|
|
Joined:
March 2003
Posts: 555
Location: Wooster, Ohio | I own a 1993 Collectors which I believe was the first mid-depth bowl and now the 1987 Collectors which is the Deep Bowl. In looking at the guitars the main difference acoustically is bowl depth, I believe. I am amazed how much better the 87 sounds acoustically. Can bowl depth make that much difference? Is it just a better piece of wood?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | The deeper the bowl the fuller the sound.
plus they might have different bracing patterns. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15654
Location: SoCal | Same bracing pattern. Bowl depth matters. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2003
Posts: 555
Location: Wooster, Ohio | I looked at the bracing pattern and it is the same. The only structural difference is the bridge. The 93 had a bone bridge which I think was done to inhance the acoustics. The 87 has the traditional ovation bridge. It could be the strings, next time I will put the same on both. If it is the depth only, it is hard to believe that depth matters that much.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | I discovered bowl depth makes a huge difference acoustically. I had 6 and 12 string SS Legends, then played some deep bowl models. I no longer play the SS's acoustically. Plugged in they are just as good, but unplugged they lack the richness and fullness of the deep bodies.
Add to that the fact that the '87 is one of those guitars that everyone seems to agree is 'special'. Something just right happened when they built these. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6192
Location: Phoenix AZ | There are many factors that make the 87 sound good, bowl depth being just one of them. But there is more to it than that. All things being equal I would always choose for the deep bowl. But all things are never equal and I've heard plenty of deep bowls that sound to me inferior to some mid depths. |
|
| |
Deep and Mid Depth
