DjangoBooks.com
Welcome to our Community!
Categories
- 17.9K All Categories
- 394 General
- 255 Welcome
- 10 Archtop Eddy's Corner
- 74 CD, DVD, and Concert Reviews
- 29 FAQ
- 9 Gypsy Jazz Italia
- 17 Photos
- 24 Gypsy Picking
- 3 Unaccompanied Django
- 1 Pearl Django Play-Along Vol.1
- 1 Gypsy Fire
- 21 Gypsy Rhythm
- 551 Gypsy Jazz University - Get Educated
- 104 Gypsy Jazz 101
- 175 Repertoire
- 128 History
- 88 Technique
- 39 Licks and Patterns
- Daniel Givone Manouche Guitare Method Users Group
- 17 Eddie Lang Club
- 996 Gypsy Jazz Gear
- 645 Guitars, Strings, Picks, Amps, Pickups and Other Accessories
- 315 Classifieds
- 36 Recording
- 38 Other Instruments
- 17 Violin
- 3 Mandolin
- 6 Accordion
- 3 Bass
- 9 Woodwinds
- 197 Gypsy Jazz Events
- 78 North America
- 81 Europe
- 38 International
In this Discussion
Who's Online 0
Today's Birthdays
Comments
Nothing wrong with cans-o-worms--the internet is kinda optimized for them.
The accumulated folk-wisdom about guitar materials and construction is filled with strange notions. My 19-year-old cedar-top Dunn Daphne is aging just fine, as is my 45-year-old cedar Marin classical. I used to think that rosewood dreadnaughts were too boomy (and to my ear most still are), but I have a Goodall Rosewood Standard (a bit fatter than a dread) that's one of the sweetest guitars I've ever owned. Small guitars can have big voices and jumbos can sound muffled. You never can tell--there are too many variables for easy generalization.
I had a Barault 14 fret D hole (cocobolo #52) for many years, and now have a Barault oval hole (the first #503 replica) for many years. Differences are in line with what pdg already said.
Oval hole seems to have less weird overtones, with a more dry, punchy and focused sound. Seems like the grande bouche design takes too much wood out of the top, and the sound suffers for that? It looks cool, but the hole doesn't need to be that big to serve its function. I think the oval hole is a better design and producing better instruments on the average (though I've certainly played outstanding D holes and crappy oval holes).
The direction is another thing - oval hole sound is directed, punches out forwards and to the right a little. Whereas the D hole seems more omnidirectional. The petite bouche guitars can sound totally different sitting in front (as the audience would), and you can sometimes get the same effect practicing if you sit near a hard wall or corner so that "the firing line" reflects back to your ear.
I’m pleased I started this thread. I feel Ive really got something out of it. Thanks everyone.
I’m guessing vanmalmsteen that it’s the D hole mid range that’s giving it a more arch top quality?
I've enjoyed reading the thread. Let us know what you settle on!
In response to what you said Wim, if you can hear yourself better then it could be argued that you’ll play better and be enjoying yourself more. Soundports are still popular.
Who cares if the audience cant hear. They’re usually not listening anyway 😁
Ok I dragged out my Gallato D hole to compare it to the Gallato oval hole. Note 2 differences. The D hole is laminated maple back and sides. The oval hole is laminated rosewood. Neck wood is also different. Otherwise dimensionally identical. The other difference I should note is that the strings on the D hole are totally shot (have not played it in a LONG time).
Also, the D hole is quite a bit lighter for some reason. I think that is probably due to the density of the neck wood???
First observation. The tone quality in the mid to high register is similar, dry and focused and loud although in the high register the D hole is a little fuller (less dry) and the oval hole is a bit louder (but that is probably due to the strings being dead on the D hole). Despite the bad strings the D hole is still plenty loud in the high register though.
The D hole is WAY fuller and responsive in the low register. It really jumps out. Which is why I think of a D hole as more of a rhythm instrument (playing more on the low end of the register) and it is easier to control for a rhythm player since they are damping any way with the left hand so it is nice to have all that headroom. That said, the mid and high response of the D hole is great and it would certainly function fine as a lead instrument.
The tap tone for the D hole seems to be higher around C while the tap tone for the oval hole is lower at around G. The air resonance of the D hole is also around C but I could not lower my humming pitch enough to drive the air resonance of the oval hole because I'm not much of a vocalist.
Overall I would say the oval hole is more balanced (low to high frequency response pretty flat) while the D hole is still plenty responsive in the mid and highs but is more responsive in the bass.
This great Bones many thanks. The only thing you say that goes against the general flow is that you say the bass response is better on the D hole, so thats interesting.
It kinda speaks volumes that you don’t play it anymore. I’ll admit that I’m cooling to the idea of getting one. Also I recognise what PDG was talking about with the scooped sound from oval holes and I’d miss that.
I've owned both D-holes and an oval hole, but it's not much of a comparison in terms of make because my D-hole was a Rodrigo Shopis D'Artagnan and the only oval hole I've owned is a John Jorgenson. My current D-hole is an Altamira.
Over my patchy time playing, it's been rhythm only. So this is really more a question than any conclusion, as I'm no one to offer much of an opinion. I love D-holes, so far, because I tend to find a good bass-mid growl I really like. Also a certain lushness in the lower range, that I didn't get in the Jorgenson. My current Altamira (I rue the day I sold my Shopis and when I can, I would like to get another one) is nice and dry, a bit tight everywhere but maybe with time it will open up. It's the basic one, all maple.
All this said, I've often wondered how much of any differences one perceives between these two styles is about the monitor effect of the D-Hole, v. the straighter projection of the oval? Is it possible a lot of the "growl" and low-mid, "lushness" is just because the player can hear it better?
pas encore, j'erre toujours.
Well to me, the sound just kind of swirls out of the D hole, there’s all kinds of overtones and stuff swirling around, I actually really like that. My gypsy oval guitar, that thing is really focused . It’s like the telecaster of the acoustic guitar world. Lol
idk .... All I can say is that lately I’m always reaching for that humble Altamira oval. It’s the most affordable model and I can’t get enough of it, it plays so easy and like I said that focused nasally tone . Next week you’ll catch me out on the porch with the D hole, and saying “ What oval hole are you talking about? This here D is my baby”
Twang, to be clear, I just don't play that guitar because I have so many guitars. I really need to sell some. That one is in near mint condition so I just leave it strung up in the hard case most of the time to keep it nice. Actually if I was still gigging I would probably use that guitar (the D hole). I think if I put new strings on it it would probably be louder than the oval hole. I keep the oval hole by the desk in the soft case for easy access.
Van, yeah exactly, neither is better or worse, they are similar but just different. I think in general the ovals are as you say focused and nasally (to try to put words to it) and maybe cuts a bit better but the Ds are a bit more full and rounded and maybe a little less focused (but at the same time my Gallato D is still very "dry" so there you have it).