View Full Version : sound differences in oval A tops
arbarnhart
Oct-24-2005, 9:39am
I like oval As. I do also want an f hole archtop someday, but that's outside the scope of this. I am curious about the difference in sound of the 3 types (are there more) of tops. I also am thinking spruce; I know about the mahogany and redwood tops (sort of, but again, that's not what I am hoping to get informed about in this particular thread).
How does flat, bent or arch top play into this? I like my cheap little modern arch top (A4 inspired, I think), but I still have a yearning for a vintage oval A, which come in the 3 aforementioned flavors. Why choose one over another?
John Flynn
Oct-24-2005, 10:31am
Well, IMHO, the carved archtop ovals are the "gold standard." They have that deep, "tubby" bass and midrange; and the best of them have a clear, "bell-like" treble, all with plenty of volume. The bent tops are just a variation on the flat-top, as are the "induced arch" archtops. They are great, but my take is they tend to have a less complex tone and less volume. Of course these are generalizations. There are some great flat-tops out there (The Arches comes to mind.) and there are some not-so-great arch-tops.
JGWoods
Oct-24-2005, 10:41am
Only choose if you must.
I have a flat top, a bent top, and an archtop.
Flat top and bent top are pretty much the same beast- short-13"- scale, non-carved top which is fairly thin.
light as a feather and great to play when volume is not a major concern. Great for a fiddler as the scale is the same.
My arch top, carved top, is louder, and sweeter, and stiffer under the fingers with its longer scale.
I would hate to have to pick one alone as a keeper, I like to switch every few days. If I did pick one it would probably be my carved top A4 just because it is the sweetest tone of all, and it is old, worn, and beautiful.
truly dependent on the maker, which mando within the makers line, and the individual isntrument. the only mando i don't think i've ever strummed on that was great each time, were the 6 or 7 different vega cyl. backs. otherwise, i've seen variation in 2 of the exact same instrument (e.g., 2 gibson a9s or 2 weber hyalites, etc...). my main mando is an induced arch, and i'd put it up there in tone or volume with most any oval hole -a style mando in its price range (under 2k) and many above.
anyway, just my 2 cents, (ok 10 cents), but no 2 instruments are alike.
peace,
ora
Bob DeVellis
Oct-24-2005, 12:48pm
ira, not sure what you're saying about the cylinder-backs, whether they were or weren't consistently great. In my opinion, the good ones are among the sweetest sounding instruments out there. I think age is a huge factor. I like some of the newer oval holes but the old ones have a richness that's unbeatable. The old Gibson As are still very nice instruments for the price, especially those from the teens. The Vega cylinder-backs can also be sensational. I like the Martin flat-backs (canted top) a lot, too. They're different than the Gibsons for sure, but very nice in their own way. If I had to have only one oval hole, I'd probably go with a nice old Gibson because of their warmth, complexity, and availability. But Vega comes close and many a Vega sounds better to me than some of the Gibson As. The mahogany cylinder-backs can be really mellow and complex, as can a good Gibson. I find the teens Gibsons to be mellower, although often less loud, than the later ones. The '20s Gibson As start to creep a bit toward an f-hole sound, a good or bad thing, depending on what you're looking for.
truly dependent on the maker, which mando within the makers line, and the individual isntrument. the only mando i don't think i've ever strummed on that was great each time, were the 6 or 7 different vega cyl. backs. otherwise, i've seen variation in 2 of the exact same instrument (e.g., 2 gibson a9s or 2 weber hyalites, etc...). my main mando is an induced arch, and i'd put it up there in tone or volume with most any oval hole -a style mando in its price range (under 2k) and many above.
anyway, just my 2 cents, (ok 10 cents), but no 2 instruments are alike.
peace,
ora
cgwilsonjr
Oct-24-2005, 1:40pm
Ira, as bobd alluded to, I think you are saying that every Vega cylinder-back you have ever played has been consistently excellent?
arbarnhart
Oct-24-2005, 2:07pm
I hope that difference is what I experienced recently. I had a chance to play an old A4 and I was underwhelmed. The owner thought a lot of it and has been playing a long time and I think has had exposure to a lot of mandos.
It's interesting that folks think that the flat top instruments don't have good volume. #I built a flat-top mando and it is very loud. #The tone is not that good, though (sounds kind of like a banjo!). #I actually built it too light, making the top very thin and scalloping the braces too much. #It has a loud percussive sound with very little sustain. #I use it mainly as a wall decoration. #But I'm sure that a good luthier could build a loud flat-top mando with decent tone.
Tone is subjective, but the best sounding oval hole mando I've played is my Sawchyn A-2, which is a modern copy of an old Gibson. #The next best was a 1918 Gibson A4.
boatman
Oct-24-2005, 5:47pm
I recently had the opportunity to play a cylinder back (bent-top?) and a Gibson A-4 (carved top)at the same time (well not exactly at the same time, but close)and the Gibson was not any louder, that's for sure. Different tonally; who's to say if one was better than the other. For what I play, I prefer nthe Vega.
cgwilsonjr.-yes, thats what i'm saying. again haven't played enormous quantities of these, but it is the only mando type/brand/model that i've played numerous of and had only great experiences. now, i've never played a dude, only one gibson master so no clues on those, but i've played tons of old gibsons and they are quite variable , even when they are from the same year.
ps-re: flattops and volume- i've played a few of those flatiron pancake looking mandos, and all but one were sweet sounding and plenty loud.
Bob A
Oct-25-2005, 10:29am
Yeah, volume on flattops is an underrated thing. I think that their frequency response puts them real close to the banjo range, which is why they don't work in bluegrass. But there's no reason why a lightly-built, lightly-strung bowlback can't project the same volume as a heavy-topped carved instrument strung appropriately. The difference lies in the frequencies that are emphasised or diminished by the nature of the construction. You'll never get a gIbson bass response from a thin-topped bowlback; you'll never get the trebles that a bowlback can produce out of a Gibson.
This is why MAS exists. Bob's second law: mandolin quantities expand to fill the volume of available space coupled with available funds (or credit).
Bob DeVellis
Oct-25-2005, 11:07am
BobA: good law, only I think it should be modified to: "1.2 times the available space coupled with available funds (or credit)."
I think carved oval A's tend to be louder and more deeply resonant. My experience of carved F-s - sweeter,"woody," different sound. All a matter of personal taste. I'd look for a Gibson A from the 20's that has been played a lot. A-Jr.'s are tbe best buy - just the least detailed of the A's and you can sometimes find them for just under 1,000. In my opinion, just because an instrument is from the 20's does not guarantee it will have a good sound...one that has been sitting in an attic for 75 years and has never been played can sound lousy and its potential may not be reached for years, if ever. G