360-12 CW vs. 360-12c63: more resonance?

melvinsrule · Post by **melvinsrule** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:59 pm

Which is more resonant acoustic? I have my sights on one or the other. The CW thinner top, or the braced c63?
I have a Petty, but want a ringing 12er as well.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:17 pm

8mileshigher · Post by **8mileshigher** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:29 pm

melvinsrule wrote:Which is more resonant acoustic?

Maybe you should try one of the Paul W. built 12 string Ric acoustics, on display at a Confluence near you !

Danotron · Post by **Danotron** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:12 pm

I'm not an expert on this but I would think the thinner top of the CW would give it better acoustic resonance.

kiramdear · Post by **kiramdear** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:47 am

I have to tell this anecdote. When I got my Carl Wilson home I tuned it up, plugged in and began to play. It sounded so good that I fully didn't realise for some minutes that I hadn't turned on the amp.

True story.

collin · Post by **collin** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:28 am

Danotron wrote:I'm not an expert on this but I would think the thinner top of the CW would give it better acoustic resonance.

+1

If I recall, Carl Wilson models are both cross-braced and feature a thin top (correct, anybody?) so would resonate more.

wmthor · Post by **wmthor** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:03 am

kiramdear wrote:I have to tell this anecdote. When I got my Carl Wilson home I tuned it up, plugged in and began to play. It sounded so good that I fully didn't realise for some minutes that I hadn't turned on the amp. True story.

Been there, done that.

Actually, I normally take a guitar with me on my business trips. On this one trip a few years back, I put the 360/12CW in the car, but forgot my little travel amp (a Fender Champion 600). Spent the entire week playing the CW without an amp.

JakeK · Post by **JakeK** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:01 pm

At SCARF, Steve F will have his C63 and Kira plans to have her CW...I'm probably going to compare both...correction, I will compare both (with their permission).

By the way, Collin, I'm not sure if the CW is cross-braced, but I know the C63 is. The C63 has a thin top, but nowhere near as thin as the CW.

stringsncords · Post by **stringsncords** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:40 pm

I have both - the CW wins.

melvinsrule · Post by **melvinsrule** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:13 pm

stringsncords wrote:I have both - the CW wins.

John Hall replied to my query on the corporate site:
The CW is definitely more acoustic but at the expense of that great insistent sound that you love to hear from a 12-stringer. Only beef and stiffness will give you that. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Would anyone else notice a dropoff in sound of the CW compared to the c63? I'm leaning towards the c63 now.

************************************************************************************************************************************

8mileshigher wrote:
melvinsrule wrote:Which is more resonant acoustic?
Maybe you should try one of the Paul W. built 12 string Ric acoustics, on display at a Confluence near you !

I'd certainly like to....

stsang · Post by **stsang** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:40 pm

melvinsrule wrote:
stringsncords wrote:I have both - the CW wins.
John Hall replied to my query on the corporate site:
The CW is definitely more acoustic but at the expense of that great insistent sound that you love to hear from a 12-stringer. Only beef and stiffness will give you that. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Would anyone else notice a dropoff in sound of the CW compared to the c63? I'm leaning towards the c63 now.

Thanks for sharing with us John Hall's comment about the tradeoff in sound with the CW. It's always interesting to hear from the main Rick boss. I imagine I know what he means about "great insistent sound".

sys700 · Post by **sys700** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:56 am

"The CW is definitely more acoustic but at the expense of that great insistent sound that you love to hear from a 12-stringer. Only beef and stiffness will give you that. There's no such thing as a free lunch."

This is a great quote and I can attest to this. I owned two 60's x-braced 12-stringers from the same year and the thicker top guitar had more sustain and produced the classic Rickenbacker sound (hard to describe, but better harmonics, longer sustain, more percussive crunch - perhaps that's what John Hall means by "insistent"). The thin-top guitar (about half as thin) had more feedback and didn't have that classic Rickenbacker sound I was after. On the other hand, a 70's x-braced 12-stringer I owned seemed to be too thick but maybe it had to do with the hi-gain pickups on it. I really think the only way to be sure is to actually play the guitar you are considering purchasing because the top thickness varies from guitar to guitar.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum