I had one in my late 20's, that had the oak box. I replaced the original mica diaphragm with a plastic one from the top of a Pringles can, for more "compliance". It worked as a "mod" to make it "sound better"; less honky.
Got it at a yard sale in Littleton, MA, long gone from my life today. I think I lost interest after I accidentally stepped on my Tommy Dorsey and his Clambake Seven disc, though none of the 21 selections I see on-line ring a bell for song titles.
It, and the few discs I had to play on it were a fun time back then - I even took it to a DEC audio meetup. I wonder how it would sound if you took two players, two of the same discs and flanged them for a phony stereo effect? I bet someone did it...
Funny, our C-250 playing speed limits were way off, they were supposed to be adjusted so the end stop was around 80 RPM, but I realized about 40 years later we had been playing records way faster than that.
Recordings of adult singers sounded about the pitch we kids could sing!
You'd have to be a really good mechanic and DJ to get two of those machines to sync up, spring drive, governor friction pad control..
With no electronics, the trade off between record surface noise and actual high frequency is pretty critical, no doubt the plastic top from a Pringles can would cut the top end and upper mid "honk".
From what I gather, in later iterations, the mica diaphragms were replaced with copper.
With the advances in diaphragm materials and surrounds, probably room for improvement!
Same could be said for a horn loaded diaphragm in a resonator guitar- the spun aluminum used for a large cone would not be the ideal choice for a small cone.
Over 100 years ago Stroh made acoustic horn violins and violas:
With modern diaphragms and materials using both folded and straight horns, a non-electric "Folded Horn Acoustic Guitar" could be made that could compete in volume to Joe's electric FHAG and weigh less in a similar sized instrument.
That said, finding a commercial interest for either seems like a tough row to hoe.
Art
Recordings of adult singers sounded about the pitch we kids could sing!
You'd have to be a really good mechanic and DJ to get two of those machines to sync up, spring drive, governor friction pad control..
With no electronics, the trade off between record surface noise and actual high frequency is pretty critical, no doubt the plastic top from a Pringles can would cut the top end and upper mid "honk".
From what I gather, in later iterations, the mica diaphragms were replaced with copper.
With the advances in diaphragm materials and surrounds, probably room for improvement!
Same could be said for a horn loaded diaphragm in a resonator guitar- the spun aluminum used for a large cone would not be the ideal choice for a small cone.
Over 100 years ago Stroh made acoustic horn violins and violas:
With modern diaphragms and materials using both folded and straight horns, a non-electric "Folded Horn Acoustic Guitar" could be made that could compete in volume to Joe's electric FHAG and weigh less in a similar sized instrument.
That said, finding a commercial interest for either seems like a tough row to hoe.
Art
You guys are crazy! Yes I remember the Stroh instruments, some of the first that I found, maybe they did not sell due to the crazy look? And you thought my screws were fugly! 🤣
Art - keep in mind I have two Patents for this guitar (and a third for the floating soundboard guitar, different animal). Improvements were made on the second Patent. Do I have some regrets from the first one, sure, but it is still valid. The legal claims are by far the most important, and for instance, the AA batteries are not mentioned there. You will see the second patent is much broader, and covers much more.
As I said before, Patents are tricky, too broad and somebody takes something out to make it different. Not enough info, somebody adds more to make it different. If a big company wants to copy your idea, they can do whatever they damn please and say sue me, then the ball is in my court. I am aware, and always have been, of the power and limitations of Patents.
If I make some money here great, if I don't, that's life. This has been one of the most interesting projects I have ever worked on, and it has brought me much joy, for that I am grateful. Not to mention I love playing my guitar!
Art - keep in mind I have two Patents for this guitar (and a third for the floating soundboard guitar, different animal). Improvements were made on the second Patent. Do I have some regrets from the first one, sure, but it is still valid. The legal claims are by far the most important, and for instance, the AA batteries are not mentioned there. You will see the second patent is much broader, and covers much more.
As I said before, Patents are tricky, too broad and somebody takes something out to make it different. Not enough info, somebody adds more to make it different. If a big company wants to copy your idea, they can do whatever they damn please and say sue me, then the ball is in my court. I am aware, and always have been, of the power and limitations of Patents.
If I make some money here great, if I don't, that's life. This has been one of the most interesting projects I have ever worked on, and it has brought me much joy, for that I am grateful. Not to mention I love playing my guitar!
Also, is that a string section or a horn section, WTF? It looks like something from a Dr. Seuss book, but I still like it.
The Sony C-250, how was the tone? Distorted at that crazy level? Like this also! Pringles?! 🤣
The Sony C-250, how was the tone? Distorted at that crazy level? Like this also! Pringles?! 🤣
So Art, I think our data lines up pretty well, not perfect. My data gets stronger above 10k, which I do not trust, not sure what is happening there. I think yours is more accurate overall.
My harmonics do drop off as expected, but not as much as a standard acoustic guitar, which I find encouraging, and I can hear the brilliant but not tinny tone.
I like it when Casey is playing from 4:05-5:23, very balanced, wonderful strong low E sting bass, strong mids, and very nice sound up the fretboard and on string 1 and 2, love it. My playing can't come close to the Casey's, so I focus on his of course. Plus listen to Casey's playing in the background as I talk, no question brilliant highs that sound great.
Now this is with my Baltic Birch soundboard first guitar, an unusual soundboard material to say the least (except for Harps). I fully expect that my second guitar with a standard Sitka Spruce soundboard will sound even better, I hope!
My harmonics do drop off as expected, but not as much as a standard acoustic guitar, which I find encouraging, and I can hear the brilliant but not tinny tone.
I like it when Casey is playing from 4:05-5:23, very balanced, wonderful strong low E sting bass, strong mids, and very nice sound up the fretboard and on string 1 and 2, love it. My playing can't come close to the Casey's, so I focus on his of course. Plus listen to Casey's playing in the background as I talk, no question brilliant highs that sound great.
Now this is with my Baltic Birch soundboard first guitar, an unusual soundboard material to say the least (except for Harps). I fully expect that my second guitar with a standard Sitka Spruce soundboard will sound even better, I hope!
Your screen captures of a single point in time while playing different guitars don't "line up" with the spectrograph of you playing approximately the same riffs with and without amplification.
Yes, your FHAG appears to have more acoustically produced upper response than your Taylor.
Casey has considerably more dynamic control than you, I don't hear the amp clipping when he's playing.
Yes, your FHAG sounds good when the amp isn't clipping, but no question the horn output doesn't contribute to the brilliant highs that sound great.
Adding a horn tweeter could reproduce the guitar's upper harmonics at a similar level to the horn amplification.
Using a softer Sitka Spruce soundboard will attenuate the higher frequencies and harmonics, reducing the "brilliant highs" your guitar produces acoustically.
Should sound "warmer" or "more dull", depending on your point of view and how much amplification is used.
Art
Anybody know of this site:
https://alchemyacousticlabs.com/
Seems to be blocked on this link for some reason.
https://alchemyacousticlabs.com/
Seems to be blocked on this link for some reason.
Art - that is exactly correct. Casey is a great guitar player with excellent technique, far better than anything I could do. That is why I used him at the start of the video, and for all background music. He said my guitar projects like a mother! I need to get my guitar in front of somebody that might be interested, so they can project, set the gain (or playing) for no clipping, set the tone to their liking, play it just acoustically, then turn on the horns and turn it into an acoustic/electric guitar machine.
Yes sir, I think all the highs (or easily most) are coming from the soundboard. When I play you can still hear the soundboard, it is not all horns , it is both.
A horn tweeter eh? Yep, JJ said the same thing, something to consider for sure.
Ok attenuate the highs and harmonics with Sitka Spruce. I don't doubt that, but if true, then why do most acoustic guitars use Sitka Spruce?
Because the makers want more low end resonance, not more upper harmonics.
Considering you are using amplification to increase the low end, a hardwood to increase the upper harmonics makes more sense, though if you used a horn design capable of reproducing HF it wouldn't be needed, and the guitar's harmonic balance could remain the same at different amplification levels.
If he played that last solo on your guitar using a mag soundhole pickup, into his pedalboard and whatever power amp he used connected instead to the FH drivers, I wonder what that would have sounded like?
Guitar makers want a balanced tone, hardwoods reflect more highs, but being stiffer and heavier, don't resonate lower frequencies as well as softer, lighter woods.
Here is a spectrograph of two guitars hanging on a wall ~ 2 meters from the mic, all 6 open strings strummed acoustically:
The upper solid body guitar (my own, built ~1974) has a walnut top backed with maple, above 4kHz it's harmonics are louder than the sitka spruce top Ovation Elite, but has very little fundamental output- "thin". The low E fundamental (82Hz) of the Ovation is ~ the level of the 10kHz harmonic.
A Honduran mahogany electric (with thinner strings) has less upper harmonic output than either the walnut or spruce:
Obviously, the electric guitars would need to be amplified to balance their fundamentals with their harmonics.
On some tracks, David Rivkin used to mic Prince's electric guitar to capture the some of the upper "zing" lacking in the pickup or amplified speaker output.
Art
Last edited:
Yeah I wonder about that also JJ, hmm...Casey did mention he hates playing acoustic guitars through amps, and I agree based on playing my acoustic guitar and my FHAG through my small Fender amp. I don't like the sound much either, sounds "bombastic" to me, but others may like this.
Walnut!? I have heard very good things about the beautiful tone, but never played one myself that I can remember, it works great in Grand Pianos, pretty stunning Art! You have been hiding this from us... 🤣 That data from all three guitars is very interesting to me. I know the electric is not plugged in of course, but who would have guessed the lows are gone, but the highs are pretty strong for no amplification.
I love maple for a guitar neck and a body, which of course is what I used for various reasons, but most importantly I can buy it online, 3" x 18" x 24" of laminated maple, glue and clamp two of them together, then let the CNC rip, wonderful, very stable. After I did this, I saw the same company started selling the same sizes in walnut, I am thinking man I need to try that!
So Art, your spectrograph data is very intriguing, I need to dig into this in REW. I agree my horns are not putting out much above approx. 1k, but I am seeing about maybe 10-20% more.
Below 1k Wow, stunning! So how does this actually help my guitar sound very good and balanced? I have a theory, see next post - and JJ jump in if you want to brother!
I posted this before, it is music from my iPhone going through my guitar horns. Red is no horns (cover off) and green is with horns (cover put on by hand quickly). There was no soundboard on the guitar, so I could switch from horns off to horns on in a few seconds (another benefit for having screws).
When I put the cover on and closed the horns, the bass and low mids went through the roof, I am not kidding, I could not believe it! The data shows, and I heard, the horns put out 25 dB max increase below 1k (about 15-20 dB average). That is very significant.
Now lets say I am playing the guitar with the 3" drivers without horns. Added highs just in the guitar itself from the drivers, and from the back of the drivers, and of course from my light yet strong soundboard, all add higher mids and highs.
This of course would sound horrible without the lows and low mids, for sure. Pretty much why dropping a speaker into a guitar body sounds like ****.
But remember, I don't want too many highs, just the right amount, and this may be it in the mid/high range, this is all I want, not more, the only problem is it still sounds like ****...until the horns are introduced.
Turn on the horns, and not adding too many highs is a good thing, then get all the great bass and low mids pumping through the horns at about 20 dB higher and WOW, the guitar sounds great, just the right balance! I tried to design the guitar to work well, but there is no way in hell I could have predicted this, some of it is just luck!
When I put the cover on and closed the horns, the bass and low mids went through the roof, I am not kidding, I could not believe it! The data shows, and I heard, the horns put out 25 dB max increase below 1k (about 15-20 dB average). That is very significant.
Now lets say I am playing the guitar with the 3" drivers without horns. Added highs just in the guitar itself from the drivers, and from the back of the drivers, and of course from my light yet strong soundboard, all add higher mids and highs.
This of course would sound horrible without the lows and low mids, for sure. Pretty much why dropping a speaker into a guitar body sounds like ****.
But remember, I don't want too many highs, just the right amount, and this may be it in the mid/high range, this is all I want, not more, the only problem is it still sounds like ****...until the horns are introduced.
Turn on the horns, and not adding too many highs is a good thing, then get all the great bass and low mids pumping through the horns at about 20 dB higher and WOW, the guitar sounds great, just the right balance! I tried to design the guitar to work well, but there is no way in hell I could have predicted this, some of it is just luck!
Your FHAG acoustically is overly bright to your taste and by comparison to your Taylor as a "standard".
The comparison you like to post shows the FHAG ~+10dB (twice as loud sounding) over the Taylor in the upper harmonic range.
That would mean when the horn volume is turned up ~+10dB, the low/high ratio of the two guitars would be of a similar balance.
When the horn volume is turned up more, the FHAG low/high balance seems to be more to your preference.
After a preference is established, it becomes a new standard.
As an analogy, many prefer the sound of elevated subwoofer levels.
Small speakers may have response -20dB at 40Hz relative to 80Hz.
A subwoofer is added, bringing the 40Hz level up +20Hz to "flat".
Concert goers are often listening to systems where the level below 100Hz is boosted +10dB or more, a low frequency "haystack" response:
Soon enough, the listener finds that adding even more sub level brings the bass in their home system up to more "modern" standards.
Over a relatively short period of time (a lot less than it took you to get your FHAG working 😉) the listener's "standard" may have changed by 30dB.
Art
Art - I like adding the sub to bring the lows up where they should be very much (which of course you are very familiar with from your Keystone subs), the hay stacking, not so sure about that. 🤣
I always had a preference for warm beautiful rich music, lots of lows (standup bass), great mids and highs that are pretty, but not overwhelming.
So a desire to have my guitar sound that way is natural for me.
In my opinion, almost all the annoying sounds from musical instruments and other sources are high frequency pitches (nails on a chalk board, which is apparently about 3,000 Hz). I will not name musical instruments that are not in my favorite category.
Or like Lloyd said: chewing tinfoil, or a squealing pig, or the highest key on a grand piano. I never think boy that low frequency pitch is driving me crazy (unless I wander into a disco by mistake, and that is more of a decibel and EQ problem). When I was in school, there was a very popular disco that was always packed. I would go in to meet girls for sure, but the music drove me nuts, I could not stand it. There was a blues bar right down the street, was never overcrowded, and had blues bands from Chicago all the time, I loved that place.
Even under 1,000 Hz I am getting half of the harmonics (red) up to the twelfth harmonic, and the others are not gone, just about 10-20% as mentioned before. I think this is a very nice way to get the sound that I love, a standard for me? Yes! Others? We shall see!