Why wouldn't louder be "better"?

[d03nut]

So listen, I'm going to "blanket statement" it somewhat here: louder equal better, tone-wise on the electric "side". Sure there are 5- and 10-watters, hand-wired and all that sound out-of-this-world. But still even with those you'd want to crank 'em as much as you can.

 

Then you've got these modeling devices that are just getting better and better and which in at least one very specific case

[JasmineTea]

I agree. Louder is better. Just because, though. No particular reason.

 

Actualy, balance is the ticket, IMO. Subjective, of course.

 

How's the weather?

[Hudman]

Why not loud AND balanced?

 

You ever listen to loud, drunken singers on karaoke night?

[guitarist21]

When I was in the acoustic guitar market not too long ago, loud was high on my list of priorities. Which is part of why I ended up with an Epiphone Masterbilt- it is LOUD. I totally think that louder is better in many cases with acoustics. The more I can avoid plugging in, the better.

 

Ellen

[Oldskool Texas]

My Martin OOO is a little cannon, so much so that it sometimes drowns out the guy I play with on his nylon string. My Guild dreadnaught is much quieter and blends better with the other guitar and with our voices.

[Stackabones]

Y'all got nothing on my Gitane D-500. It's a dread-killer, reso-killer and a banjo-killer. I've sat in a room full of guitars strumming away and heads turn when I hit a chord on the Gitane.

 

People often say, "That is the loudest guitar I've ever heard." Old men don't need hearing aids; young men get their first case of tinnitus.

[totamus]

Loud does equal better, but I think its all a case of "headroom". An amp turned loud has more of a difference between the loudest note and the softest note (headroom). I think that harmonics tend to be "in the noise" when an amp is not loud, or when an acoustic doesn't project well.

 

So, it isn't the volume that makes it sound better, its those subtones and harmonics normally too quiet to be fully appreciated. Our hearing is logarithmic, meaning that as volume increases, our hearing compensates and knocks down the higher levels (it takes a 10x increase in power for use to perceive a 2x increase in volume, which is why a 50 watt amp sounds not terribly different than a 200 watt amp). The result is that a loud instrument, or amp played at loud volumes, tends make us perceive that the lower volume tones are raised in relation to the higher volume tones.

 

Sort of a natural compression.

[iago]

No. The difference is that electric guitar tube amps actually change tone as the volume is turned up. Acoustics just get louder without really changing tone.

[MattSkibaIsGOD]

I think loud is good, but not too loud to sing over effectively.

[drnihili]

Loud is only better if you've played so loud for so long that you've ruined your ears.

 

Loud sometimes seems better, because the subtle nuances are more noticeable at louder volumes, provided that the don't get distorted or drowned out. It takes really good electronics to do that.

[guitarcapo]

there are a lot of qualities that make a good acoustic. Volume is just one of them.

 

Projection, cutting power, sustain, tone, balance, separation and the subjective stuff are some others.

 

Often a guitar that excels in one of these might suck in another. High marks all around and you've got a keeper.

[d03nut]

this is as much "consensus" sa I'm giing to get

 

j.....so I'll take iot...

 

PUI bey9nd beleicf,,,,,

[Charlies Ghost]

You didn't fill out my mad lib.Now I'm gonna have to guess.:freak:I bet you thought about it though.Ahh.No bother.I still like my honey.

 

For your question.One was built to be loud and dynamic and one was built to be more balanced and consistent.An electified acoutic isn't an acoustified electric.Is there even a thing such as a acoustified electric.Where is the point when an acoustic turns into an electric.Or vice versa.Damn.Did i just turn into d03nut during this post for a moment.Hmmm...maybe.Wow,a d03nut ghost.I guess theres is a little d03nut in me too.

 

If I'm sitting around a campfire with my buddies an acoustic would be what i'd bring.You can bring a modeler if you want but you get to carry it.Some experienced campers will tell you a little thing like that will get mighty heavey goin' down the trail and your better off just not even taking it at all.I say {censored} that.Its in your bag and if you want it,well,then let it be your choice and not theirs.I mean whats the worst that can happen,you end up leaving it somewhere while your walkin along.Just try not to pick up everything that other campers tossed out no matter how cool you think it looks.They left it for their own reasons.

 

[JasmineTea]

The 9 is silent.

[Queequeg]

 

there are a lot of qualities that make a good acoustic. Volume is just one of them. Projection, cutting power, sustain, tone, balance, separation and the subjective stuff are some others. Often a guitar that excels in one of these might suck in another. High marks all around and you've got a keeper.

 

agreed. I think it was Terry A Hall who pointed out some time ago that you can build an instrument to transfer energy in a couple of different ways. How that energy manifests itself is subject to the materials and bracing and all the laws of physics.

So, you can get sustain or you can get volume, or some combination of the two. They each require the expenditure of energy.

Thus, I suppose that you have to believe that volume is *better* than sustain to accept the initial posit.

with apologies to Terry, who hopefully will forgive me paraphrasing him and also will straighten me out on what he really said and meant.

[Simon76]

For me it's not about volume, it's dynamic response headroom.

Just because something can be played loud doesn't mean you have too.

 

If you lined up a series of amps all playing the same music at the same volume, 10w, 25w, 35w, 50w, 65w, 80w, 100w, 150w and a 200w amp each will sound better than the previous one because of increases in dynamic response headroom.

 

For me, I don't really hear much difference in sound quality between amps under 50w. But, once you get up to and over 100w per channel then you get a whole different quality of sound that I can hear and appreciate even at low volume levels. Above about 125w you get into diminishing returns and it takes significant money to achieve minimal increases in sound quality.

 

Acoustic guitars are very similar. The louder it can be played the better it will sound at lower volumes because of it's dynamic response headroom.

 

 

Of course there are tons of variables, and what ifs

and your mileage probably will vary.

[d03nut]

 

How's the weather?

 

 

 

How's the "weather" with you? Don't see you 'round as often. Still the computer thing or just going thru a "mid-forum" crisis?

[Freeman Keller]

Loud and louder

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

agreed. I think it was Terry A Hall who pointed out some time ago that you can build an instrument to transfer energy in a couple of different ways. How that energy manifests itself is subject to the materials and bracing and all the laws of physics. So, you can get sustain or you can get volume, or some combination of the two. They each require the expenditure of energy. Thus, I suppose that you have to believe that volume is *better* than sustain to accept the initial posit. with apologies to Terry, who hopefully will forgive me paraphrasing him and also will straighten me out on what he really said and meant.

 

Actually, you summed that up just fine!

[EvilTwin]

 

Y'all got nothing on my Gitane D-500. It's a dread-killer, reso-killer and a banjo-killer. I've sat in a room full of guitars strumming away and heads turn when I hit a chord on the Gitane. People often say, "That is the loudest guitar I've ever heard." Old men don't need hearing aids; young men get their first case of tinnitus.

 

 

+1

 

I have a Cordoba "Gitano" gypsy jazz box, and it can literally be as loud as your typical electric guitar practice amp without much effort.

 

That said, gypsy jazz boxes are perfect examples of why "louder" doesn't always equal "better tone."

 

To make these guitars so loud, Mario Maccaferri had to make a real mongrel of an instrument, construction-wise -- borrowing liberally from flat tops, archtops, classicals and even mandolins.

The result is a VERY loud acoustic that cuts across a room.

 

The cost of that loudness? Very stringent bass, and a more "nasally" midrange.

 

Yes, the guitar will cut above just about anything with strings in a jam session.

But if you were to have a "blind listening test" on a busy street with a recording of a dreadnought alone and a Sel/Mac alone, I'd wager more people would like the tone of the dread.

[Samilyn]

In my case, louder is indeed better because I'm severely hearing impaired.

 

However, once I can actually hear a git, I want it to sound rich and warm, to have a great deal of depth. Sheer volume alone is no good for me.