|
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | I spent some time last evening working through three SSBs, the 1982 Adamas wood-topped proto, the 1547 proto, and the Adamas 1881. My objective was to see if there was sufficient difference between the three to provide some distinctive variations in tone. I have Adamas 1818 strings on the two Adamas’ and I’m not sure what Andrew had on the 1547, but I have not changed them as yet. The strings obviously have some impact. That said, here are some comments.
Close your eyes and you wouldn’t know which one you’re holding, although comparing one right after the other, the 1881 is lighter, perhaps because of a different neck brace configuration. The 1881 has a satin neck, the other two are glossy, which I prefer. The glossy finish on the 1547's top is fresh from the factory and it is hands down the winner in looks. The 1881 and 1547 are cutaways, which I also prefer. The 1881 is equipped with an Optima, the Adamas FET, and the 1547 a new Op-24.
Whatever tone advantage deep bowls have over the SSBs disappears when plugged in. However, IMHO, playing a thin bodied guitar strapped onto your shoulder from a standing position is more comfortable than a deep bodied guitar, and this is where the SSBs shine and why I prefer them.
If you didn’t play one of these three models right after the other with exactly the same settings on the amp, you likely wouldn’t know the difference. They’re all excellent. They have more similarities than differences, which are quite subtle. Between the two prototypes, the FET on the Adamas seems a bit more sensitive while the Op-24 on the 1547 provides more EQ flexibility, particularly trimming down the treble. These two wood top models also provide a bit of mellowness that is not noticeable except when compared against the 1881. Between the three, the 1881 gets my vote for the best sound. With its Optima electronics and unidirectional carbon top, the tone is crisp and pure, exactly what Adamas is known for, with a bit more edge and bass tone. Any of these three are excellent for my style of playing, primarily arpeggio picking with some lead melody and counter melody lines, with only occasional open chord strumming. However, when packing for the gig, it is the 1881 that gets the call.
One final note. After trimming back the treble on these guitars, and most other roundbacks for that matter, the bass responsiveness can be overwhelming, for which some of us then compensate by muting the lower strings with the palm of our hand. In addressing this issue at Amelia, Matt Smith recommended a Trace Elliot SMX dual stage compressor (out of production, but still available on the used market). It is actually two independent compressors in a single pedal, one for the bass frequencies and one for the treble, because compression works differently for lower frequencies than higher frequencies. Although made primarily bor bass guitars, Matt’s recommendation was that it works surprisingly well for the roundbacks because of their overwhelming bass responsiveness. Based on this recommendation, I picked one up on the Bay and started dialing it in last evening using the SMX manual. This made a noticeable difference. I was able to crank up the volume on the guitar without then having to otherwise dial out the harsh ringing via the EQ. I intend to incorporate the SMX into the acoustic pedal board this weekend and see what the sound guy thinks. I’m sure he’ll be as impressed as I am. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Nice review. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | I knew I should have kept one of those pedals around...... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 5567
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains | Whatever tone advantage deep bowls have over the SSBs disappears when plugged in Absolutely Brad! That's why I used a 1868 for so many years and why I got a -6P to match the 1758-6P....I could never find a 1868-6P when I was playing out for a living: I had a -5. But the sound of that guitar is one of the best hidden or kept secrets about Ovation guitars: it simply sounds fabulous: both of mine had/have the OP-24 electronics which in my opinion is the best sounding electronics’ package ever in an Ovation. I have had the OP-Pro and have the VIP but this one remains my favorite. For those at Amelia, you may remember that I used my 1688-5 for the writer’s night...I had never plugged it in before that night: but dialing in the OP-24 took only a few seconds and I was ready to go. My T-Bolt Snake also has the OP-24 which I played at the tour last year: again, I had not plugged it in and it was just fresh from the mothership: but just a few seconds and it was ready to go.
SSB's and OP-24; plugged in: a great combination. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | 1537 loaded with gauge 13 - 57 beats them all...nothing personal :)
Vic
..purely non -scientifical ofcourse.. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | Nice review. Thanks Prof. Now I have an excuse to go out and get a compressor! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2007
Posts: 672
Location: New South Wales, Australia | Yeah..nice review Professor. My 1860 SSB is the only Ovation I've ever owned. Bought it in 1994 and I'm ashamed to admit I knew nothing about the difference between deep bowls and shallow bowls......but it sure looked puurrty on display in the music shop. I bought it simply because it was an Ovation and I'd always wanted one.
I still don't know anything about pre-amps or pickups. My guitar is equipped with FET3 and it seems to do the job for me but I've never heard any of the others (they're few and far between down here) to make a comparison.
Having learned a few things since becoming a member here, I'd like to buy a deep bowl but I never intend getting rid of the 1860. Hope I'm still playing it in 30 years. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 3736
Location: Sunshine State, Australia | Prof, is it worth doing an acoustic comparison? Your excellent review is for 'plugged in' SSBs, no?
Oz, I'll bring my 1768 Elite deep bowl down in July. I can't bring the '05 with the contour bowl as it's almost on its way to Connecticut. (Ooo, I'm excited.) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 1017
Location: Budd Lake, NJ | I have an SSB (my Jewel), two shallow bowls, and one deep to compare her to. Unplugged, Jewel can take on and beat my friend's Taylor, and you can hear her if I'm playing up the neck (9-12th frets) for bluegrass. I only got her because of the shoulder issues, but I really love her--comfortable to play, and plugged in she has the same rich sound that her bigger sisters do. She'll be 3 right after Thanksgiving, and her sound just continues to get bigger and fuller as she opens up. She can be very bassy, too, but I just keep the low equilizer down a bit in the system.
Good thread, Prof--thanks for starting it.
--Karen |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | Originally posted by muzzlitebeer:
Prof, is it worth doing an acoustic comparison? Your excellent review is for 'plugged in' SSBs, no?
Yes, the remarks are based on "plugged in." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2005
Posts: 4903
Location: Phoenix AZ | Prof. Thanks for the nice review. There is a place in the world for supershallow bowls
Dave |
|
| |
Initial thoughts on the SSBs
