330/ 360 (6 or 12) construction

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:16 am

Great pix, Dave4004. Thanks.

I don't think anyone actually confirmed, however, if the overall depth of the routing is the same on the 330 as it is on the 360. Are they, or is one more deeply routed than the other?

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Tue Nov 18, 2003 9:39 pm

No answers?

In another post (RIC 330-12 vs. 360-12) a linked reference to an article is offered to help explain the difference between the two models. In that article it states that
"the interior air volume of a 330 is probably 15% greater than a 360, and only some of that comes from having a fully developed lower bout."

What exactly is a "lower bout" and why does the 330 have it and not a 360? Does a lower bout have to do with how much is routed as opposed to how deep the routing goes?

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Tue Nov 18, 2003 9:42 pm

One other thing:

On the Rickenbacker website is says in the specifications that the 330-12 and the 360-12 both weigh 8lbs.
How can that be if one has supposedly 15% more interior air volume?

rogiercreemers · Post by **rogiercreemers** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:17 am

The lower bout of a guitar is the lower half of it (in playing position), which on a 360 is significantly smaller than on a 330, hence the reduction in air volume. The amount of wood stays more or less the same, though, so that explains why there's no weight difference.

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:20 am

Thanks, Rogiercreemers.

So this is just a design feature difference then that has the 360 leaning (if ever so slightly) towards being a more solid body guitar?
I mean they don't need more room in a 330 for more, bigger, or different electronics, right?

36012 · Post by **36012** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:52 pm

Older 360's(pre 67)tend to be more acoustic than the new ones due to bracing.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 7:25 am

How do you explain the Carl Wilson guitars then? They are the most acoustic of them all and have the modern bracing.

Actually, the top thickness is far more important than the bracing and the modern way of carving the bracing from solid wood prevents the typical rattle that many older guitars have.

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:36 pm

Johnhall, your statement about top thickness leaves me confused and recalls my previous question about routing depth. I know nothing about these guitars and I'm really trying to get a clear undersdtanding about how these instruments are put together and the subsequent effect on their tone.

As I understand things so far, there are several possible explanations regarding the construction differences between the 330 and the 360.

1. The thickness of the original unrouted piece of wood on both models is identical. Lets just say 2 inches for the sake of argument. Both the 330 and the 360 are routed out (again for the skae of argument) to a depth of 1 and 1/2 inches, but with the 330 having a larger lower bout.

2.The thickness of the original unrouted piece of wood on both models is identical. Again, lets say 2 inches. The 330 is routed out to a depth of 1 and 1/2 inches, whereas the 360 is routed out to a depth of 1 and 1/4 inches thereby leaving a thicker top on the 360. The 330 still has the larger lower bout.

3. The 330 and the 360 start out with two different thicknesses of wood. For the sake of argument lets say the 330 is 2 inches thick and the 360 is 2 and 1/4 inches thick. Both are routed out to a depth of 1 and 1/2 inches. The result though would leave the 360 with a thicker top. The 330 would still have its larger lower bout.

So, which one is closer to the truth, or is there yet another explanation as to what's going on?

Thanks.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 7:50 pm

#1 is correct, except in the case of certain variations such as the Carl Wilson model which is routed deeper, making the top thinner.

beatlefreek · Post by **beatlefreek** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:25 pm

Thanks, Johnhall.

36012 · Post by **36012** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:53 am

John Hall,
Good point.I stand corrected.I didn't even consider the CW.However,I was mainly talking about the difference in the pre 67 360's vs. 67-70's 360s which appear to be louder due to bracing.Am I misstaken on this or is it the top thickness?They appear to be the same.Thanks for the info.

36012 · Post by **36012** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:11 am

I should have said it was due to top thickness and bracing.

This is the sign of a great forum.What other forum could you talk nitty gritty with a guitar company owner?Awesome!!!

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:53 am

I don't think you'll note any significant bracing changes until sometime into the 1980's. Any variations during the 1960's would mainly be in the top thickness as sanding was not only more pronounced but also highly variable.

36012 · Post by **36012** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:37 pm

John Hall
Thanks for the info.