Myth or Fact -- Bigger Guitar Is Louder

[Alan Carruth]

CycleBob wrote:
"A guitar the size of a matchbox will not be able to move enough air to create appreciable volume. "

It could well produce a lot of volume at 3 kHz. Since a guitar that size would have strings tuned a few octaves higher than usual it might be really loud, if you could chord it... Ukes anyone?

Speaking of ukes; they're just small Classical guitars. Most of the production ones you see are substantially over built, and that limits the power they can produce. A properly made uke can cut through almost anything. Using nylon strings.

Classical guitars use nylon strings at significantly lower tension than normal steel strings. That reduces the amount of power you can put into the string at a given amplitude. They do tend to have higher action, which makes up for that to some degree. For this, and other reasons, it's difficult to make a Classical guitar that sounds as loud as a steel string. You can take advantage of the lower tension to reduce the top weight, and we builders do that, but it only gets you so far. If making them larger would help, you'd better believe that they'd be made that way. It doesn't. The 'average' Classical guitar is almost exactly the same size as a Martin 00; about 14" wide across the lower bout. It's possible, with care, to make one that's as big as a 000 (15" wide) that will work well, but I've never seen a satisfactory flat top classical as big as a Jumbo or Dread. No top player uses one that I know of, while a number of very good Classical players use smaller boxes. For the most part these folks play without amplification, and need all the volume they can get. I've heard good Classicals that can keep up with any steel string in terms of power.

Again, bigger guitars produce relatively more output in the low frequency range than smaller ones. The small boxes are generally better at the high end stuff, assuming that the instruments are comparable in quality. Dreadnought and Jumbo steel strings are the size they are to produce sound effectively in the lower frequency range. Matty Umanov, in a talk at a luthier's convention many moons ago, pointed out that the Dread was devised to fill in the 'boom-chucks' between the string bass and the fiddle/mandolin in string bands. A good Dread can have excellent treble response, but IMO that's more a function of getting the top 'right' in some sense than it is a virtue of the design. The usual take on the Dread sound is that they have 'scooped mids'.

As always with the guitar, it's more complicated than it 'ought' to be. Things like the relationship between soundhole and top area, the depth of the sides, whether the back is 'active' or 'reflective', and so on, can make a lot of difference. In my experience, it's easier to make a loud small guitar than a loud big one, but not every small guitar will be louder than all big ones.

[Sesop]

Volume = volume sounds like sound science but I've heard exceptions to this rule, first hand (or "first ear" to be more precise).

A lot contributes to volume besides size. Wood makes a different. So does scale, bracing, light or heavy build. Age. etc.

My Blueridge BR-163A (standard OM size - i.e. - NOT a dread or a jumbo) is louder than any other guitar I've ever A/B'ed it with, with one exception - a Guild D40 BG. The Blueridge was louder than my J45 Adirondack (a dread), two different D18 GE's, and several other guitars that had no business being less loud than a BR-163A. The Blueridge is lightly built, it's Adi over rosewood, and it's long scale.

In theory, it makes sense that a bigger guitar would be louder. In practical application, it's not true 100% of the time. Yes, a dread will generally be louder than a parlor, but some OMs are louder than some dreads. Some 0's are louder than some OMs. I had a prewar 00-17 that was louder than just about any OM I ever played against it. And I once played a Guild F20 that was substantially louder than a Guild F30, which are generally pretty loud and obviously bigger than F20s.

[Zampan0]

From a previous poster on this thread to which I agree. - "Lots of factors here.
Sound hole size, wood, bracing, build quality, action, strings and on and on."
I'm rolling with myth though, and here's why. I'm 72 years old, when I was 18 years old I bought a 1968 Gibson B-25 that had the 1-9/16" nut. I loved the thing and played it daily until it was stolen in 2000. I bought a Gibson Hummingbird Montana division model in the mid 1990s just because I'd always wanted one, I liked it a lot, but I liked the b-25 more, they both had a very similar tone, but the b-25 was easier to play and as I recall had very little if any difference in loudness. I sold the Hummingbird in 2010 to buy a 2010 Martin D-18 Standard, because I liked the Martin better, but I still missed my b-25. There's something unique about the b-25s, the narrow-necked ones made them much more playable, and their tone is beautiful to my ear.

I came across a mint 1971 cherry sunburst b-25 deluxe with a 1-9/16" nut on Craigslist several weeks ago. I live near Columbus, Ohio and the owner lives in Cleveland. I was ready to pay the $1,850.00 he was asking which included a like-new original case and a very nice hardshell case, or do an even-up swap for my d-18. He drove down and we played and discussed the guitars for close to two hours, and he took the swap. We were both happy with the deal. The string height of the b-25 was so high I pretty much knew it would need a neck reset, and it did. I should have it back from a top-notch luthier who lives just outside of Mount Vernon, Ohio on Monday. A neck reset and a compensated bone saddle will cost me $550, but I still feel lucky to have found my old sweetheart.

Here are two YT videos both made by the same excellent guitar player, one is a 2016 Gibson Hummingbird "Tone Test" and the other is a 1965 B-25 "Tone Test" which didn't have the X-bracing of the 1971 deluxe model. You be the judge of which sounds the loudest and the sweetest, I already have.
Hummingbird- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbs44KiuGwI
B-25- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2SiOb3nI2Y

[Zampan0]

^ It is a very close call as to the tone and loudness between the two, imo, but the playability of the b-25 - in my hand - made the choice a simple one for me. I would very much like to hear what others have to say about these two guitars.

[Zampan0]

Originally Posted by tonyo

Listen to an old parlor guitar. A good one is quite loud. These were common before amplification so had to be loud.

Their tone can be quite beautiful as well. Btw, I forgot to add in my above post that I will be adding a
Journey" three-disc piezo pickup to the b-25, and running it through a Berringer preamp that's connected to a Boss VE-8 Acoustic Singer that goes to dual King X-10 portable speakers. This common type of amplification and tone control could make this entire thread moot, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME96nHFQ-L8

[abn556]

The guitar that I played a lot that was shockingly loud was an 80s OM-45 in Ambertone. When I first restrung it and started playing, I was surprised that it seemed louder than everything else to me. I say seemed because I do not have a decibel meter in my music room, so it is somewhat subjective. Perhaps it seemed louder than my J-185 because I was playing it harder? Who knows. Lacking hard data, its just impressions. The guitar sounded tremendous is all I know.

[Muffinhead]

I got the following quote from a google search:

"Martin & Company created the Dreadnought guitar in 1916 to give guitar players a larger, more powerful guitar that could compete with the volume and energy of modern bands and orchestras. The Dreadnought is larger than most acoustic guitars, with a deeper body, wider lower bout, and longer scale length, which gives it a louder, fuller sound that can cut through other instruments."

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

I invite folks to share their opinions here. Myth or fact?

For me it's a total myth. My little H&D 00sp is the loudest steel string I've ever played . . . .

All other things being equal, which they never are, bigger is louder.

[67goat]

Didn't realize I was responding to such an old post.

[jmagill]

Louder to whom? The player, or a listener out front, ten feet away? And which is more important to you?
.

[raysachs]

All other things being equal, a bigger guitar will be louder.

All other things are never equal.

-Ray

[KevWind]

And the answer is ----------------------------Neither

The volume level is complex function of vibration of the strings and the vibration of the top/soundboard ,the materials involved and the energy applied to picking or strumming the strings , resulting in air moved, and with so many variables involved, there are no absolutes

However in general as noted with all things being equal (as Ray above said they never are) a larger top should potentially and theoretically be able to move more air but ya never know

[jmagill]

Originally Posted by KevWind

And the answer is ----------------------------Neither

The volume level is complex function of vibration of the strings and the vibration of the top/soundboard ,the materials involved and the energy applied to picking or strumming the strings , resulting in air moved, and with so many variables involved, there are no absolutes

However in general as noted with all things being equal (as Ray above said they never are) a larger top should potentially and theoretically be able to move more air but ya never know

Agreed, but the OP's question was not about physics, but perceived amplitude.

[TomB'sox]

There is nothing wrong with continuing this discussion, but please note the thread was started 7 years ago, unlikely the OP will still be following.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jmagill

Agreed, but the OP's question was not about physics, but perceived amplitude.

Sorry I'm not clear what you mean ?

The production of a sound waves amplitude is function of only the physics involved ...
The "perceived amplitude" (perception in this case being the perception of hearing) of a sound wave is also a direct result of the physics involved in producing the amplitude amount and thus cannot help but be "about the physics"., can it?
And thus IMO does not change the answer to the threads title question which is still ----neither fact or myth..