Members cuffdc Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 I've got an acoustic that I plug in via one of those pickups you fit into the sound hole. Lately, I've been thinking about getting an acoustic/electric. I'd be interested in hearing what some more experienced users think about the difference in sound between those two methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crashclc Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 Tomayto/Tomahto. The built-in electronics are probably overall if you're playing for a crowd, but how often do you play your accoustic plugged in anyway? I almost never do, but one of the regulars in our garage band always shows up with his Takamine accoustic and plays through an amp. He's awesome. That's amazing in itself because the rest of us are playing solid body electrics and we play pretty loud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cuffdc Posted April 7, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 I don't plug in an acoustic much, but since I'm planning on a new acoustic, I'm thinking about my options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members garthman Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 Opinions differ. Some people prefer soundhole PUs, others under-saddle transducer type PUs that are likely to be fitted to an electroacoustic. They work by different principles. A soundhole PU is a magnetic PU that works by detecting and amplifying the fluctuations in a magnetic field caused by the vibrating string - same principle as an electric guitar and they tend to produce an electric guitar sort of sound. A UST contains piezzo crystals that produce an electric current when subject to vibration (caused by the strings and guitar body) which is then amplified. Piezzo PUs can also be of the "bug" type - in this case the transducer is contained in a small module that sticks onto the body of the guitar either internally or externally. Personally I prefer the piezzo UST - I believe it reproduces the acoustic sound more faithfully - bug type PU are OK but they can pick up knocks etc to the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Selsaral Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 I am no expert but here's my experience. I've never used a soundhole pickup, but the under-saddle pickups that you find on most acoustic/electric guitars sound terrible IMHO. However the new thing is to use an effects unit to take that very dry and stale sound and simulate an acoustic sound (like the Fishman Aura). In this case you don't get to amplify the actual acoustic sound of your guitar, but in an amplified situation this is already pretty tough. But you get great feedback control and a much improved sound. My Martin DC16 has the Fishman blender, it was new about 6 years ago. It has an under-saddle pickup (which sounds predictably terrible but has great feedback control) and an internal microphone (which sounds just fine but has bad feedback problems). It lets you blend the two sources to try and get the best sound with feedback control depending on your situation. In a loud rock band, I find it very hard to use any of the microphone source. A lot of people hate having a hole cut out of the side of their guitar to mount electronics. It's very convenient to have it there however, with all of the controls right in front of you. A lot of people like belt-clip pre-amp units, or stomp boxes (like the Fishman Aura). It's certainly convenient to be able to plug directly into the bottom strap pin on your acoustic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BuckJohnson Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 First of all, I prefer to play plugged in. Using an amp gives me the necessary horsepower to play lightly and to use muting, plucking, and other, sometimes subtle, techniques. I don't strum straight up very often. I'm currently using an LR Baggs Active Element in my main guitar. My other (older) guitars have on-board Fishman units with equalization. The Baggs has a pre-amp and a sound hole volume wheel. It's rather non evasive with no major modifications done to the guitar. While the controls on the Baggs are minimal, I'm finding this is all I need. I'm completely happy with my current tone. It took me years to finally find it! I think the fact that the Baggs is in a fine Martin has a lot to do with it...amazing how that works. http://www.lrbaggs.com/html/products/systems_element.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted April 7, 2009 Members Share Posted April 7, 2009 I've never found a "ready-made" a/e that sounds as good as the p/u rigs I install in my acoustics...but, I'm kinda particular. And I prefer using the controls in my Baggs PADI over having holes cut in my acoustic instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pine Apple Slim Posted April 8, 2009 Members Share Posted April 8, 2009 They are expensive, but I really like the Taylor T5s.As good of a plugged in acoustic sound as you can expect from anything IMO.Plus you get some very cool electric sounds as well.Dual outputs so you can mix the two.Plus they look good and play great.I'd own one if I was rich, or had to cover it all in a loud stage band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guildfire Posted April 8, 2009 Members Share Posted April 8, 2009 I recommend Taks for A/E. They pretty much are the leaders in preamps with their cool tube preamps and others that are interchangeable. They sound great to for live work and band situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeepEnd Posted April 8, 2009 Members Share Posted April 8, 2009 Bear in mind that not all soundhole pickups are created equal. You may find that you can achieve what you want by upgrading your pickup without buying a new guitar. The Baggs M-1 has a lot of fans. Be prepared to spend some cash (about $170.00 for the active version) but less than you'd probably spend trading in your existing guitar. If you're buying a new guitar anyway, I'd recommend a straight acoustic with an aftermarket pickup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jlindquist Posted April 10, 2009 Members Share Posted April 10, 2009 While this is obviously a matter of personal preference and taste, I disagree with the notion that all USTs sound "terrible." I use both the Baggs Element (in a Gibson Songwriter) and the Highlander iP-2 (in a Taylor 355 12 string) through a Baggs PADI pre-amp. IMO, with a bit of tweaking on the PADI, they both sound pretty damn good. The iP-2 (which had been installed in the Taylor by the prior owner) has a jack for a mini condenser mic, which allows a blend between the mic and the UST. However, the shop where I purchased the guitar (a very reputable place) advised me to experiment with just the UST before spending the $ on a mic. Good advice, as, so far, I have been very happy with the performance of the UST. I would still like to try the blend at some point (and, sorry for the thread veer, but does anyone here use the iP-2 with the mic?) Although it is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison because of the significant differences in the instruments, the Highlander sounds slightly more "natural" to my ear. But both are very solid. Bottom line: every method of amplifying an acoustic guitar has its advantages and disadvantages. Do your homework (and this is a very good place to start) and decide what works for you. But, IMO, for many applications, one of the better UST systems will be the right tool, and will yield good-to-excellent (albeit never perfect) results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.