dreadnaught versus jumbo

[BrownDog]

What style do you play. "Build" match (body style) will be easier to match to YOUR playing style.

[Chazmo]

I used to play only dreads. Jumbos have infected my soul in recent years though. Guild seriously opened my eyes (ears, really) in this regard.

There's no good answer to the question. You gotta' listen with your own ears and decide. I don't know what mid-range pinch folks are talking about on jumbos... I'm going to presume that has more to do with the brand/construction of the guitar than the shape itself.

[guitar_stringer]

Originally Posted by sr1129

ok so my question is this, both are designed for big sound

whats the difference sonically and volume wise

ive heard jumbos arent as verstatile because they create a natural mid range scoop....(?)

id like a guitar that sounds big, i love my taylor, and it sounds sweet, the sweetest (though ive yet to play a handmade not including the santa cruz) but it has limited head room so id like something that sounds big but clear

my tacoma is like that, but i have a feeling there are much bigger fish to be had then the tacoma...

thanks in advance for any input

This is the answer we give our clients: An acoustic guitars's sound is predicated by size, shape, internal air volume, soundhole size, and then by the tonewoods used, in that order. A dreadnought being a rectangular box, is basically a boom box, while a jumbo with it's pinched waist, gives a broader palette of tones, lows, mids, highs.

Over the years, I have found that of all a guitars dimensions, the waist dimension in conjunction with the soundhole size and location, really sets the stage for that particular guitar's sound. The tonewoods used, then "season" this sound.

Loudness, is a function of air volume, and the efficiency of the "air pump" that an acoustic guitar really is.

Obviously, the manner in which a guitar is designed and constructed, has a great bearing on all of this, but these are the basics.

[NgiamTeeEe]

Is this theory true??

[frenchie]

Originally Posted by banjar

people more knowledgeable than I have said the J-100 has different bracing than the 200, and while they made them with maple necks those are hard to find. Dont know about the bracing in the 150. I know the 150 I played sounded just like the 200 I played, and the 100 I own (mahogany neck) sounds superb to my ears. Most of the 100s are bubinga b/s now.

I too own a J-100 Xtra (Mahogany) from 94, and it had the same bracing pattern as the J-200 "Rosewood special" also from 94 that I owned for a while. The latest J100 model from Gibson, the 1941 SJ-100 is also Mahogany B&S, the Bubinga one`s having ceased production in 2007.

Despite what`s been said, I would take my J-100 Xtra over most Dreads out there that I`ve had the pleasure to try

Steve.!

[tpbiii]

Originally Posted by sfden1

Maybe a little background about where these terms came from will be useful. I could be wrong about some of the details here, since I'm doing this from memory, so please feel free to correct me.

Martin made a guitar they dubbed the Dreadnaught in the early 1930's (and yes, I'm aware of the earlier Ditson's), named after the largest ship at the time, the idea being obviously to send the message that this guitar was BIG. These guitars are the precursors to the dreadnaughts, the D-18's and D-28's, you see today.

Gibson, not to be outdone, came out, in 1934, with the Jumbo, which had a 16" lower bout, basically the same size as Martin's Dreadnaught. The Jumbo became the precursor to many of the Gibson guitars we have today.

The Gibson Jumbo and the Martin Dreadnaught were very close in size, but with significant differences in construction, shape, bracing and materials. Tonally, the Martin style Dread goes for a heavy bass and what's often described as piano like trebles. Not a well balanced guitar, it tends to be bass heavy to my ears and has the classic "scooped" mids that you referred to.

The Gibson style Jumbo is a better balanced guitar, though, with the exception of the Advanced Jumbo (AJ), not as loud as a classic Martin Dread. Its these characteristics by the way that have made each famous, but for different reasons. The Dreads, with their heavy bass and cutting trebles, have proven to be particularly well-suited to BG rhythm and leads (although BG didn't even exist when the Dread was first designed and marketed) and the Gibson Jumbos have proven to be very versatile as accompaniment to singer-songwriters, both strummed and finger-picked. They'll stand out, but not overpower, a singer or other instruments (these are of course only generalizations and my own impressions, so please don't jump on me anybody)

Just to make the whole thing a little more complicated, in 1937 Gibson designed the Super Jumbo 200 (referred to as the SJ-200) with a 17" lower bout (the maple versions of these by the way are among my favorite guitars). This is a very different guitar than the Jumbo. Extremely well-balanced, loud, clear, these are exceptional rhythm guitars but excel for finger style as well. In 1947, Gibson dropped the "Super", and just called the SJ 200 (and other guitars of the same size, such as the SJ-100) simply a Jumbo. It wasn't until sometime in the 1990's that Gibson returned to the Super Jumbo designation.

In the mean time, most people took to referring to the old Gibson Jumbos as dreadnaughts because of their similar size with the Martin dreads, and many still do refer to them as dreads. The Gibson J-45 for instance is commonly referred to as a slope shouldered dread, although technically its a Jumbo. .

Then of course there are the so-called "mini-jumbos", in the world of Gibson, a slightly smaller version of the SJ. It has basically the same shape as an SJ, but a size closer to a Dreadnaught (or Jumbo), although with its tight waist, feels smaller than a Dread. It's neither Jumbo nor Dreadnaught, but for some people, it's what they mean when they talk about jumbos.

Finally, keep in mind that since these guitars were first introduced, there have been many, many makers, including individual and boutique builders, who have made their own versions, but often with very different tonal characteristics.

That's a very basic (and hopefully, not too widely inaccurate) overview of where the terms come from, but hopefully gives some idea of why your question is not so easy to answer, except in very general terms, and even then there will be exceptions to the exceptions and confusion over what exactly is meant by Jumbo as opposed to Dreadnaught.

Generalizations can be useful to some extent, but in the end, there's no substitute for getting out and playing as many as you can. They're all different, even among the same style and maker. That's part of what makes guitars so fascinating.

Hope that helped more than it confused.

Nice -- but you for got that SJ is the common name used for the Southerner Jumbo introduced in 1942 -- later renamed the Southern Jumbo.

I read the whole first page and I was not the OP Jumbo was like the 1934 Jumbo (J-35, AJ, Southerner Jumbo, J-45 ... family) or the Super Jumbo (SJ-200 .... family). The answer is very different. People seem to be making both assumptions.

Best,

-Tom

[Tony Done]

I onced owned a Martin J-40, and have had a few different dreads. I've also heard a J-40 played in a traditional "single microphone" bluegrass context, alongside Martin dreads. The J-60 had the volume, but lacked the focus and cutting power of the dreads, very evident in the bluegrass ensemble.

[Sequimite]

Historical note - the type of shop called "Dreadnaught" in WWI was called "Battleship" in WWII.

When I used to play guitar in the 80's two guys I played with had D-28's, one from the 60's and one that was pre-WWII. They were both comparatively light in the midrange and in order to be heard I started playing an archtop with very loud midrange. It was a perfect complement.

My first experience with a jumbo started 10 days ago and I was rather surprised how balanced my Tacoma JM16C is across the tonal range.