Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
The myth that an acoustic guitar must produce a lot of volume otherwise it can't be tone-rich and rewarding and responsive is pervasive, pernicious and plain wrong. .
But where did it come from and why do so many people still believe it?
First we can go back to the old classical tradition where a single guitarist has to fill an entire hall unamplified. Within that tradition, a quiet guitar is about as much use as a shoe with a hole in it. That form of performance hasn't entirely disappeared and probably never will, but it is long gone as a mainstream thing.
Second, we can look at the American bluegrass ensemble tradition where amplification is either not done at all or consists of a single microphone shared between a group of players with individuals stepping forward one at a time to take solos. In this sort of environment, being able to produce a lot of volume is paramount, particularly if you want to be able to include some light and shade in your playing and not just spend the day overplaying just to be heard against the other instruments.
So there are two situations where a guitar has to be loud. Doubtless there are others. In the vast majority of situations, however, within reason acoustic volume is a bit of a non-issue. Unfortunately, a lot of players haven't got the memo; they are still stuck in the 1890s when amplification wasn't a thing and acoustic volume really did matter. These days our electric-playing friends realise that they don't need a Marshal Stack cranked up to 11 to get good tone, we have a similar lesson to learn over here on the acoustic side.
TLDR: Yes.
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
Question slightly ambiguous but answer to both interpretations still yes. This arises from the fact that, in modern non-orchestra use, the acoustic is an instrument for playing alone, with a mate or to small groups, rather than house parties, busking and in an orchestras as in the 1920's and 30's. In those playing circumstances you needed volume. Now, not so much.
So Yes, an acoustic can sound good if you don't play it loudly. Only when you add dynamics to a piece will the nicer aspects of a piece come out. Also, recording or performing a piece quietly and then playing it back with volume (and effects like reverb) can be revealing of tone.
And Yes, a quiet acoustic guitar can sound full and balanced. Quiet in this context probably means (a) small or (b) just quiet c.f a similar sized instrument. Such acoustics have often lost the boomy and dominant loud, boomy base and allow the mids and trebles to reveal themselves a bit more, or at least not be drowned out.
Even the instruments developed for volume like Resonators and dreadnoughts and jumbos can sound lovely if you ease off on the volume. Dreadnoughts especially can have a gorgeous dry woody sound which many go for.
For me, if I was on a quest for an acoustic which "sounded full and balanced without being loud", I would start off with a small all-mahogany instrument.
But it won't sound the same as it does when strummed heavily, and that absolutely can't be done quietly on most guitars. Generally speaking (and noting it's a hefty generalisation) smaller guitars are quieter than big ones, and that extends to when you strum them heavily, but a lot of them are also not really built for that and don't sound great when you do it.
But taking the question at absolute face value, yes a great acoustic guitar can 100% sound full and balanced when played quietly.
There are times when you'd deliberately play a song quieter to give yourself room to kick it up in parts.
None of those three are the "right" answer. They are just different compromises. Pick your poison.
That said a lot of people hate APX600s it seems but that's another thread
For clarity, most acoustics I've heard (and it's far from an exhaustive list) are far too loud for me.
I play far louder when I use a plectrum
I'd say the stiffer spruce soundboards are much louder when played with a plectrum
Some are nicknamed "Banjo Killers", because they can match the dB from a Banjo
Fingerpicking with cedar or mahogany tops should be quieter
If you still want quieter for personal reasons, you could experiment with fitting a rosette to the soundhole to reduce the amount of air movement, or putting a bit of speaker baffle wadding inside the guitar. I think this would be very hit and miss, so would need experiments to see if you can tweak it to still get the frequency response you want
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
The Maton WA May is loud. Not as loud as my Guild or my single-luthier Mineur, but louder than most 000-size guitars. And it is an absolute pearler, an all-round gem of a guitar. (And I'd bloody well hope so too considering the price.)
The Cole Clark Angel is quiet. Very quiet by grand auditorium standards. I have handed it to other people to play many times and their reaction is always the same. 1: Gosh, it's quiet! 2: (ten seconds later) but wow! It has wonderful tone. Isn't it nice to play! Everybody says the same things about it, so it's not just me.
A car with a powerful engine responds to your lightest touch on the accelerator.
In some ways, an acoustic guitar is similar. When the lightest touch of your fingers produces a significant response on the instrument, that is a beautiful thing. And very often that is related to the acoustic volume of the instrument.
So to say that the acoustic volume of the instrument doesn’t matter is would be IMO wrong. It needs a certain level of volume, above which any further “loudness“ would Perhaps be irrelevant.