seem to weigh more than some other makers? It seems that Larrivee guitars are constructed more heavily than others? Why is that? Does this make Larrivee guitars more durable?
Thanks.
I would put them in the middle of the range actually, heavier than some lighter than others.
Guilds,on the other hand... now those are heavy, especially the old bowl-backed ones.
Why? I don't believe that that's even a fact. My Martin is heavier than all my Larrivées except my RS-4, if that means anything.
I guess it depends on what guitars have passed through one's hands. In my experience with several makers, Larrivees have tended to be heavier. Of course, this has not negatively affected the sound. I am merely curious if from a construction standpoint Larrivees are built more heavily than others.
Strength of construction has to be balanced against projection of tone. Larrivees are built on the heavy side to guard against warranty issues BUT they are built with techniques that don't inhibit sound. My Collings OM is a bit on the heavy side while my SC is on the light side. ALL of them (including my L-03) are in the same class as far as sound is concerned. In fact, my L is the only one that will reliably project harmonics at the 4th/9th fret.
I had a salesman at Elderly tell me the best guitar is the one that feels like its going to cave in on itself at any moment. At THAT particular moment I was holding a Merrill that felt like it was made from Balsa.
f
Generally they are built heavier. Also you have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples with wood type. In a previous life I read interview with Jean Larrivee where he said he wanted his guitars to be in good playing order after 100 years with little work. My dread Gallagher wieghs half of what L-10 does, Partly because of lighter build all around and partly because it is Mahogany and L-10 is Rosewood. The Gallagher also needed neck reset and has a little bulge behind bridge. The L-10 with non adjustable truss rod has had no neck work and still plays great after 30+years. I love both of them.
Both my current Larrivee acoustics feel very light...
...as do my RS-4 and RS-2 as well, compared to some other set-neck hog electrics!
Reality check. We're talking several grams here, not pounds. Sheesh. People have been so misled on these subjects. But hey if I could sell you the same guitar for twice as much (or more) and you INSISTED, I guess I would. The only Olsen I ever played was a tank. SCGCs in the same ball park as Larrivées, as are Collings. The two Lowdens were heavier than my 1975 L. The two Ryans were about the same. I'd like to put all these guitars on a scale and find out just how much lighter these other guitars actually are. JCL knows what he is doing. Then again maybe I'm crazy but I weigh things for a living and have a very acute sense of weight. I can pick up a handful of wheat and put 50 grams, plus or minus a gram, on a scale every time.
Here is a quote from a recent post by Matthew Larrivee -
"To be a little frank, I have to get say I get a little annoyed by the "larrivee's are overbraced" comments – and here's why:
Every guitar maker faces a dilemma in the design of bracing – Strength, or Tone. One of the key ways that the tone of an acoustic guitar can be "altered" (Notice that I didn't say improved) is by thinning out the woods (back/sides/top/braces), but this comes at a price. Reducing the thickness of wood increases the instruments susceptibility to structural changes due to string tension, impact damage, and worst of all climatic damage. Often times the differences in tones between two different manufacturers comes down to which way they have leaned in the strength-tone dilemma.
I don't believe our guitars to be over or under built – I find them to be a perfect balance of tone and strength. This was my father's intention, and an important lesson that both my brother and I have carefully learned.I've been reading these online discussions as far back as RMMGA – and as I recall the "over-braced" comment came from someone who was selling brace shaving services (not just on Larrivee Guitars). Then as the internet goes someone read it and repeated it, then someone else repeated it, and so forth. The seller, in my opinion, was an uneducated "luthier" who looked at our bracing and saw that it didn't look like a martin and thus thought it was overbraced – not thinking that parabolic bracing was an intentional design. Often times these types of claims are made by people who have not even built a guitar, or maybe built one or two (and somehow they know better than someone who has built over 100,000 instruments)."
Quote from: Chasjax on June 20, 2011, 08:49:01 AM
Here is a quote from a recent post by Matthew Larrivee -
"To be a little frank, I have to get say I get a little annoyed by the "larrivee's are overbraced" comments – and here's why:
Every guitar maker faces a dilemma in the design of bracing – Strength, or Tone. One of the key ways that the tone of an acoustic guitar can be "altered" (Notice that I didn't say improved) is by thinning out the woods (back/sides/top/braces), but this comes at a price. Reducing the thickness of wood increases the instruments susceptibility to structural changes due to string tension, impact damage, and worst of all climatic damage. Often times the differences in tones between two different manufacturers comes down to which way they have leaned in the strength-tone dilemma.
I don't believe our guitars to be over or under built – I find them to be a perfect balance of tone and strength. This was my father's intention, and an important lesson that both my brother and I have carefully learned.I've been reading these online discussions as far back as RMMGA – and as I recall the "over-braced" comment came from someone who was selling brace shaving services (not just on Larrivee Guitars). Then as the internet goes someone read it and repeated it, then someone else repeated it, and so forth. The seller, in my opinion, was an uneducated "luthier" who looked at our bracing and saw that it didn't look like a martin and thus thought it was overbraced – not thinking that parabolic bracing was an intentional design. Often times these types of claims are made by people who have not even built a guitar, or maybe built one or two (and somehow they know better than someone who has built over 100,000 instruments)."
+1 and thanks for the explanation too.
Let's see if we can get some digits injected into this thread.
Surely somebody here has a quality scale (not the typical bath scale) and can lend some concrete comparisons between a Larrivee and another brand (dred to dred and/or OM to OM).
Quote from: Queequeg on June 20, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
Let's see if we can get some digits injected into this thread.
Surely somebody here has a quality scale (not the typical bath scale) and can lend some concrete comparisons between a Larrivee and another brand (dred to dred and/or OM to OM).
Anyone recommend a decent scale for this purpose, I'd drop a $100 or so to have one and possibly use now and again for other things?
And Duck you'd be worth way more than $100 :laughin:
Quote from: JOYCEfromNS on June 20, 2011, 09:46:00 AM
Anyone recommend a decent scale for this purpose, I'd drop a $100 or so to have one and possibly use now and again for other things?
And Duck you'd be worth way more than $100 :laughin:
Nah, I'm a $99.00 special. I'm different though but unlike guitars where too many people confuse different with better, I hardly ever get that reaction. :laughin:
Quote from: Queequeg on June 20, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
Let's see if we can get some digits injected into this thread.
Surely somebody here has a quality scale (not the typical bath scale) and can lend some concrete comparisons between a Larrivee and another brand (dred to dred and/or OM to OM).
:+1: and Rosewood to Rosewood or Mahogany to Mahogany.
My OM-03MT and LS-03Hog/Spruce are considerably lighter than my LV-19E with its bigger Rosewood body, gloss finish and simple B-Band A-2.2 pickup system. My limited experience has shown me that the Rosewood guitars I've owned were heavier than the Mahogany ones so don't compare your Larrivee Rosewood with a Mahogany guitar from a different manufacturer.
something like this Pesola Hanging Scale. Capacity:40kg or 88lbs. (divisions to 10g or .5 ounce)
About $75 USD
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/316MHuHjWeL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Quote from: Queequeg on June 20, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
something like this Pesola Hanging Scale. Capacity:40kg or 88lbs. (divisions to 10g or .5 ounce)
About $75 USD
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/316MHuHjWeL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Incorporate a tuner and we've got something! :laughin:
Quote from: Mr_LV19E on June 20, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
My limited experience has shown me that the Rosewood guitars I've owned were heavier than the Mahogany ones so don't compare your Larrivee Rosewood with a Mahogany guitar from a different manufacturer.
My mahogany Larrivee is heavier than my SCGC rosewood and I think even heavier than my mahogany dread. I'll try to post the actual numbers later.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 20, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
something like this Pesola Hanging Scale. Capacity:40kg or 88lbs. (divisions to 10g or .5 ounce)
About $75 USD
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/316MHuHjWeL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
I like the :smile: on the front. :bgrin:
Wow, I did not anticipate such passion. :ohmy: It's good though. My original intent was merely an attempt to get some feedback regarding a perception I have had. But, let me be clear. My original post was in no way a knock against Larrivee guitars. I LOVE MY LARRIVEES! However, I was seeking more objective feedback from those who might have facts.
OM-03MT 69.7oz (1976g)
Kit Dread - Adi/Hog w/bolt on neck 66.6oz (1888g)
SCGC OM/PW - Sitka/IER 63.4oz (1797g)
Btw, Honduran Mahogany is closer to Sitka in density than EIR; clearly the rosewood B&S more than offsets the hog top of the Larrivee.
Besides the materials the body is made of, we musn't forget the length and thickness of the neck, as well as the material it's made of (rosewood/ebony fretboard)
I'm not sure if the actual wieght of the guitar means much,I sure I'll get slammed for that.I have handle some very light wieght guitars that were built like tanks and some pretty wieghty stuff that felt like it would fall apart if you stummed too hard.Everbodies perception is different.I do find Larrivee's to be hardy and great work horse's since therer are time's I'm playing it what feels like 110 degree humid off the ocean condition which have torn apart other brands.Hope this helps.
Well, anyone remember playing Garrison guitars? Those were HEAVY!
I actually liked how they sounded - but Gibson bought the company and shut it down. It was a very cool construction idea - injection-mold the framework and binding, then glue on the top/sides/back.
I remember putting on one of those Garrison dreadnaughts and feeling like I just put on a Les Paul!
Quote from: broKen on June 20, 2011, 11:06:40 PM
Besides the materials the body is made of, we musn't forget the length and thickness of the neck, as well as the material it's made of (rosewood/ebony fretboard)
All mine are basically the same scale and materials(ebony over mahogany), though technically the Larrivee is the longest. Both of the other guitars have thicker necks, especially the dread, and the SCGC has an added strap pin. The Larrivee also has lighter tuner buttons than stock.
Quote from: unclrob on June 20, 2011, 11:47:00 PM
I'm not sure if the actual wieght of the guitar means much,I sure I'll get slammed for that.
Certainly different construction methods matter. Some people build with double sides and all kinds of weird stuff but we can still make comparisons with Larrivees and similarly built guitars. My Larrivee and other two guitars all have the same basic design (X-braced, same number of braces, no electronics,etc.). It's pretty obvious to me that my SCGC is definitely lighter in the soundboard; it sounds different and even the braces themselves are clearly thicker on the Larrivee. The upper transverse brace for instance is a monster and we've all seen pictures of the large bridge plates they use. I really don't care how people feel about it but they're kidding themselves if they can't see Larrivees do not fall on lightest end of the spectrum. Of course , I've also played guitars that seemed to have heavier soundboards than my Larrivee. I would guess Larrivee falls somewhere in the middle of guitars in their class with regards to weight. I remember Taylors being kinda heavier.
Back to the OT...
Quoteseem to weigh more than some other makers? It seems that Larrivee guitars are constructed more heavily than others? Why is that? Does this make Larrivee guitars more durable?
Where the differences in weight comes from depends on the maker you are comparing it to. You can't really compare to individually made guitars because in an assembly line you have to account for the fact that some of the wood used will not be as stiff as the piece before it.
Quote from: Strings4Him on June 20, 2011, 07:03:11 PM
Wow, I did not anticipate such passion. :ohmy: It's good though. My original intent was merely an attempt to get some feedback regarding a perception I have had. But, let me be clear. My original post was in no way a knock against Larrivee guitars. I LOVE MY LARRIVEES! However, I was seeking more objective feedback from those who might have facts.
Ha. Built thick but sound good. Please have no regrets about post. Finding a beautiful workhorse of a guitar is like finding on of those greatly in shape landscaping women, in tune with the earth, with a physical beauty as well as an inner beauty with love of earth. If you figure how to diagnose that, pleas let me know......
Maybe we should describe Larrivees as 'reassuringly solid/substantial' or something like that. I remember the first time I picked up a Martin 000-15 in a shop and nearly put it through the ceiling as it was so much lighter than I expected! :bgrin:
That said, I took my D-03 out the other night and a friend of mine (whose main acoustic is a Martin DX or similar...laminated b/s anyway, still sounds good) and he asked to have a quick go on the Larrivee. As I passed it to him, I thought to myself how light it felt...he took hold of it and made a surprised noise. I asked if it were lighter than he'd expected and he said no, it was heavy! So I guess it's all relative to what you're used to. I generally think of Gibson acoustics as being heavy but that could be based more on the way they sound. Perception is a funny thing...
Quote from: rockstar_not on June 21, 2011, 12:08:54 AM
Well, anyone remember playing Garrison guitars? Those were HEAVY!
I actually liked how they sounded - but Gibson bought the company and shut it down. It was a very cool construction idea - injection-mold the framework and binding, then glue on the top/sides/back.
I remember putting on one of those Garrison dreadnaughts and feeling like I just put on a Les Paul!
Yes, I had the same experience. I tried three. Two sounded
funny and the most expensive Garrison, sounded pretty good but was one of the heaviest acoustic guitars I've ever held.
Quote from: Casino_Phil on June 21, 2011, 06:02:41 AM
Maybe we should describe Larrivees as 'reassuringly solid/substantial' or something like that. I remember the first time I picked up a Martin 000-15 in a shop and nearly put it through the ceiling as it was so much lighter than I expected! :bgrin:
That said, I took my D-03 out the other night and a friend of mine (whose main acoustic is a Martin DX or similar...laminated b/s anyway, still sounds good) and he asked to have a quick go on the Larrivee. As I passed it to him, I thought to myself how light it felt...he took hold of it and made a surprised noise. I asked if it were lighter than he'd expected and he said no, it was heavy! So I guess it's all relative to what you're used to. I generally think of Gibson acoustics as being heavy but that could be based more on the way they sound. Perception is a funny thing...
I don't think most people can actually determine slight weight differences all that well and expect that often other factors influence their impressions. Secondly, when talking differences of several
grams, I'm not sure anyone could hear the differences that are caused by weight alone.
Among other duties, I weigh things on very accurate delta scales for a living.
Well the Larrivees are heavier. Doesn't mean anything in isolation. Most of the big factory guitars are heavier builds. I've had 4 guitars built for me from 3 different well regarded makers -- all considerably lighter instruments (bracing, everything). I've gone back to Larrivee, and in overall character of sound and the way of Larrivee response I prefer them to the handmades I've owned. Expensive lesson of experience: live and learn. The relationship between particular guitars and players is a complicated one. You have to audition and decide for yourself, and can't presume anything.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 21, 2011, 08:30:43 AM
Secondly, when talking differences of several grams, I'm not sure anyone could hear the differences that are caused by weight alone.
The difference between my Larrivee and SCGC is 180g. That's actually a lot of wood when it comes to instruments. It's more than an entire spruce top weighs. An ebony bridge weighs about 30g or less; that's 6 ebony bridges worth of difference between the two guitars. There's no way that doesn't make a difference in tone.
I have a very accurate (expensive scale) and did weigh a Larrivee and an OM-21 once because I thought the Martin was much lighter. Nope, about the same actually.
I have two very light Larrivees and two Martins that are heavier feeling and lighter feeling, depending on how my day is going.
A comment earlier in the thread about a guitar being built so light that it should feel like it's going to implode reminded me of my very heavily built 1970 Sovereign Dread, it is imploding :blush:, but it's the ladder bracing that's the problem.
Perhaps guitar companies should add the overall weight of the guitar as one of the specs. Seems reasonable to me.
So Jeremy.....which guitar weighed more?
Quote from: abalone at last on June 21, 2011, 10:55:07 PM
So Jeremy.....which guitar weighed more?
I posted it on the first page.
Quote from: Strings4Him on June 21, 2011, 06:44:38 PM
Perhaps guitar companies should add the overall weight of the guitar as one of the specs. Seems reasonable to me.
Good idea.
And sell them by the pound.
:humour:
First, some donuts are in order, as this is my first post. Enjoy! :wave :donut :donut2 :donut :donut2 :donut :donut2
After a few months of looking for one, I just purchased a used OM-03! While looking I had purchased a Martin 00-15, (all mahagony) so I've currently got the two to compare (both are very similarly sized guitars). On my scale the Martin weighs in at 1805 grams, and the Larrivee at 1920 grams, just 6% heavier. The Larrivee does seem noticeably heavier, but I think it's mostly perception rather than the small weight difference. The wider and thicker neck give it a more hefty feel.
It's been interesting comparing the Larrivee and the Martin. I come from a violin background and haven't played guitar for very long, but I know enough that the Martin was never for me. The all-mahagony sound is warm, but to me sounded muddy. The Larrivee is very bright in contrast. From a more practical standpoint, the Martin isn't set up particularly well, and the Larrivee is, so it's been a joy strumming the Larrivee. Both have matte finishes, but the Larrivee's seems a little thicker and looks like it will protect better, whereas the Martin looks like they forgot the varnish. Both have excellent workmanship, but though the Martin is simpler, if I had to grade on craftsmanship alone, the Martin might win by a nose--it really is flawless. However, I never bonded with it (perhaps I should have had it set up properly, but I already had my heart set on a Larrivee). So, the Martin will go back to Craigslist from where it came, and I've found a new friend in the Larrivee. :bgrin:
Quote from: jeremy3220 on June 21, 2011, 12:42:48 PM
The difference between my Larrivee and SCGC is 180g. That's actually a lot of wood when it comes to instruments. It's more than an entire spruce top weighs. An ebony bridge weighs about 30g or less; that's 6 ebony bridges worth of difference between the two guitars. There's no way that doesn't make a difference in tone.
You weighed the guitar. My point being
not many people do that and it's generally some other factor that they're comparing. 180 grams is six ounces to our US readers. Less than half a pound of butter. Not many people can tell, with any certainty, a 180 gram difference between two things that weigh about six pounds by merely picking something up and then picking something else up or picking one thing up with one hand and one in the other. While it makes a difference, there's also no way that you can say with certainty that the perceived differences in sound are entirely due to weight differences and lastly, no way other than opinion that the one guitar is
better than the other merely due to this difference.
Jeremy I wasn't commenting on construction methods only on weight.I don't think its an important issue.If a guitar weighs too much for someone then they shouldn't buy it as it will be unconfortable.For me its not an issue.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 22, 2011, 08:48:25 AM
Not many people can tell, with any certainty, a 180 gram difference between two things that weigh about six pounds by merely picking something up and then picking something else up or picking one thing up with one hand and one in the other.
Weber's constant, for lifted weights, is 1/40. The weight of the OM-03 is 1976g and the OMPW weighs 1797g. Most folks would reliably discern that differential.
I feel a migraine coming on. We should sticky these recurrent debates.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 22, 2011, 08:48:25 AM
Not many people can tell, with any certainty, a 180 gram difference between two things that weigh about six pounds by merely picking something up and then picking something else up or picking one thing up with one hand and one in the other. While it makes a difference, there's also no way that you can say with certainty that the perceived differences in sound are entirely due to weight differences
I agree with most of your assertion. Its not the actual weight that is the issue...its the perception of the weight. When I pick up my rosewood Forum III it feels heavy to me compared to my other guitars. My 00-70, OTOH, feels like a featherweight compared to the FIII.
I tend to prefer lighter guitars.
Quote from: unclrob on June 22, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
If a guitar weighs too much for someone then they shouldn't buy it as it will be unconfortable.
(http://blog.presto.com/Portals/53254/images/Les%20Paul%20Legendary%20Guitarist%20and%20Inventor.png)
Quote from: Dotneck on June 22, 2011, 10:40:49 AM
I agree with most of your assertion. Its not the actual weight that is the issue...its the perception of the weight.
I tend to prefer lighter guitars.
But of course this is precisely why I asked for those with scales to weigh them. Is it our perception that the Larrivees are heavier or is there really something to it? The perception seems to be borne out by the results on the scale.
What does it all mean?
(Not for me to say.)
I guess the real question is .......... If you line up 10 OM-03's will they all weigh the same?
or How many donuts would it take to balance the scale with a L-03? And are we talking plain, sugar coated or filled donuts? :donut :donut2
Quote from: Queequeg on June 22, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
But of course this is precisely why I asked for those with scales to weigh them. Is it our perception that the Larrivees are heavier or is there really something to it? The perception seems to be borne out by the results on the scale.
What does it all mean?
(Not for me to say.)
I hate to keep harping but I get tired of folks making such a BIG deal out of small things. 180 grams? The weight difference between a Les Paul and a Stratocaster
is significant, as it comes down to several pounds but it's still a matter of opinion whether a Les Paul or a Strat is a
better guitar let alone attempting to say for certain that it explains the difference between Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix.
This is a fool's errand but I'll repeat, for the record, that, regardless of weight, a good Larrivée is as good as it gets. YMMV.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 22, 2011, 08:48:25 AM
Not many people can tell, with any certainty, a 180 gram difference between two things that weigh about six pounds by merely picking something up and then picking something else up or picking one thing up with one hand and one in the other.
While they probably have little idea how big the actual difference is, I think everyone can tell which is lighter.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 22, 2011, 08:48:25 AM
While it makes a difference, there's also no way that you can say with certainty that the perceived differences in sound are entirely due to weight differences and lastly, no way other than opinion that the one guitar is better than the other merely due to this difference.
I agree. I rarely comment on which is better. The total weight for sure doesn't account for all the difference in sound, otherwise simply making a really light guitar with no regard for design or craftsmanship would yield a better guitar. The differences come from mass, stiffness, where the mass is and what shape, etc; but a change in mass alone will make a difference and if we know where that mass difference occurs we can make a prediction as to how the guitar will differ in tone. If the mass difference comes from an important sound producing part then... the more mass the more energy is required to move it... or with energy(energy in) constant the less movement you'll get.
Like I said, 180g is more than the soundboard weighs. So yeah, 180g depending on where it comes from could be a very big deal, actually 10g of wood removed from the right spot will make a noticeable difference in tone because it's not just weight that changes but stiffness.
Well, I've always agreed that every guitar is different and always disputed whether, when it comes to decent instruments, merely different makes them better or worse. And as always, it's up to the buyer to determine what guitar is better for his purposes, whatever they may be. My reference to two guitar greats who preferred quite different guitars is my vain and perhaps in vain attempt to say that in the end it's the musician and the music that is made that really matters. Whether it's made on a pre-war D-28, a "pre-war" SCGC, a Larrivée, a red tag Yammy or a new Esteban is not really the issue.
FWIW, here are some real weights that are accurate (measured with a scientific balance, rounded to 2 significant figures):
Martin D-35 14-fret EIR/sitka 4.9 lbs (2.2 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-28 Marquis EIR/adi 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-18GE Mahog/adi 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin D-15SM 12-fret Mahog/mahog 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Osthoff 12-fret SD Khaya/adi 4.8 lbs (2.2 kg)
Larrivee SD-03 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee BT-03 12-fret baritone Mahog/sitka 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee 000-50 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Santa Cruz 000 12-fret EIR/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
I don't think any generalizations can be made on this small data set, but it doesn't appear that the Larrivee's are out of line.
GG
Quote from: GGJaguar on June 22, 2011, 05:06:29 PM
FWIW, here are some real weights that are accurate (measured with a scientific balance, rounded to 2 significant figures):
Martin D-35 14-fret EIR/sitka 4.9 lbs (2.2 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-28 Marquis EIR/adi 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-18GE Mahog/adi 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin D-15SM 12-fret Mahog/mahog 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Osthoff 12-fret SD Khaya/adi 4.8 lbs (2.2 kg)
Larrivee SD-03 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee BT-03 12-fret baritone Mahog/sitka 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee 000-50 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Santa Cruz 000 12-fret EIR/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
I don't think any generalizations can be made on this small data set, but it doesn't appear that the Larrivee's are out of line.
GG
Out of line? I would think you've added to my argument that, weight-wise they're
in line with most other high end guitars and the differences, whatever they are, are impossible to attribute to weight alone. Play what you love.
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 23, 2011, 08:23:52 AM
Out of line? I would think you've added to my argument that, weight-wise they're in line with most other high end guitars
I think that's what I said. :thumb
GG
Quote from: GGJaguar on June 23, 2011, 09:04:29 AM
I think that's what I said. :thumb
GG
Doh! I misread. :cheers
Quote from: GGJaguar on June 22, 2011, 05:06:29 PM
FWIW, here are some real weights that are accurate (measured with a scientific balance, rounded to 2 significant figures):
Martin D-35 14-fret EIR/sitka 4.9 lbs (2.2 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-28 Marquis EIR/adi 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin custom 12-fret D-18GE Mahog/adi 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Martin D-15SM 12-fret Mahog/mahog 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Osthoff 12-fret SD Khaya/adi 4.8 lbs (2.2 kg)
Larrivee SD-03 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.3 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee BT-03 12-fret baritone Mahog/sitka 4.4 lbs (2.0 kg)
Larrivee 000-50 12-fret Mahog/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
Santa Cruz 000 12-fret EIR/sitka 4.1 lbs (1.9 kg)
I don't think any generalizations can be made on this small data set, but it doesn't appear that the Larrivee's are out of line.
GG
The two OOOs: the Rosewood is a lot heavier than the mahogany (as has been pointed out already), so lack of weight difference is significant actually. However I prefer the sound and play of my Lv03r to the two Santa Cruz rosewoods I've auditions (only 2, granted).
Quote from: hadden on June 23, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
The two OOOs: the Rosewood is a lot heavier than the mahogany (as has been pointed out already), so lack of weight difference is significant actually. However I prefer the sound and play of my Lv03r to the two Santa Cruz rosewoods I've auditions (only 2, granted).
Significant in what way, however? You prefer rosewood so you actually like the heavier guitar. I prefer mahogany. Due to the tone or the weight or an X factor, I can't say. Therefore the question remains. So what? :beer
A quality is quality. The weight, significant or otherwise ( tho the figures provided seem insignificant) has always been irrelevant in my assessment in consideration to taker home :smile:
Quote from: ducktrapper on June 23, 2011, 01:37:36 PM
Significant in what way, however? You prefer rosewood so you actually like the heavier guitar. I prefer mahogany. Due to the tone or the weight or an X factor, I can't say. Therefore the question remains. So what? :beer
I was just commenting on that there was a difference in build weight between the two (OOOs: sc rosewood should be heavier) when it was indicated they were the same, more or less. Nothing more. I wasn't making a comment on quality due to that. Well actually I stated when making a comparison myself I prefered the heavier Larrivee in rosewoods to the SC rw in the couple I tried. Which also means nothing.
:donut2 :donut :donut2 :donut :donut :donut2 :donut2 :donut :donut2 :donut2 :donut2 :donut :coffee
I think Larrivee is lighter and better built than most guits.. :smile:
I think it doesn't matter unless you're marketing guitars to people with more money than common sense. :thumbsup
in the spirit of this debate, and i hope this holds some weight, may i say that my cat can eat an entire watermelon. :nanadance
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks how much a guitar actually weighs has much significance or is a determining factor in terms of how good it sounds or how long it will last is misguided in my opinion.
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on December 15, 2011, 03:57:52 AM
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks how much a guitar actually weighs has much significance or is a determining factor in terms of how good it sounds or how long it will last is misguided in my opinion.
Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.
KE=.5mv^2
If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on December 15, 2011, 05:55:52 AM
Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.
KE=.5mv^2
If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.
Only true if the mass is in a not in location on the guitar where the kinetic energy must be transmitted into the air. Mass is also a key component to damping and it's also on the right side of the equation. If you make the top, or any other intentionally vibrating surfaces of the guitar more heavy, you will not convert the kinetic energy present in the wood into translational motion of the surface, and hence to the air, and hence you will have LESS perceived output of the guitar.
So, yes - mass matters, but it's not a simple more mass=more sound situation. Finally, one last thing to think about with the Kinetic Energy equation is that the equation does not consider where the velocity portion of the equation comes from. You wrote "If Velocity is held constant....."
Well, velocity doesn't come from thin air. With a guitar, it has to come from you, the player. To maintain the same velocity, for more mass, you have to exert more force into the guitar. Heavier strings are partially an example, as their vibration velocity in their transverse waves is dependent on both mass and tension. To get them to move in the same translational wave velocity, it requires more input force.
But again, looking at that in isolation is not the correct approach. One has to consider the entire structure, build construction, resultant mode shapes of surfaces, etc. of the guitar to try to get a handle on how mass impacts the output sound power capability of the guitar, across the audible frequency range.
It will never be a "More mass = better" "More mass=worse" to a certain point. However, put too much mass on vibrating surfaces and eventually you do get to "More mass = worse" situation as the mass damping effects swamp the ability for the surfaces to move air.
Quote from: hadden on June 24, 2011, 08:23:38 AM
I was just commenting on that there was a difference in build weight between the two (OOOs: sc rosewood should be heavier) when it was indicated they were the same, more or less. Nothing more. I wasn't making a comment on quality due to that. Well actually I stated when making a comparison myself I prefered the heavier Larrivee in rosewoods to the SC rw in the couple I tried. Which also means nothing.
the open back tuners on the SC are alot lighter than the Ping's on the larrivee.. remove that variable (or drop in a set of StayTities on the Larivee) and see where it's at?
d
One thing you have to be aware of is that different woods have different weights. IOW, you cannot compare a bubinga from luthier A with a maple from luthier B.
Quote from: rockstar_not on December 15, 2011, 09:13:23 AMSo, yes - mass matters, but it's not a simple more mass=more sound situation.
I didn't say that. The opposite tends to be true. I was thinking about the amount of energy input required. To get out the same amount of motion with an increase in mass more energy input will be required.
QuoteFinally, one last thing to think about with the Kinetic Energy equation is that the equation does not consider where the velocity portion of the equation comes from.
Yes, of course it does. It's velocity with respect to the mass in the equation. Otherwise it would be one screwed up equation. Since we were talking about mass of the guitar or more specifically, an important area of sound production(like the mass of the bridge or soundboard), the velocity in question is that of the wood.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on December 15, 2011, 05:55:52 AM
Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.
KE=.5mv^2
If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.
Yup, I took a bunch of magnesium citrate and the mass moved at a greater rate of velocity for at least two days. :whistling:
Quote from: jeremy3220 on December 15, 2011, 01:27:04 PM
I didn't say that. The opposite tends to be true. I was thinking about the amount of energy input required. To get out the same amount of motion with an increase in mass more energy input will be required.
Yes, of course it does. It's velocity with respect to the mass in the equation. Otherwise it would be one screwed up equation. Since we were talking about mass of the guitar or more specifically, an important area of sound production(like the mass of the bridge or soundboard), the velocity in question is that of the wood.
I think we both misunderstood intentional points. I agree with you considering that now we are both talking about the vibrating surfaces.
One area where I think some conventional wisdom falls down in this particular forum is the idea of brass bridge pins. Definitely more mass, in an area that should not be mass-damped. That's my opinion, based somewhat in physics, but not ever tested myself simply because I'm too cheap to run what I think would be a failed experiment. More mass should be bad in bridge pins.
Quote from: rockstar_not on December 15, 2011, 03:57:10 PM
I think we both misunderstood intentional points. I agree with you considering that now we are both talking about the vibrating surfaces.
One area where I think some conventional wisdom falls down in this particular forum is the idea of brass bridge pins. Definitely more mass, in an area that should not be mass-damped. That's my opinion, based somewhat in physics, but not ever tested myself simply because I'm too cheap to run what I think would be a failed experiment. More mass should be bad in bridge pins.
I have done the experiment, although not intentionally. I have had a D10 EIR for about 6 years. I recently got a D10 Brazilian. The original owner put brass pins on it. I played it with the brass pins, then exchanged them for the ebony pins from my other D10. I really could not tell any difference. Maybe my ears are not sensitive enough, but it sounded fine with both types of pins. Now what did make a difference is when I took off the light guage elixirs and put on medium EXP17's. Wow! The Elixirs seemed kind of tinny/jangly to me. I actually put the old Elixirs on my OM-05MT and they sounded pretty good. The jangly sound was warmed by the all-mahogany.
Quote from: dependan on December 15, 2011, 03:06:15 PM
Yup, I took a bunch of magnesium citrate and the mass moved at a greater rate of velocity for at least two days. :whistling:
Danny, you get to the nub of the argument quite succinctly. Sadly, I understood your point better than all others made.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on December 15, 2011, 05:55:52 AM
Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.
KE=.5mv^2
If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.
I don't disagree with that at all. I didn't articulate what I meant very well. To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator. Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound. The original OP simply asked why Larrivees seem to be heavier than some other brands. I'm saying even if they are heavier, that doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically inferior to the other brands. Or conversely, another brand that is superior in tone for example won't automatically be lighter than a Larrivee.
Kurt
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on December 15, 2011, 09:37:44 PM
I don't disagree with that at all. I didn't articulate what I meant very well. To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator. Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound. The original OP simply asked why Larrivees seem to be heavier than some other brands. I'm saying even if they are heavier, that doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically inferior to the other brands. Or conversely, another brand that is superior in tone for example won't automatically be lighter than a Larrivee.
Kurt
Very well put.
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on December 15, 2011, 09:37:44 PM
I don't disagree with that at all. I didn't articulate what I meant very well. To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator. Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound.
Yes, I even made the same point earlier in the thread... "The total weight for sure doesn't account for all the difference in sound, otherwise simply making a really light guitar with no regard for design or craftsmanship would yield a better guitar."
But let's not kid ourselves, we can get a general idea of where the mass difference comes from. It's not like Larrivees have fishing weights in the neck block or dangling off the end pin by a string. The mass difference between a Larrivee and a pre-war Martin of same body size and materials is going to come from a significant tone producing location. Some of this can easily be seen or felt. You're right about weighing a guitar without knowing anything else wouldn't be helpful in predicting it's quality or sound but that's never the case. The opposite is true, we tend to know a good deal about a model's size, bracing, wood, etc.
I tend to like guitars that happen to be light. The guitars that stick out in my memory were lightly built guitars. It doesn't mean everything but it does mean something. Excluding things like electronics and just comparing regulars ol'acoustics, light guitars have a different sound. I'm not arguing heavy guitars suck or anything of the sort, I really don't care what peoples' preferences are and appreciate the diversity in guitars.
I agree Jeremy.
In this discussion there should be a big distinction between a simply light (in total weight) guitar and a lightly-built guitar.
:cheers
Kurt
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on December 17, 2011, 04:12:14 AM
I agree Jeremy.
In this discussion there should be a big distinction between a simply light (in total weight) guitar and a lightly-built guitar.
I think if you do that you need to clarify what exactly is lightly built because light (in total weight) guitars are lightly built. I mean a guitar can't weigh as little as a pre-war Martin and not be lightly built; everything on the guitar is lightly built. On a guitar with a light top & bracing but thick heavy B&S I don't think calling it lightly built is accurate but saying 'lightly built top' might be.