Once the vibration leaves the solid, center block of a guitar, the wood around it actually deadens certain frequencies, (mostly the higher frequencies), while the lower frequencies resonate through all that thin wood and cause "sympathetic" vibrations/harmonies that accentuate the boominess and low end characteristics of a semi-hollow guitar. One of the main culprits in this equation is the pocket routed out behind the bridge on many Rickenbackers. Without this pocket, a 360 would be brighter and more cutting than it is already. Some of the low end would be lost and the guitar would take on a distinctly different character. Not many maple guitars sound good. Very few solid maple guitars sound good because maple just isn't a good tone wood for that application. Put a few chambers in it though, like a Ric 360, and it gives you a very cool and distinct sound.
In my most recent scratch built guitar projects, I omitted the pocket behind the bridge to get a little more bite and sustain. It worked out great and the difference is obvious when compared to my Ric 360.
In short, I don't feel that we're really getting any of the "acoustic" sound of the guitar through the pickups, but that the tone is certainly altered by the chambers having a "damping" effect on the sound. Without the chambers, a maple 360 would be painfully bright and harsh sounding.
330 vs. 360 acoustically
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Mark, you wouldn't want it! It's a '66 and beat to all hell. Frets blow, bridge stinks, tuners are not original, and the switch never works right, either. A few cracks as well (tone enhancing, I think!) But when I'm looking for THAT SOUND, I make it work. Or should I say, it steps up to the plate for me!
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
I am not sure I agree 100% with you, Bob, on your observations and conclusions.
"In short, I don't feel that we're really getting any of the "acoustic" sound of the guitar through the pickups, but that the tone is certainly altered by the chambers having a "damping" effect on the sound. Without the chambers, a maple 360 would be painfully bright and harsh sounding."
If we're not getting any of the "acoustic" sound through the pickups, then acoustic feedback would never be a problem with hollow or semi-solid guitars. But the fact that it exists is fairly conclusive proof that pickups interact with the air volume inside of a (hollow or semi) guitar.
Without the chambers, a solid 360 would be a larger version of a 620 or 660. Those sound pretty clean and clear, but certainly not "painfully bright" or "harsh". (I should note that this is somewhat subjective, depending upon the listener and the amplifier and its settings.)
"One of the main culprits in this equation is the pocket routed out behind the bridge on many Rickenbackers. Without this pocket, a 360 would be brighter and more cutting than it is already."
Again, subjective, but all things being equal, my comments on 620s and 660s stand.
Also note that the wood in a Rick with a "beaver tail" ramp (300 series in general) is left quite thick behind the bridge. Imagining the guitar resonating as a whole piece of hollowed-out timber, with strings stretched between tailpiece (which itself is anchored to the thick end-grain section mentioned above) and headstock, it would seem that a Rick would have better sustain than, say, a Gibson 335. In any case, it doesn't suffer.
"In my most recent scratch built guitar projects, I omitted the pocket behind the bridge to get a little more bite and sustain. It worked out great and the difference is obvious when compared to my Ric 360."
Well, here we really have apples and oranges. To really make this statement stick, you'd have to build a Rick 360 with a solid center block and compare it to a stocker. My prediction: very little difference would be noted. I think, Bob, that the difference you note in sustain would be due to a number of factors built into your scratchbuilt projects.
Better yet, build 3, of which one is absolutely solid, and note differences. Biggest difference would be between either semi and the solid "log".
No question that the "log" would have better sustain (is sustain a Holy Grail? Buy a Les Paul!), but it would also weigh about 13 pounds.
RE: The radiused top edges of a 360 have a thicker section than the sharper edge of a 330. This means a good deal more inside air volume in a 330, not to mention a larger free-vibrating top surface. And, without calculating, I'd estimate the difference in free top area to be about 25-30% (not inconsequential!) and of air volume inside to be 20-25%.
"In short, I don't feel that we're really getting any of the "acoustic" sound of the guitar through the pickups, but that the tone is certainly altered by the chambers having a "damping" effect on the sound. Without the chambers, a maple 360 would be painfully bright and harsh sounding."
If we're not getting any of the "acoustic" sound through the pickups, then acoustic feedback would never be a problem with hollow or semi-solid guitars. But the fact that it exists is fairly conclusive proof that pickups interact with the air volume inside of a (hollow or semi) guitar.
Without the chambers, a solid 360 would be a larger version of a 620 or 660. Those sound pretty clean and clear, but certainly not "painfully bright" or "harsh". (I should note that this is somewhat subjective, depending upon the listener and the amplifier and its settings.)
"One of the main culprits in this equation is the pocket routed out behind the bridge on many Rickenbackers. Without this pocket, a 360 would be brighter and more cutting than it is already."
Again, subjective, but all things being equal, my comments on 620s and 660s stand.
Also note that the wood in a Rick with a "beaver tail" ramp (300 series in general) is left quite thick behind the bridge. Imagining the guitar resonating as a whole piece of hollowed-out timber, with strings stretched between tailpiece (which itself is anchored to the thick end-grain section mentioned above) and headstock, it would seem that a Rick would have better sustain than, say, a Gibson 335. In any case, it doesn't suffer.
"In my most recent scratch built guitar projects, I omitted the pocket behind the bridge to get a little more bite and sustain. It worked out great and the difference is obvious when compared to my Ric 360."
Well, here we really have apples and oranges. To really make this statement stick, you'd have to build a Rick 360 with a solid center block and compare it to a stocker. My prediction: very little difference would be noted. I think, Bob, that the difference you note in sustain would be due to a number of factors built into your scratchbuilt projects.
Better yet, build 3, of which one is absolutely solid, and note differences. Biggest difference would be between either semi and the solid "log".
No question that the "log" would have better sustain (is sustain a Holy Grail? Buy a Les Paul!), but it would also weigh about 13 pounds.
RE: The radiused top edges of a 360 have a thicker section than the sharper edge of a 330. This means a good deal more inside air volume in a 330, not to mention a larger free-vibrating top surface. And, without calculating, I'd estimate the difference in free top area to be about 25-30% (not inconsequential!) and of air volume inside to be 20-25%.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
I remember reading an article in a recording magazine in which a noted engineer talked about strategically placing a mic to pick up the unamplified sound of an electric guitar. He did this because guitarists would invariably complain that the recording of the amplified sound wasn't "right". He began to mix in the unamplified sound, and the complaints became much more infrequent.
I think we always hear (to some degree) the unamplified sound of our instruments and that the acoustics become part of our electric "sound". It's just a function of the player's proximity to the instrument. I suppose this changes somewhat in a live setting at super-high volume, but putting all physics aside, I'm of the view that the acoustic sound does enter into that overall, purely subjective "tone" equation. Whether the acoustics truly interact with the amplified sound is kind of superfluous in this context since you're almost always going to hear that unamplified portion as part of the overall sound.
Sorry if this all seems a little obvious or overly simplistic, but I rarely see it discussed by electric guitar players and, as the owner and player of many different kinds of hollowbodied guitars, I think it's an important first principle that's generally overlooked.
I think we always hear (to some degree) the unamplified sound of our instruments and that the acoustics become part of our electric "sound". It's just a function of the player's proximity to the instrument. I suppose this changes somewhat in a live setting at super-high volume, but putting all physics aside, I'm of the view that the acoustic sound does enter into that overall, purely subjective "tone" equation. Whether the acoustics truly interact with the amplified sound is kind of superfluous in this context since you're almost always going to hear that unamplified portion as part of the overall sound.
Sorry if this all seems a little obvious or overly simplistic, but I rarely see it discussed by electric guitar players and, as the owner and player of many different kinds of hollowbodied guitars, I think it's an important first principle that's generally overlooked.
I mostly lurk, but I have to comment on the technicalities of Pauls comment:
“If we're not getting any of the "acoustic" sound through the pickups, then acoustic feedback would never be a problem with hollow or semi-solid guitars. But the fact that it exists is fairly conclusive proof that pickups interact with the air volume inside of a (hollow or semi) guitar”
Feedback is a problem with hollow and semi hollow guitars due to the vibration relationship between the strings and the air volume, not the pick-ups and the air volume. The pick-ups can only pick up electromagnetic vibration, not acoustic pressure waves. (unless the pickups have gone microphonic with loose and vibrating pole pieces)
The strings both vibrate the air chamber and send the signal to the amp. The amplified sound waves then vibrate the air-chamber, which then vibrates the strings more setting up the feedback loop.
All this being said, the fact that the strings are affected by the size and shape of the vibrating air chamber does most definitely color the tone of any hollow or semi hollow guitar.
“If we're not getting any of the "acoustic" sound through the pickups, then acoustic feedback would never be a problem with hollow or semi-solid guitars. But the fact that it exists is fairly conclusive proof that pickups interact with the air volume inside of a (hollow or semi) guitar”
Feedback is a problem with hollow and semi hollow guitars due to the vibration relationship between the strings and the air volume, not the pick-ups and the air volume. The pick-ups can only pick up electromagnetic vibration, not acoustic pressure waves. (unless the pickups have gone microphonic with loose and vibrating pole pieces)
The strings both vibrate the air chamber and send the signal to the amp. The amplified sound waves then vibrate the air-chamber, which then vibrates the strings more setting up the feedback loop.
All this being said, the fact that the strings are affected by the size and shape of the vibrating air chamber does most definitely color the tone of any hollow or semi hollow guitar.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Thanks for setting me straight, Phil. The effect is the same, I emphasize, from reading your last paragraph.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
I've never owned a 330, but how bout this comparison: my 96 360/12v64 is much more acoustically alive than my 91 360/12 (and they both have RIC strings on em).
I remember reading a response to this question by John Hall, and he did say that there is a certain percentage more air space (I think it was somewhere in the 20% range) in the v64 due to the front edges not being rounded. This would also go for the 330 I'd say.
As far as the pups, tho, there is no competition whatsoever between toasters and hi-gains--for me it's toasters every time.
On a related note, I had the opportunity to play a 66 360/12, and not only was it THE most easy to play 12 I've ever played, but it was MUCH more acoustically live and electrically beautiful-sounding than ANY electric 12 I've ever had the good fortune to play. This difference I mostly attribute to 2 things: type & amount of varnish used, and the kind of mojo that only comes with age (I call it guitar wisdom). That was surely a wise old guitar! If it was for sale, I'd have taken out a 2nd on my house to buy it! (Don't tell my wife I said that.) That was the point at which I stopped being bothered by the prices that good vintage gear can bring.
I remember reading a response to this question by John Hall, and he did say that there is a certain percentage more air space (I think it was somewhere in the 20% range) in the v64 due to the front edges not being rounded. This would also go for the 330 I'd say.
As far as the pups, tho, there is no competition whatsoever between toasters and hi-gains--for me it's toasters every time.
On a related note, I had the opportunity to play a 66 360/12, and not only was it THE most easy to play 12 I've ever played, but it was MUCH more acoustically live and electrically beautiful-sounding than ANY electric 12 I've ever had the good fortune to play. This difference I mostly attribute to 2 things: type & amount of varnish used, and the kind of mojo that only comes with age (I call it guitar wisdom). That was surely a wise old guitar! If it was for sale, I'd have taken out a 2nd on my house to buy it! (Don't tell my wife I said that.) That was the point at which I stopped being bothered by the prices that good vintage gear can bring.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
96 360/12V64 FG
2010 660/12 FG
2 CB Hill Speedsters: Les Tele & Speedmaster
68 Danelectro/Coral Longhorn Baritone Sitar
Vox AC15, D-Lab AC4, various little tube amps
96 360/12V64 FG
2010 660/12 FG
2 CB Hill Speedsters: Les Tele & Speedmaster
68 Danelectro/Coral Longhorn Baritone Sitar
Vox AC15, D-Lab AC4, various little tube amps
-
tennis_nick
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:56 am
Here's another concept to throw out there to mix everything up. I own a CAsino, and a solid body SG. 2 completely different guitars. The Casino is MUCH MUCH acoustically, which should be expected! The kicker is, the SG transfers more vibration and feels more alive, so that when I'm tuning, I don't even need to be able to hear it. I can feel the vibrations of the 2 notes played slow down in occillation until they line up, all that I can feel on my stomach... CAn't do that with the Casino,. Thoughts?
The Raven wrote:Nevermore
-
beatlefreak
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 am
- Contact:
