|
|
Joined:
July 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Las Vegas, Nv | In the July 16 "Custom Ovation" topic, cwk2 noted that "to get the sound of an 1863 in a shallow bowl ain't going to happen." Paul Blanchard responded by asking "isn't the 1863 a shallow bowl by nature?" They may both be correct.
The new 1863 that I recently played is a super shallow bowl. But there a current ad on ebay for an older 1863 that is listed as a deep bowl.
Perhaps the 1863 has had several manifestations?
I am thinking of buying a nylon string Ovation and I prefer the shallow body for personal fit. But I wonder whether the new shallow body 1863 can compete in either tone or projection with the older deep bowl 1863? Any estimates? Even better, is there any impirical evidence regarding the projection and tonal qualities of deep vrs shallow bowls? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12759
Location: Boise, Idaho | I think nylon string guitars sound a little dead to start with. If you added a shallow bowl, it might sound like a little beginner guitar. My 1713 sounds great. Very full. The Country Artist is noticeably lacking. An SSB is even smaller. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | As acoustic...
From the ones I have played or owned, I wouldn't have a non-AAA wood top shallow. I do like the 84C (AAA) but not as an accoustic. As to the Adamas, textured top is wasted on a shallow bowl. As to the shallow nylon, no comparison of my 1763 v. a CA.
All of this assumes it is played as an acoustic. Lot of other factors such as the 1763 is a wide neck v. the CA. |
|
| |
1863--shallow or deep?
