Sweet cittern

Gerald Adams Cittern (he's a small UK maker; I bought the instrument second-hand in 1984 in England)

Two Flatiron OMs

Trinity College OM

Two Trinity College 'zouks


I'm in the process of trying to trade one of my Flatiron OMs and a guitar for a Joe Foley OM.


Otterly2K suggested that, because forum members are interested in comparisons (especially since, as a practical matter, it is extremely rare to be able to compare multiple instruments in a store), I should post my thoughts on the relative merits of the different instruments that I have.

I'm more than happy to do so. But one problem in doing so arises from the fact that I use different string gauges and different tunings on my different instruments.

Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to compare them on a "head to head" (same string gauges, same tuning) basis on the kinds of factors that I suspect people want to look at, including volume, tone, sustain, dynamic response (e.g., how well does it handle going from pp to mF to FF?), "cutting" ability (how well can you hear it in a loud session?), "capo"-ability (how does the instrument sound capoed up?), action and/or playability, suitability for lead work vs. accompaniment, etc.


I'd appreciate it if people could suggest to me the types of comparisons they're interested in, and I'll try to respond.

[steve V. johnson]

Very kind of you, Ed, to do this. I'd start by asking you to append scale lengths, tunings and string gauges to the list you posted already. Those things seem to be fairly regular 'base-line' differences among instruments.

Since you've said that you use them very differently, perhaps you could elaborate on how you find them well-suited to the various purposes/tunings...?

Many thanks,

[EdSherry]

SteveV, thanks for the suggestion. I'll include the scale length, string gauges, tunings, and some other physical measurements (e.g., string spacing, neck width at nut, etc.) in the report. -- Ed

[delsbrother]

...And did anything ever become of this?

(can you tell I'm searching old threads?)

[danb]

What information are you looking for?

[groveland]

Looks like it was Ed's first thread. It would have been very interesting. And a lot of work - Upon realizing the size of the task and the subjective language involved (not too much bronnng but plenty of chorng, crisp and articulate with a bit of rattle, other onamotapoeia, etc.), maybe he regretted making such a generous offer!

[delsbrother]

What information are you looking for?

I can't tell my chrongg from my brongg, but I know what I'm looking for is a deep, piano-like reverb without muddiness on the low strings and without piercing shrillness on the trebles. Perhaps (dare I say it?) a 12 string guitar sound?

I haven't been too impressed by the OMs (Webers, TCs) and Zouks (no-name Greek-styled imports) I've played. The Zouks seemed too long and trebly, and the OMs seemed too short and weak. I'm leaning towards a 5 string cittern, big body, maybe a 23-25" scale. Am I heading in the right direction?

I'm particularly interested in the Sobell v. Fylde v. Petersen comparos. For example, if you played similar scaled/strung/tuned instruments in a blind test, could you tell the flattops from the archtops?

[man dough nollij]

Caulifonya! :grin: I'll be bock! *






*For those thinking that this is an insane non sequitur, it's a comment on Delsbrother's location.

[EdSherry]

Sorry to disappoint all of you good folks. I got tied up in way too many other projects (both at work and musically) and never got around to doing the recording / posting that I had hoped to do. Mea culpa.

I'm happy to communicate with people about my subjective impressions of various instruments, but the "controlled experiment" recording project is still on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

Delsbrother, if you're looking for a full rich sound, I can heartily endorse Phil Crump's work. In the past couple of years, I've acquired (second-hand) three of his instruments (a zouk, a short-scale OM, and a guitar) and all of them are first-rate. His website is here: (NFI.)

http://www.pwcrumpco.com/

[steve V. johnson]

Hey Ed!

I have a Crump B-II zouk (25.4" scale) and I love it dearly.

I wonder... do all your instruments have a common sound, some aspects of the sound that
a person unfamiliar with 'em would identify blindfolded? Especially the guitar...?

I know that luthiers can be either very eclectic in their sounds or they can subtly vary their
'signature' sounds.

How are your three similar and different?

Thanks,

stv

[Markkunkel]

I'm particularly interested in the Sobell v. Fylde v. Petersen comparos. For example, if you played similar scaled/strung/tuned instruments in a blind test, could you tell the flattops from the archtops?
Hi, Delsbrother. I have had all three of these instruments (a Cittern OM cocobolo-spruce, two Petersens, and presently the Fylde custom archtop cittern IRW-cedar). I have found a very consistent difference between flat and arched tops in longer-scale instruments that is certainly not a matter of better or worse, but rather "different." The arched tops (both the Sobell, and the Fylde, that has a remarkable family resemblance to its Brit cousin) have a "zippy" and "zingy" sound with lots of fundamental but overtone in abundance and ring and sustain that I like a whole bunch. The Petersens (both of the ones that I have owned and cherished, as well as the two Swanson flat-tops I've owned) have a much more focused sound that works well for tunes due to less ring and sustain but to my ear doesn't sound quite so "ITM."

Interestingly enough, I MUCH prefer flat-topped mandolins (presently a wonderful Fylde Single Malt and a very cool Newton New Navy pancake) to their arch-topped counterparts...

it's all fun and reminds me why we should keep "play" in front of music!


YMMV, as always...

MK

[EdSherry]

Steve -- To my ear, the three Crumps all have similar sounds (given the physical differences between the instruments, obviously), which I would characterize as full, rich and a bit "dark." Not at all the "jangly" sound many OMs get.

Could I identify them blindfolded? The guitar, probably not -- it sounds a lot like some of my rosewood Martins. The 'zouk and the OM, probably yes -- certainly as compared to my other 'zouks and OMs, which don't have the Crumps' richness/darkness.

I don't recall the guitar's model number, but it's a dreadnaught with cedar top and rosewood back and sides (not one of his current offerings). The OM is his two-point OM-IIs (short scale). I don't recall offhand what model the 'zouk is, but it looks like the B-II on his webpage.

[steve V. johnson]

Thanks, Ed!

Nice collection!

The darkness of my Crump is one of it's most valued aspects to me.

Thanks very much!

stv