Is a heavier acoustic a better thing?

Zonular · December 2021

Is it down to taste or does it have any benefits?

BigPaulie · December 2021

It's really down to the particular guitar.

However, in general, people go for lighter built acoustic guitars in the belief that they'll be more resonant. Heavier acoustics are "believed" to be overbuilt or have excessively heavy finish applied. On the flipside a heavier built guitar may be more robust.

All that said, if I were to pay a guitar that sounded and felt better than something lighter, the weight wouldn't put me off.

Tannin · December 2021

Absolutely it has benefits. Build strength and longevity are obvious, but a heavier build also tends to produce a more controlled, compressed sound, and performs much better in an amplified stage situation.

Whether you like the sound, well that's a matter of taste and there are no right or wrong answers. It is what you like. Personally, I have always liked the more disciplined sound of a heavier build. On the other hand, two of my seven are very lightly built. They are very different, very responsive. Some things sound great on them .... and some things sound much better on a heavier guitar.

Which is better? Les Paul or Strat? Ans: they are different. Both are good. Play the one you prefer. If you like them both, play both!

Having said all that, bear it in mind that there are two ways to build an acoustic back: you can have a live back (which is reasonably light and is designed to move and make a sound) or you can have a dead back (which is designed to simply reflect sound from the top and not move at all). Sides are always "dead", tops are always "live", the back can be either. So you could have a very heavy guitar (if you weigh the whole thing) which plays like a paper-light guitar because it has a very light, responsive top. Or maybe vice-versa.

guitarfishbay · December 2021

I’ve found I prefer the response of lighter acoustics, but also individual guitars can vary so much that I’d always advise trying as many as possible if you can

guitarfishbay · December 2021

Tannin said:

Having said all that, bear it in mind that there are two ways to build an acoustic back: you can have a live back (which is reasonably light and is designed to move and make a sound) or you can have a dead back (which is designed to simply reflect sound from the top and not move at all). Sides are always "dead", tops are always "live", the back can be either. So you could have a very heavy guitar (if you weigh the whole thing) which plays like a paper-light guitar because it has a very light, responsive top. Or maybe vice-versa.

I was not aware of this but it makes sense

stickyfiddle · December 2021

I have 2 acoustics. My HD28 is quite heavy, not necessarily that loud for the model, but sounds really sweet and projects well.

My Atkin 47 is a smaller, mahogany-er affair, weights next to nothing and is really loud when playing, but I think doesn't fill a room so well.

I don't think there is a single rule where heavier/lighter = better

Zonular · December 2021

Cheers guys, I've a all laminate electro acoustic that sounds great and a little heavier. Just picked up a Freshman solid top that's much lighter and fills the room so much more but is a feather weight in comparison.

ICBM · December 2021

It depends on the individual guitar to a large extent. As with electrics to a lesser degree, lighter acoustic guitars tend to be more 'resonant' and louder but can end up sounding quite midrangy. Heavier ones can be bassier and more powerful-sounding, although not quite as loud. It's a fine balance. My favourite acoustic is not particularly light, but does have good bottom-end and volume.

That said, by far the worst expensive 'high end' acoustic I can remember playing was also extremely heavy, much more so than I think I've ever noticed a proper acoustic guitar be before, and it sounded dead and frankly crap.

Honkycat · December 2021

I had this experience too, with a Lowden African Blackwood guitar. Really heavy, really expensive, but terrible sound.

bertie · December 2021

the two best (responsive and dynamic) acoustics Ive played, my Brook and Bezzers Lowden, light as feathers

Lewy · December 2021

I read an interview with the luthier Mario Proulx in which he said he’d prefer to build his guitars more heavily (NOT braced more heavily, but with heavier back and sides etc) but then people wouldn’t buy them. I think I remember him saying Bill Collings felt the same.

earwighoney · December 2021

Honkycat said:

I had this experience too, with a Lowden African Blackwood guitar. Really heavy, really expensive, but terrible sound.

I played a Richard Thompson signature Lowden, with Cedar and Ziricote back and sides, and it was really heavy and an absolute stinker! I remember playing another Lowden in Wunjo at the same time, which was a cheaper Spruce/Indian RW which was a feather in comparison and was a delightfully resonant instrument.

Lewy said:

I read an interview with the luthier Mario Proulx in which he said he’d prefer to build his guitars more heavily (NOT braced more heavily, but with heavier back and sides etc) but then people wouldn’t buy them. I think I remember him saying Bill Collings felt the same.

Interesting. I think the same theory applies to a few makers (the Somogyi disciples and others) who use double sides for their instruments to create a louder instrument.

I have a very nice flamenco guitar, which has Amazon Rosewood back and sides, and it's on the heavier side of things, but it's incredibly loud, if anything a bit too loud to manage at times.

But, I still think it depends on the maker, there are great light instruments and greater heavier ones as well.

Lewy · December 2021

ICBM said:

That said, by far the worst expensive 'high end' acoustic I can remember playing was also extremely heavy, much more so than I think I've ever noticed a proper acoustic guitar be before, and it sounded dead and frankly crap.

Did it sound crap out front or just "from the office"? I've got a Mossman which is a fairly sturdily built dreadnought and it sounds decidedly lackluster from the playing position but gorgeous if you're sat in front of it.

ICBM · December 2021

Lewy said:

Did it sound crap out front or just "from the office"? I've got a Mossman which is a fairly sturdily built dreadnought and it sounds decidedly lackluster from the playing position but gorgeous if you're sat in front of it.

No, it sounded crap to everyone in the shop no matter who was playing it.

It was a PRS Martin Simpson Private Stock model. It sounded like a cheap Takamine and weighed about as much as a Les Paul.

(Slight exaggeration, but it felt like it!)

bertie · December 2021

ICBM said:

a cheap Takamine

ah the ones you need to strum with a lump hammer to get the soundboard moving

jaymenon · December 2021

My two best acoustic guitars also happen to be the lightest weighing ones I have.
A Maestro Raffles, Martin D28 and a Lowden O35.

The same lightweight and responsiveness that make them so beautiful unplugged - would probably make them absolute dogs if played amplified...

bluecat · December 2021

Years ago I had an Ecko Ranger VI with bolt on neck,a very heavyweight guitar,nice sound and tone,very well made with a heavy finish.It all depends on how strong you are!!
Every thing about the guitar was heavy duty.

Mellish · December 2021

A friend had a Fylde years ago. That was pretty heavy IIRC and built like a tank. Very good guitar, though, great tone

TimmyO · December 2021

There's definitely at least one British luthier whose "thing" is that his acoustic guitars are really heavy by design - it's bugging me that I can't remember his name - but I played one and it was REALLY noticeable and prompted the conversation with wherever I was (I can't remember if it was at a show or a shop - not much help am I really...) but it was his particular, deliberate approach to guitar building

earwighoney · December 2021

TimmyO said:

There's definitely at least one British luthier whose "thing" is that his acoustic guitars are really heavy by design - it's bugging me that I can't remember his name - but I played one and it was REALLY noticeable and prompted the conversation with wherever I was (I can't remember if it was at a show or a shop - not much help am I really...) but it was his particular, deliberate approach to guitar building

Was it Sobell or NK Forster?

guitarjack66 · December 2021

I've only got a cheap acoustic and although it doesn't feel very heavy to me,when I lifted an expensive Taylor guitar it was significantly lighter and it appeared that was intentional. I am guessing it has something to do with the 'quality' of the wood used.

crunchman · December 2021

stickyfiddle said:

I have 2 acoustics. My HD28 is quite heavy, not necessarily that loud for the model, but sounds really sweet and projects well.

My Atkin 47 is a smaller, mahogany-er affair, weights next to nothing and is really loud when playing, but I think doesn't fill a room so well.

I don't think there is a single rule where heavier/lighter = better

There is something about Martin Dreadnoughts that does project well. I've got an HD28VE that doesn't seem especially loud to me as a player, but it does project very well. I used to have another guitar that sounded louder to me when playing, but a dB meter a few metres in front of the guitar said otherwise. The Martin was around 3dB louder.

bertie · December 2021

I think ( and people like Lewy correct me) if you're a heavy strummer, belting out those bollock shaking chords, that dont really change in punch and volume then a heavy dread is beneficial ? but if you're more finger / hybrid you need the nuances and responsive dynamics to volume that a lighter more subtle build gives you

or is that complete bollocksweat ?

Kittyfrisk · December 2021

earwighoney said:

TimmyO said:

There's definitely at least one British luthier whose "thing" is that his acoustic guitars are really heavy by design - it's bugging me that I can't remember his name - but I played one and it was REALLY noticeable and prompted the conversation with wherever I was (I can't remember if it was at a show or a shop - not much help am I really...) but it was his particular, deliberate approach to guitar building

Was it Sobell or NK Forster?

Don't know about Stephan Sobell, but I don't think it would be a starting point for Nigel Forster as a basic design ethic. He is far too intelligent to adhere to a rigid ethos & some of his builds were beautifully featherweight.

Lewy · December 2021

bertie said:

I think ( and people like Lewy correct me) if you're a heavy strummer, belting out those bollock shaking chords, that dont really change in punch and volume then a heavy dread is beneficial ? but if you're more finger / hybrid you need the nuances and responsive dynamics to volume that a lighter more subtle build gives you

or is that complete bollocksweat ?

Well I wouldn't say it was complete bollocksweat...maybe just a hint of scrotal clamminess perhaps?

For me it's about what you need in terms of dynamic range and that comes from a combination of design, materials, bracing etc. My Collings dread has almost limitless dynamic range - you can hit it past the point of reasonable necessity and it will just get louder and louder. That comes at a price, and that price is that at the lower end of the dynamic range, the minimum input effort to pull a nice tone out of it is higher than some other guitars. You can't tickle it and hope for the magic. But it can punch a bass note run through any noisy session. I wouldn't say that's anything to do with weight - more down to the Adirondack top and how it's braced. My Martin dread is different - you can get monster tone from it with a way lighter touch but I suspect it would start topping out in dynamic range before the Collings. I haven't really compared them in that way. It's more lightly braced than the Collings and you feel it vibrating more when you play it, but I think it might be a touch heavier physically overall. Probably because of the neck being massive.

Tannin · December 2021

Lewy is on the right track here. It comes down to basic physics. Red Spruce (like the top of Lewy's Collings, or my Guild for that matter) is light and very stiff. Although it is light, the stiffness means that it's not so easy to get moving, and light, delicate fingerstyle playing really isn't what it's built for. You have to give it a bit of stick. But it will belt out an astonishing volume if you do. (One reason for that is that the top, being very stiff, is also very efficient - it spends more of its energy budget moving air and less of it on internal flexing. The tradeoff of that stiffness is harshness. You can't get the same smoothness and tonal richness and delicacy out of a hard top as you can out of something soft like cedar or redwood.

Note that I'm talking about tops here. Tops do most of the work and make most of the sound, but don't contribute very much to the weight of a guitar either way.

artiebear · December 2021

A whole lot depends upon whether one is defining a heavy guitar as being built to survive a nuclear attack or heavier due to a particular construction ethos or simply down to the fact that some woods are heavier than others ( heavily braced being a completely different issue ).

I have a few heavier ( not heavy ) guitars that fall into the build ethos and or wood combo part of this discussion. In all cases they are ridiculously good guitars built by individuals at the top of their game. I have some feather light guitars ( thinking particularly of a 3 Brazilian r/w guitars with differing types of spruce that also sound great, but are more delicate in terms of using as touring instruments ( they have all been well gigged over the years ).

My experience has been that if the builder understands the tolerances they are working towards while understanding the stresses and strains placed upon an instrument as a professional tool, perceived weight matters little. I have owned and played some guitars over the years ( no names ) that being very lightly built were unable to withstand the slightest changes in temperature and humidity, eventually sounding crap even after a lot of TLC, a few others were and still are getting better all the time.

It is also a myth that lightly built guitars resonate more ( try the aforementioned Stefan Sobell's guitars, if you want an example of incredible dynamics, sustain and tonal variation while being built to a very distinct set of parameters ). I have had lightly built guitars which could either be described as tonally feathery and delicate or, if being honest, weak.

I do agree with @icbm regarding one makers guitars. That was heavy for it's own sake without much rationale behind it as far as I could see.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Is a heavier acoustic a better thing?

Comments