Talk:Acoustic guitar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Changed to redirect

I started working on this entry through the WP:DPL and realized that 90% of the links referred to the steel string acoustic guitar. So i copied the page in Acoustic guitar (disambiguation) and added this redirect Anyep 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

a combination of acoustic and electric...

Not true. Some archtop guitars work both as acoustic and electric instruments, but others have no pickups at all, and are purely acoustic.

Whether semi-acoustic instruments that are quite unplayable as acoustic instruments should be called arch top at all is a bit controversial. The arch top as originally designed was a very successful acoustic instrument. Andrewa 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting back to status quo ante (as of April 2007)

I've reverted the article again back to its status quo ante of April 2007. I'm pretty sure that the recent unilateral creation of an article here is wrong; there's certainly no discussion here of such a change. The last discussion here supported the expansion of this article as a list of acoustic guitar types only. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no previous discussion here. Secondly, I don't get what point you are trying to make. Articles are always preferable to lists. Wikipedia style guides strongly and explicitly discourage lists in articles. I can't understand why you won't let a page titled acoustic guitar contain an actual article on acoustic guitar, rather than a list of the various types of acoustic guitars. I believe I gave a completely correct description of what acoustic guitar means and how it produces its sound. Please explain your rationale before reverting. Also, note that what you are referring to as the status quo as of April 2007 is not so. For a whole month, this page was a redirect to Steel-string acoustic guitar. That was the status quo, not your version. Please check your facts. Loom91 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, your article (I'm calling it yours, as it appears to have been written completely by you) is technically incorrect. For instance, you imply that the sound-amplification mechanism of an acoustic guitar is the sound hole, when in fact it is the soundboard (top) that increases the area of the vibrating surface, allowing the sound to be heard. So even if we were to keep this article, it would need major work.
The subjecs here are well-covered in the "child" articles linked to by this page. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.
I'd like to get the opinion of other editors here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if you think its technically incorrect then that can be discussed. But if material about acoustic guitars is covered in the child articles but not in the parent article, that's major cause for concern. This is not about reinventing the wheel, this is about putting things in their proper places. Loom91
The way you have written the article, it seems the sound is entirely produced by the soundboard. If this was true, acoustic guitars would have solid bodies like electric guitars. The sound cavity does play its part, both in amplification and controlling the quality of the sound. Do you oppose this? Loom91 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You, on the other hand, seem oddly fixated on the sound hole, as if it has some magical properties that amplify the instrument's sound. It does not; it's just a hole. It does have some function in determining the quality of the sound, but the work of "amplification" is all done by the soundboard. (Regarding that, the article on the steel-string guitar, I think, points out that the sound board doesn't really amplify anything; it merely transfers the string's vibration to a larger surface area, allowing it to create a larger sound wave.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The article on Classical guitar says the following: "The body of a classical guitar is a resonating chamber which projects the vibrations of the body through a sound hole, allowing the acoustic guitar to be heard without amplification." and "The main purpose of the bridge on a classical guitar is to transfer the vibration from the strings to the soundboard, which vibrates the air inside of the guitar, thereby amplifying the sound produced by the strings." The same thing is said by Guitar.
In Sound box, it says "A sound box or sounding box, (sometimes written soundbox), is an open chamber in the body of a musical instrument which strengthens the resonance of the instrument's tone by amplifying its vibrations.
A sound box is found in most string instruments. The most notable exceptions are some electrically amplified instruments like the solid body electric guitar, and the piano which uses a sound board instead."
Notice that it says except the piano, which uses a sound board instead. This implies that the guitar depends on the sound box, unlike the piano. Try turning off the magnetic pickups on a solid body electric guitar and see how much sound you can here. The sound-hole does play a role in amplification, otherwise luthiers wouldn't put it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loom91 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 September 2007
Please stop reverting! I've shown that other Wikipedia articles do not agree with your POV, after which you have stopped responding. You are now trying to conduct a revert war. Please stop unless you can justify your actions. Loom91 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of sound box

The dispute is over whether the sound cavity inside an acoustic guitar, called the sound box, plays any role in the sound production of the guitar. For detailed arguments see the previous section. Loom91 10:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but I think there are four types of sound coming from a guitar: 1) the strings. It isn't much, but it's worth noting. The vibrating strings vibrate the soundboard which provides part of the sound. The soundboard vibrates the air in the chamber, some of which is heard through the hole, and some of which is heard through the air vibrating the soundboard, again (like an echo). [1] has a partial explanation, but a soundboard without an acoustic body would create sound, too. Electric guitars are too dense to do this, though. Banjos are close to this, but the acoustic body adds to the sound. 171.71.37.29 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's worth noting here that Torres once made a guitar with a standard wood top, but with back and sides made out of cardboard to prove that the rest of the body has very little to do with tone production. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That would only seem to prove that the sound box doesn't need to be made out of wood, not that it doesn't have to be there. Nailedtooth 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, the material and shape of the soundbox has alot to do with the TONE of the sound, not necessarily the actual production of it.
After all, an electric guitar doesn't have a soundbox, and you can still play it acoustically, even though it won't sound that great. Cobratom 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, a solid-body guitar has a lower volume than a comparable hollow-body guitar. Secondly, something can not affect the tone of a sound unless it is also taking part in production of that sound. Loom91 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No one was asking about volume, the question is sound production. Can you or can you not produce sound on a solid body guitar (no sound box)? You can. And you most certainly can affect the tone of a sound without affecting the production. Tone can be an after affect of production, as many things (ie air, medium, broadcasting equipment) can affect the tone after the sound has already been produced.Cobratom 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right from the beginning the question has been about the volume. The dispute was over whether the sound box participates in amplification. And something that affects the quality of sound is necessarily re-producing the sound. Quality refers to the relative amplitudes of the various harmonics, changing them meanscreating a completely new wave train. Loom91 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a luthier, but I have been playing guitars and mandolins for almost 30 years. BTW, my acoustic guitar is a 1942 Gibson L-50 archtop, so it neither has a soundhole, nor does it omit the soundhole: it has f-holes. So that is one area where both versions could use more encyclopedic wording.
As for the dispute about sound board and sound box.... in the absence of a reliable source that cites an example of an acoustic guitar that does not have a sound box, I think we can safely include the sound box as an integral part of the construction of an acoustic guitar.
The question of whether it contributes to the amplification of the sound or simply the timbre - although the answer to that question to me seems obvious, I am not a reliable source. It seems that the best way to resolve the conflict would be for those editors involved to find reliable sources that cited their respective viewpoints and then both could be included in the article. Although it seems to me a minor quibble that does not even really deserve mention. Dlabtot 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I included that bit about some guitars not having sound holes to accomodate f-holes. On an unrelated note, do round-holes sound better than f-holes? Loom91 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you all are missing the fundamental key that the string vibration creates the frequency of the sound of the guitar. The rest of the bits just join in on the chorus to let you hear it loudly. It is the sound cavity vibrating in symphony that makes it loud. Why else does a big guitar have more volume than a small one? 199.125.109.134 08:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point here; the reason a bigger guitar is louder is that it has a larger soundboard, not a larger sound cavity. The cavity doesn't amplify the sound of the string; the soundboard does. That's been the whole point of this discussion all along.
By the way, I'd just like to point out that we still have not had one single expert contributing to this discussion. Mostly just a lot of uninformed speculation. Oh, well. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree that your assertion here is accurate. If you compared two guitars with similarly sized soundboards, and different sized boxes, I think you'll come to a different conclusion. But that's neither here nor there, as this is not a debate about that question, but a discussion about how to improve the article. What do you think about the suggestion I gave above? Those editors involved to find reliable sources that cited their respective viewpoints and then both could be included in the article. Do you think that might be a good way to resolve the conflict? Dlabtot 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be an improvement, yes; but it would be nice if someone who actually knows something about acoustics, instrument construction, etc., could add their 10 cents here (adj. for inflation). You know, this isn't really all that complicated: it's neither rocket science nor voodoo. The mechanics of sound production are pretty well understood, thanks to the likes of Helmholtz, et al. What's needed is for someone to strip away all the pseudo-science, mumbo-jumbo and urban legend from this issue, something that, unfortunately, I'm not qualified to do either. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Citing reliable sources is the way to resolve most factual disputes (unless you are working in a Mathematics article, where the rules are different). However, while the internet and the bookstore contains a multitude of sources on how to play a guitar, there are very few on how to make a guitar or how a guitar actually works. Since you have been associated with the world of guitar for a long time, perhaps you know some luthiers? Loom91 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Whoah pardners, as a guitar player of 20 years who has played electric, acoustic, round hole, f-hole, plastic backed, carbon fibre and steel guitars, and as a wood worker who has studied the construction of the guitar extensively I'd like to say that you are ALL right to a degree. It ISN'T rocket science, it's a bit MORE complicated than that! That is why there are so many different shapes and styles of guitar being made.

the sound is initiated (started if you like) with the vibration of the strings. The composition, weight and tension of the strings all have varying degrees of impact on the volume, timbre (harmonic balance) and tone (frequency) of the sound.
the next most important thing is the way the bridge is constructed (how the strings "talk" to the body). The mass and the harmonic qualities of the bridge play a fundamental, but much under-rated role in both the volume and timbre of the sound.
the key role of the soundboard is amplification. But it's not that simple. Luthiers devote their whole lives to playing with the combination of bracing, weight, tone, of the soundboard, it's relation to the hole(s) and the acoustic shape of the sound box. The simplest way of maximising the volume of an acoustic guitar is to make the soundboard as light as possible. Less mass means the strings can move it more (less inertia, more vibration). But the size, shape and position of the sound hole have implications for harmonic reinforcement or cancelling, as does the size, shape, mass and "brightness" of the soundbox. (just try playing one of those plastic backs, and you will see what I mean). And this stuff is not well understood yet, like lots of multi-factorial systems.

So, in short, you are all right. But there is no simple answer here. There is a whole mess of factors that reinforce some tendencies and cancel others. That's why there are so many different styles of guitar about, and why luthiers become reknowned for their skills in balancing all those competing forces! Shutup and play nice, or I'll have to send the drummer in to sort you out!(and he doesn't like pretty boy guitar prima donnas, but he is real good at hitting things!)MarkAnthonyBoyle 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be of some use: [[2]] MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're still overcomplicating this. Let me lay my case out a little more carefully.
There are two general aspects to sound production as it applies to stringed musical instruments:
1. Sound production and the volume of sound produced
2. The timbre of sound produced and the instrument's tone color
For the sake of this discussion, I'm dealing with the first. I agree with you timbre and tone color is a highly complex and as-yet poorly understood matter. However, the aspect of sheer volume of sound production is not.
The sound is produced by the following sequence:
  1. The player plucks or bows the string. This is the only energy input to the system. No more energy comes from any other source.
  2. The string, through the bridge (guitar) or the bridge and sound post (violin, viola, bass), transfers its vibration to the top (and in a violin or viola, the back).
  3. The top, acting as a diaphragm, produces sound waves in the air. It is these sound waves that reach our ears. Therefore, it is the soundboard that is the single most important part in producing an adequate volume of sound. The body cavity and sound hole do not produce sound.
For the sake of simply discussing the volume of sound produced, the body cavity and sound hole have only small roles to play. And keep in mind that there can be no "amplification" produced by the body cavity or sound hole; all the energy comes from the player's excitation of the string.
Again, when it comes to the factors that determine the instrment's timbre and tone color, then yes, the body cavity and sound hole have significant roles to play.
So, does this help? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You keep making assertions, but you've yet to produce a WP:reliable source to cite. And the pretty authoritative sources that MarkAnthonyBoyle has produced don't seem to agree with you. Your insistence that it's 'all about the top' seems to be pretty far from the consensus view. At least from where I'm standing. I repeat my suggestion: find a WP:reliable source that shares the viewpoint you are pushing, and cite it in the article. Dlabtot 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's all about the top so far as raw sound production (quantity of sound) is concerned. The sound cavity and sound hole are major players in determining the instrument's quality of sound. Just wanted to clarify that; these two things are getting confused in the discussions here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
So you've said, more times than are worth counting. Based on everything I've read, you seem to be wrong, a minority of one in your assertions. This source, in particular, seems to contradict you. But the point is, it doesn't even matter whether or not you're right. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So if you just find one reliable source that says something similar to what you've repeated ad nauseum and add it to the article, no one will be able to justifiably challenge it. Dlabtot 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnon Yes I think that technically you have a point. I made an edit and a note below on the amplification issue. As you can see I think the word amplify might be a little misleading. If you can think of a better word then that's good. The process is analogous to magnify, I think, but we tend to say amplify when we talk in ordinary speech for something that increases the sound. Technically an amplifier in the electrical sense adds energy, whereas here, as you rightly say, the energy source is the excitation (mechanical plucking or bowing)of the string. 2 In a purely technical sense the sound board is the main factor too. But both of these university studies point to the role of the sound box as being important in the creation of sound, not just timbre. I quote:

'Coupling' simply refers to an interaction between two or more vibrating elements. First of all, on a guitar, the string is excited (plucked or picked) by your fingers, vibrating the bridge, which then goes on to vibrate the soundboard and the internal air cavity, then the back and sides and so on. If these these elements interact well, the whole system is said to be strongly coupled. The body of the guitar acts so that the high pressure vibrations at the bridge are turned into low pressure vibrations of the surrounding air. This is a form of "impedance matching", in much the same way an electrical transformer raises or lowers a potential difference and is the main principle behind speaker cone design. The higher frequency (pitch) sounds are produced by string interaction with the bridge and then the sound board, whereas the lower frequencies are essentially driven by the internal air cavity/sound hole and ribs/back coupling effects:

[[3]]

So you can see here that while you are 100% correct about the high frequencies, the bass response is driven by the sound hole. This, of course, is why a guitar has a different sound to violin or cello. It's not just timbre. You can hear this plainly if you play a Gibson semi-acoustic, which is an arch top, f hole guitar. They are very quiet by comparison to a 'normal' guitar, particularly in the bottom end: they sound tinny, unless of course you plug the buggers in, and that of course is a different story. That's what I meant when I said you were both right. You are both right, but it is a combination of the sound board and the sound box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "magnify" is better than "amplify" here. Can't think of another better word just now, but the point you brought up should be made in the article, that once the string is "excited" by the player, no additional energy enters the system. (Perhaps it could be stated that the guitar is a "passive", as opposed to active, system.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my 42 archtop, is not a 'semi-acoustic', but an acoustic guitar and it is quite loud - at the bottom end it is very loud and nothing like 'tinny'. But it has a very large soundbox - probably quite larger than the soundbox on the hollow body electric guitar you are talking about. Dlabtot 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a rather nice instrument! But we can be scientific about this. Here's an experiment to test the hypothesis that the sound hole in a flat top guitar has a role to play in the production of sound volume. I did this last night.

Experiment: Lay the guitar on its back. Get an old CD and slide it over the sound hole. This will block any sound generated at or coming from the sound hole. Pluck a string and move the CD over the hole and away from the hole. See if you can hear any difference in the bass response.
Result: In my test my guitar is currently tuned to an open tuning (high to low DCGCGD). I noticed a significant reduction in the volume of sound for the low C and G strings, not so much for the other strings.
Conclusion: This result supports the hypothesis that the sound box on my guitar is resonating certain low frequencies and that this increase in sound is returned to the listener by the sound hole.

I'd be interested to know whether any body else can confirm this result. Cheers MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, any experiment is original research and should only be used to guide us towards verifiable sources for the article. fyi, here's what a 42 Gibson L-50 looks like Dlabtot 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, just suggesting it to test whether what these guys say is true or not. BTW nice guitar. I wonder what role the f holes play in sound production? (and you are right, it looks somewhat bigger than the one I was referring to)MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Acoustical Guitars

Take a look at Animusic.com and listen to the Digital sound from this Acoustical instrument (?)...Jesmitsr 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Digital sound from which instrument? Can you provide a direct link? (By the way, it's "acoustic", not acoustical.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting too: [[4]] MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] amplification

I wonder whether the word amplify is a little misleading? An amplifier in the electrical sense requires energy to added to the system. The only energy in an acoustic guitar is the enrgy supplied by the action of plucking the strings. I wonder whether another term, say "magnify" might be better? MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The String_instrument#Sound_production page seems to get it right. Perhaps a wording similar to that should be adopted. Dlabtot 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, have a go at it, see what you come up with!! MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The guitar family

This article is now in a respectable state. I think it's time we brought some order to the entire family of guitar articles. We should make sure the articles reflect the hierchy


                                     String instrument
                                            |
                                          Guitar
                                           /  \
                                          /    \
                                         /      \
                                   Acoustic     electric
                                       | \       \
                                       |  \       \
                                       |   \       \
                                       |    \       \
                                       |     \       \
                                       |      \       \
                                       |       \      |
                                       |        \     |
                                       |         \    |
                  classical, steel string etc     slide

According to Wikipedia guidelines, in such a hierchy the articles should treat their subjects in increasing level of specialization. Currently there is a lot of overlap and repetetion. Loom91 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is hierarchy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the latest edit reads very well and the amplify situation has been dealt with nicely. I did like the ref to inertial mass, but it probably was a bit OTT!!MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh ooh ooh, If you are going to branch off to different types of guitar from here do you think it might be a good idea to briefly talk about nylon and steel strings here (just a little explanatory note)?MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion, merge with classical guitar ?

These articles have severe overlaps... Should they not be merged? - 79.186.14.206 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)