Main Forums => Larrivée Guitars => Topic started by: uke richard on March 02, 2007, 01:15:42 AM

Title: OM = smaller body?
Post by: uke richard on March 02, 2007, 01:15:42 AM
I don't get it. Is it just me? Why do people always (ok, not always, but often) refer to the OM size as a "smaller guitar"? I mean, except for the waist, it is almost the same size as a dreadnought. (See http://www.larrivee.com/flash/products/compare/compare.html) And it's not just Larrivee guitars and Larrivee owners. I always (ok, not always, but often) hear it.

Please, share your thoughts...


Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: sgarnett on March 02, 2007, 06:59:51 AM
A Dread has been the defacto standard for many decades, so anything smaller than a dread is "small" by definition.

You're right, the dimensions of an OM aren't that much smaller than a Dread as a percentage, but it's enough to make a big difference in the feel and sound. The slightly narrower bouts, reduced depth, and shorter body all add up to better wrist and shoulder angles.
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: jeremy3220 on March 02, 2007, 08:05:24 AM
D - Dreadnought
Lower Bout · 16"
Upper Bout · 11.875"
Waist · 10.875"
Depth · 5"
Overall Length · 41"
Scale Length · 25.5"

OM - Orchestra Model
Lower Bout · 15.25"
Upper Bout · 11.75"
Waist · 9.5"
Depth · 4.25"
Overall Length · 40.5"
Scale Length · 25.5"

As far as guitar dimensions go that is a big difference.I think most people consider the dread to feel a lot bigger than the OM. If you think about it those numbers add up; you have to reach forward .75 inches, the waist raises the center of the guitar over half and inch and the lower bout increases the reach of your arm almost another 1/2 in. plus that extra overall length is in the lower bout, so you'll have to reach around that. Really thats a big change when we are talking about the feel of an instrument.
I notice the size difference between my two OMs, and a dread definitly feels bigger.

As far as naming the OM size 'smaller', it's more due to the dreads popularity rather than where it sits in the range of normal guitar sizes. The OM is really more like a medium size guitar with 00's and 0's (&P's) being smaller; dreads and jumbos being larger, both of those have names that come from their large size.
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: expatCanuck on March 02, 2007, 08:16:30 AM
Recall that OM stands for Orchesta Model.
Small is relative -- it wasn't all that small when it was introduced.
I don't think of it as small or large -- it's the watershed --
smaller than OM (<15" lower bout) is a small body -- bigger is large.
And I like 'em all, for different reasons.   :smile:
YMMV.
- Richard
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Queequeg on March 02, 2007, 08:22:43 AM
Quote from: jeremy3220 on March 02, 2007, 08:05:24 AM
D - Dreadnought
Lower Bout · 16"
Upper Bout · 11.875"
Waist · 10.875"
Depth · 5"
Overall Length · 41"
Scale Length · 25.5"

OM - Orchestra Model
Lower Bout · 15.25"
Upper Bout · 11.75"
Waist · 9.5"
Depth · 4.25"
Overall Length · 40.5"
Scale Length · 25.5"

As far as guitar dimensions go that is a big difference.

Agreed; that adds up to a big difference. Think of it in terms of volume. Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Fill up your dreadnought with water and see how much it holds. Then fill your OM and measure the difference. Oh wait; maybe this isn't such a great experiment.
A bit of Newtonian physics...
Consider the full-size violin.
In the 3/4-size violin, its height and width are both smaller by a factor of 3/4,
so the area of the corresponding, smaller one becomes 3/4x3/4=9/16 of
the original area, not 3/4 of the original area. Similarly, the corresponding
1/2 size violin has half the height and half the width of the
original one, so its area is 1/4 the original area, not half.


Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Denis on March 02, 2007, 08:56:50 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 02, 2007, 08:22:43 AM
Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Fill up your dreadnought with water and see how much it holds. Then fill your OM and measure the difference.

I only have an L and a parlor?  Should I fill those up with water Queequeg?  :wink:
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Queequeg on March 02, 2007, 12:04:40 PM
Quote from: Denis on March 02, 2007, 08:56:50 AM
I only have an L and a parlor?  Should I fill those up with water Queequeg?  :wink:
Oh, don't be ridiculous, Denis.
L gets the chardonnay. distinct, yet delicate, difficult to characterize, easier to recognize.
I should think a pinot noir for the parlor, don't you agree? It's light, and fruity and leaves a lasting impression on the palate.
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Blue in VT on March 02, 2007, 12:10:06 PM
 :roll :roll :roll

Sweet!!!...I was thinking that my pain jane parlor would work best with a nice hoopy IPA and the hog top with a thick stout...rich in flavor and deep undercurrents of FUNK!!!

:cheers

Blue
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: gitbox on March 02, 2007, 01:03:07 PM
Everyone,

Here's a question I posted at one time. Is the SD considered a small body? No feedback on that one.

SD
Upper bout 11.375  -  .375 < OM
Waist 10.625  -  .50 < D
Lower bout 15.375 -  = OM; .625 < D
Depth 4.875  - > OM; .125 < D
Length 40.50 -

The SD I played definitely felt smaller than a D, BUT just as loud.
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: uke richard on March 02, 2007, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 02, 2007, 12:04:40 PM
Oh, don't be ridiculous, Denis.
L gets the chardonnay. distinct, yet delicate, difficult to characterize, easier to recognize.
I should think a pinot noir for the parlor, don't you agree? It's light, and fruity and leaves a lasting impression on the palate.

Quote from: Blue in VT on March 02, 2007, 12:10:06 PM
:roll :roll :roll

Sweet!!!...I was thinking that my pain jane parlor would work best with a nice hoopy IPA and the hog top with a thick stout...rich in flavor and deep undercurrents of FUNK!!!

:cheers

Blue

Now here's a good idea for a new thread! You guys a definitely on to something. "Which beverage resembles (or identify or else) the most with which guitar?"




Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Caleb on March 02, 2007, 01:12:19 PM
I've heard plenty of OMs that are as loud as dread.  In my experience, the OM gets underestimated lots of times.  
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: Denis on March 02, 2007, 02:17:30 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 02, 2007, 12:04:40 PM
Oh, don't be ridiculous, Denis.
L gets the chardonnay. distinct, yet delicate, difficult to characterize, easier to recognize.
I should think a pinot noir for the parlor, don't you agree? It's light, and fruity and leaves a lasting impression on the palate.

HHHHmmmm...I like Italian reds too though Queequeg....maybe a Chianti in the L and Valpolicella for the parlor?

Or some stout?  Guinness and Samuel Adams Oatmeal???
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: gitbox on March 02, 2007, 02:25:09 PM
It seems this thread got hijacked, what with all the talk of liquids.
Title: Re: OM = smaller body?
Post by: PortHueneme on March 02, 2007, 02:45:04 PM
I have an SD and I don't consider it a small bodied guitar. My OM feels much smaller then a D or the SD.
The SD is a big boomy sound. I believe it is because of the twelve fret neck, the bridge is in the fat part of the top.
I believe also the body is a tad longer than a D.

It is comfortable to sit and play, again the 12 fret next puts the hands in a comfortable position.
The OM is definitely lighter and is very comfortable to sit with. It is also loud enough to be heard.
It does not have the booming bass of the SD.