Some acoustic guitar body measurements

purposely increased the speed of the analog playback tape machine
There was a time when I played bass, had a 12 ch Peavey mixer, an Akai reel tape machine, a Korg analog synth - and a big Optimation AC source that had 8 EL34s. The band made some recording which went into an extended jam part at the end. Controlling the motor speed on the RTR with the synth, I demo'd to the other fellas a precise whole step drop as the song went into the jam. (With corresponding change in tempo, of course) They didnt like it, but I, of course, thought it was great; how it just smoothly slid on down in key. Oh well. Never became a fashionable thing to do in music, probably because Pink Floyd never did it as a studio effect.

People did the wind-down effect at a song's end, but not wind down and keep going!
 
Also makes it harder for other musicians to copy 😉
It does make it harder to play along, particularly if you happen to be playing, say, a piano!

As a guitar player, I have to retune by ear to play along, which takes a minute or two. That was a problem back in the days when I had to learn songs off the radio - but in today's Internet-connected world, you can always replay a track after you get your guitar retuned to match.

When I first noticed "Every Breath You Take" was sharp, I was just starting to learn to play bass guitar, and my teacher had suggested I play along with the song for practice.

-Gnobuddy
 
... it just smoothly slid on down in key...
...Never became a fashionable thing to do in music...
When a vehicle drives past blasting music, you get the Doppler-effect induced pitch drop as it goes by you. The music drops in pitch by an amount that depends on the vehicle's velocity.

That change in pitch feels quite unsettling to me, almost like a moment of vertigo, complete with the sense of having lost one's balance and being in danger of falling over. It can be unpleasant.

So I, for one, would not have liked to hear your entire song do a glissando down by a whole-note. It would have made me sea-sick! 🙂

I don't have perfect pitch, but I seem to have a pretty good sense of relative pitch.

-Gnobuddy
 
Last edited:
Yamaha No.80.jpg


Here's an older Yamaha I picked up recently. This one "tunes" to concert pitch; that peak just above 200 is 219 Hz.
 
Yamaha FG335.jpg


Here's a Yamaha FG335 lefty dreadnaught I bought for my son as a beater, so he can stop taking that Gibson out of the house. It's peak is remarkably lower than the other guitars I've measured and at 174 Hz, remarkably close to concert F at 174.61.
 
Yamaha G130A Vs G85A.jpg


And my G130A (higher resonance; 211 Hz) vs the G85A's "202". What were you doing, Yamaha? If I get the G280A - top of the line "G" in one year's catalog - would I get 110, 220, 440, vs 105, 211, 432? In this old G series, they have model "values" from 50 to 280, the higher the better. I wonder if they built the guitars intended for a certain class-range first, then graded and labeled them? Probably could have used a tuning fork and see how loud the guitar's body speaks when excited.
 
Alas, if I put my G60A over the top of my G130A... There's no string tension nor bridge bone in the G60A. My Wife and I dont think it sounds as good as the other two G series guitars, FWIW. However we think the old No.80 sounds pretty good.

G60A (no strings) vs G130A.jpg
 
The Aria A551B (purple) vs the Yamaha G130A; quite similar for a couple octaves, at least... Both resonate just short of concert pitch; both are good sounding guitars AFAICT. Maybe one day I'll get to hear and test a "good" one.

G230 vs Aria 551B.jpg
 
Looking through the we I found "Measurements and Analysis of Acoustic Guitars During Various Stages of Their Construction" a 2021 ASA paper by Mark Rau. Let's just say in his measurement setup, he's using better equipment than I have access to. I couldnt download the paper .pdf. Perhaps I can ask.

Good Guitar.png


Yet I'm pleased to see in his analysis, there's distinct similarities to what I'm getting. The guitars he tested are probably good guitars!
 
Last edited:
Finally, with the very slightest "what if?" effort, I fired up the iPhone app "Spectrum-Eye" and made a pink noise plot of the Yamaha G-60A body. Then, noticing a switch in the preferences panel "Pink Noise Generator", I enabled it. Connecting the little Dayton exciter directly to the headphone output (iPhone 6S+), it made audible noise. Turning the volume up about 3/4, it made enough sound to produce the following plot;

Yamaha G60A iPhone.jpg


It's conceivable that one could screen guitars for how they sound in this way - at least for the triple peak part - and where those fall relative to concert pitch - with just an (old) iPhone, Application, a Cable and Transducer. Of course, the analysis isnt entirely definitive, but if I was able to put that Alvarez to this test, knowing what I know now, I could have avoided a disappointing purchase and subsequent sale cycle.

Furthermore, if the old iPhone has enough snot to drive a 4 Ohm transducer and get loud enough to make a sonic picture in Spectrum Eye, it's entirely conceivable one could test * Ohm loudspeakers they happen to stumble upon in this way. At least you'd quickly know if one of a pair is blown, when one has no output above 2kHz and the other does.
 
Last edited:
I bought this acoustic guitar on line, used, boy did it sure look nice! Unboxed it, tuned it up and first chord, Uggh. Bright and boxy, just what I dont want to hear. I was wondering why this might be...

So I get out my Pink noise test kit and instead of driving a speaker, I drive a Dayton DAEX25FHE-4 exciter with the little USB powered class D amplifier setup to only play a Pink Noise file on an SD card.

I put a thin gasket foam pad on the exciter VC, to cover the monstrously sticky adhesive that comes with it. Turning the amp volume down to keep the exciter from jumping all over the guitar, I placed it just setting right on the bridge. Clearly driving pink noise into the same spot where the strings actuate the guitar's membrane-o-phone, or "top".

I have a couple older Yamaha G-XX models, which are reputed and to my ears, have a good sound.

View attachment 1110863

It's pretty easy to see the builder's effort to hit a comb at 110, 200, 440 or the "A" note, though it may be off some.

View attachment 1110866

Pretty similar response for the G130, albeit being strung to concert tuning. Apparently all that tension doesnt effect the resonances.

Now let's look at that guitar I didnt particularly care for;

View attachment 1110869

It's clear that the body resonances are shifted higher in the construction of this model. One wouldnt think so by looking at it - it's got a big, deep body. I've read on line that there's pretty much nothing one can do, without risk to the guitar's mechanical integrity, to change this. Better off to sell it and just get something you like.

I have a guitar that's labeled a "parlor" model, a bit smaller in size. One would expect a higher frequency comb pattern. Let's see;

View attachment 1110880

Sharper yet, with a discernable notch even at ~440. My wife and myself doesnt think this guitar sounds particularly good. Hmmm....

I also have a Kala nylon, which I picked up at a yard sale where someone had a whole pile to pick from. Its bridge had torn free, so I epoxied it back in place. It tore off again a couple few years later, so I really laid it on thick for the repair. It's a thin line body, I'd guess all mahogany. I really like the way this one sounds; it's my favorite to play; of course, this particular guitar is unobtanium - there's one steel string variation I can find anywhere.

View attachment 1110882

Clearly this one has resonances flat from the "110" sub-multiple of the A440. So the "A" ends up just on the integrating side of the bandpass, versus the differentiating side. Interesting.

I also have a Yamaha "Silent" nylon string electric and an Ibanez classical, similar in shape to the Yamaha guitars. The Ibanez pulls off a pretty good copy of the Yamaha's "fingerprint";

View attachment 1110887

The silent guitar has signal processing for delay, echo etc and I wondered if they did any analog modeling of a guitar body, you know, to make it sound like an acoustic at the output jack;

View attachment 1110891

Nope - but how interesting!

I believe one could go shopping for guitars with a pink noise analysis kit (battery, SD card playing amp, driver, cell phone for analyzer) and while the use of such may not determine what instrument you should buy, it would certainly help you decide what instrument to bother playing. I wish I had more / access to more instruments, to see what they show for body response. Just setting the transducer upon the bridge is certainly not harmful to the guitar -

I'll try to add to this, as I go through more instruments. I believe the transducer is sensitive enough that it could be driven by a laptop's headphone output directly Acoustic guitars; it doesnt take much to make an acoustic body speak loud enough to be heard by a measurement mic. I'm excited to try a sine sweep for more precision in establishing the resonances and difference in amplitude between the peaks.
When it comes to acoustic guitars my knowledge base is severely limited. I know what a dreadnought looks and feels like because I have one. I didn't buy it for a particular style of playing but only because it's pretty big and I am very heavy handed and thought it would survive the abuse I unintentionally dish out. Here lies the question. I've been reading as much as I can here on the forum and seeing that there are a lot of different styles? types? shapes? sizes? of acoustic guitars. I'm not even sure how to describe the variety available. Pretty much all I know is that a dreadnought is big and a parlor is small(but I still don't know what it's used for). Can you kindly folks school me on such things? What is an OM or auditorium? 00, 000? Grand Concert? It seems the list goes on and on. What are they used for? Why is that size or shape used with a particular style? I really am interested in learning about this from the people in the know. Thanks in advance,
 
I think they make it up as they go along.
A little bit what my bedroom looks like.

Can you kindly folks school me on such things?
I think that's best answered by Wikipedia or one of the many Guitar forums available. All I know is that in the evolution of Martin, the increasing number of "O"s meant a larger instrument, as musicians desired to be heard in bigger spaces (Auditorium) against other acoustic instruments of the time in a band setting.

Personally, I find that the sound of a particular instrument is what I go after. After all, that's why I'm here on DIYAudio, except in the context of stereo systems of course. I've always liked the sound of nylon string Classical guitars. I have one steel string - a Seagull S6 - that I really like the sound of. Being an inquisitive person and a former instrumentation engineer, I've wondered what it is technically about these instruments that makes them sound so pleasant to me. I'm beginning to find out.

I got the Seagull after a visit to Guitar Center to pick up another instrument I purchased from them. I played one there and just was awed by how it sounded. I looked on line, saw one used for sale at another GC elsewhere and bought it; got a nice deal too. My wife told me last night "you should measure that one".

Until my measurement technique becomes standard practice throughout the industry (fat chance, eh?) I see no way to obtain a guitar that will sound good unseen, unhandled, unplayed. Even instances of the same instrument can vary in sound. Personally, I hate the upper-mid boxy sound of parlor guitars, though not all parlors do that. I have a rare Kala nylon thinline that goes deep - it's one of my favorites to play. Unsure if I could trust a YouTube demo - the Alvarez sounded fine to me on one vid, but when I got it, everyone in the house could hear something was very off.

Well, thus started the investigation so far. Would have saved me a lot of money and obsession if that particular instrument just "sounded like the Seagull".
 
Guitar manufacturer are no help in figuring out what size their instrument actually is;

minijumbo.png


So it's a mini version of a commonly named larger guitar. I hate the mini trend, particularly in guitars. Unless it's a travel guitar; at least it's something to play that carries easier.
 
a dreadnought is big
Apparently most "normal" guitars are dreadnoughts (so of course they need new names to distinguish them).

A dread-nought "fears nothing". This was applied to a rain/storm coat. It was applied to over a dozen war-ships. The 1906 HMS Dreadnought sparked a fad in warship design that most later war-ships followed. Even scrapping big old ships to make bigger ships.

Martin made a "bigger squarer" guitar on contract, and it didn't thrive. Some years later they did the same ideas under their own name and it was popular in larger venues. Then the folk/country music racket adopted this type guitar for all-around playing.

A Dreadnought is overkill in a small room, and takes a lot of storage space. The parlor guitar fills a parlor and stores a little easier. The classic if odd example is astronaut Chris Hadfield's floating parlor guitar on the International Space Station- baggage limits are tight there.
https://acousticguitar.com/parlor-guitars-a-brief-history-and-a-2020-buyers-guide/
 
Last edited: