Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl
Bushite
Posted 2008-03-21 9:44 PM (#48301)
Subject: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
December 2007
Posts: 15

Location: Midwest
This has been a question I've had for a little while. After reading the post regarding the GC model bowls I thought I'd throw it out for those with more experience.

My first Ovation was a 1528D Ultra. Later I picked up a cracked 1111 and was suprised at how much larger the sound was. My question is how does the Ultra SSB compare to a more expensive SSB like the Elite? I love the sound of my 1528D when it is amped, but crave the sound of the 1111 purely acoustic. Is there something that has the sound of the old Balladeer that will compare with the amplified SSB?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Old Man Arthur
Posted 2008-03-21 11:55 PM (#48302 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl



Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777

Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR
I'll stomp-in on this one...

I'm guessing that we are talking about an Older Ultra... 1528, not the New Ultras (made in china, assembled in CT).

But as to old Ultra and Celebrity SSB's... They have laminate (plywood) tops.
USO's have Solid wood tops.
I had a Korean Balladeer SSB with Solid Top...
I have compared that to my Celebrity SSB, and Solid wood is much better.

And for acoustic tone, Deep bowl is always better.
Now if you are gonna plug-it-in anyway, and tweak the output, it may not matter.
But in general, Solid wood is always better. Old Solid Wood is better still...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Paul Blanchard
Posted 2008-03-22 8:35 AM (#48303 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl



Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 1817

Location: Minden, Nebraska
This has been much discussed in many threads, and deep bowls generally trump shallow bowls in quality of sound. However, it's also a proverbial apples and oranges issue. My shallow bowl Custom Legend has a better balanced tone than most cheap model deep bowls.

The 1528 is an less expensive model as well as being a shallow bowl. I suspect most decent USA made deep bowls will sound much fuller and richer.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Koenig Kurt
Posted 2008-03-22 10:04 AM (#48304 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl



Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 848

Location: Munich, Germany
About 10, 15 years ago the Ovation homepage called the mid depth bowl the best of both worlds: Less feedback when amplified than a deep bowl, better acoustic sound than a shallow.

With the newer electronics feedback is neglegtable, so grab a newer deep bowl for good acoustic AND amplified sound.

If you are a shallow fan because it's more comfortable to play for you - but also looking for good acoustic tone, then yes, the higher priced ones will give you better sound.

My 1868 SSB Elite for example had a much better tone than a deep bowl Celebrity I've had for a short time. Not that full, but much better balanced and defined.

My 1869 SSB Custom Legend beats the 1868 Elite tonally- and sounds even better than some of my mid bowl (USA) Ovations.

The SSB Adamas 1881 I had the chance to play last year provided a sound as full as any wood topped mid bowl.

So, if you are looking for the comfort of a SSB with good acoustic tone, I'd go for an Adamas 1881 with Optima Preamp.

Kurt
Top of the page Bottom of the page
gulfcoast
Posted 2008-03-22 10:20 AM (#48305 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
November 2004
Posts: 1330

Location: ms
My first ssb elite played like a dream but the sound was lifeless, plugged and unplugged but I really loved that guitar. My 1992 collectors was a whole other story , it sounded great unplugged and plugged in it was hard to beat.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Bushite
Posted 2008-03-24 12:19 AM (#48306 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
December 2007
Posts: 15

Location: Midwest
Thanks for all of the help. You all confirmed my suspicions. Looks like I'll start looking for a good deep bowl with a pickup. I'm afraid an Adamas is out of the question for now.

Thanks again to those who responded.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Waskel
Posted 2008-03-24 11:08 AM (#48307 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl



Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840

Location: closely held secret
"Confirming suspicions" seems to be what OFC members are best at.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
moody, p.i.
Posted 2008-03-24 11:10 AM (#48308 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15682

Location: SoCal
Originally posted by The Wabbit Formerly Known As Waskel:
"Confirming suspicions" seems to be what OFC members are best at.
That should read:

"Creating suspicions" seems to be what OFC members are best at.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
cliff
Posted 2008-03-24 11:16 AM (#48309 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 14842

Location: NJ
. . . or Suspecting Creation . . .
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Waskel
Posted 2008-03-24 11:18 AM (#48310 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl



Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840

Location: closely held secret
Well yes, at first.


The 'confirming' comes after a small amount of time spent reading these posts...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
cruster
Posted 2008-03-27 9:32 PM (#48311 - in reply to #48301)
Subject: Re: Super Shallow VS Deep Bowl


Joined:
May 2004
Posts: 2850

Location: Midland, MI
Apropos of not much, reading this thread prompted me to get the 1868 out of hiding. Er, storage. Hasn't been out since, oh, July of last year when we were up at the cottage (killer beach guitar, I tell you what). Still in tune and it still sounds great. And -4 is still the best finish for an O.

Now I want to go get the Adamas out. ;)
Top of the page Bottom of the page