|
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 863
Location: Central Florida | I have two 1619 Custom Legends built two years apart: a 1981 with a traditional truss rod and "cloth" fiberglass bowl; and an '83 with a K-Bar and a "molded" bowl.
It seems, to my ears anyway, that the '83 produces noticably more bass response than the '81. The '83 also seems slightly heavier than the other. Would the extra weight of the K-Bar be the reason for the deeper bass, or is it the differences in how the bowls were made... Or a combination of both? Thanks.
Jeff |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2003
Posts: 2503
Location: Fayetteville, NC | The K-bar does add quite a bit of weight to the guitar, but also the bowls weer heavier then too. This was actually discussed during last years factory tour. When designing the LX, because of the lighter bowl they went to a redesigned neck with trussrod and graphite stabilizers. the reason was that the guitar too heavy on the neck end.Now not only are the guitars lighter in weight because of the neck system but because of the new bowls that reduce the weight by 33%. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 13987
Location: Upper Left USA | Too many variables to say.
I would like to see some data from tests on the same models after 20-30 years to see how close they mature.
Does Ovation ever test "seasoned" guitars? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Does Ovation ever test "seasoned" guitars?
You just hit on one of the questions I was planning to ask. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | It is my belief that the cloth bowl gives much more bass responce, that has much more to do with the sound than the K-Bar. The moulding compounds are slightly sound absorbing whereas the cloth is not.
My $2.02. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12755
Location: Boise, Idaho | Jeff seems to say he hears the opposite on the 2 of his. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1071
Location: Carle Place, NY | I used to have both an '81 and '83 1619. My '81 sounded so much better than the '83 that I sold the '83. I don't know why it sounded better, but the difference was very apparent. I always thought that it was just the typical differences between individual guitars of the same make and model, and not a result of the bowl or neck construction. I find that the truss rod neck is a bit thinner and more comfortable to play. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6197
Location: Phoenix AZ | Who cares about the sound, it's the LOOKS that matter. Ovations without TRC's look silly to me. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1071
Location: Carle Place, NY | Dave:
So where did you get all of those GC TRC's that you have on most of your O's? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 14842
Location: NJ | He roots through Glen's trash cans at night . . . |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 863
Location: Central Florida | Dave, once again you've nailed it, little buddy! As Billy Crystal's "Fernando" used to say, "It is better to look good than to feel good (or in this case sound good)." I'm with you. I think the headstocks definitely look better with a TRC.
Getting back to the topic, I didn't mean to infer that one sounds "better" than the other. They both sound awesome just different, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I was just curious as to what, if any, bearing the K-bar might've had on the sound. I used to have a Legend Ltd. that also had the K-bar and molded bowl, and I found that it, too, produced a deeper bass response akin to my '83 CL. That's really what got me to wondering if there might be a connection between the K-bar and molded bowl combination and a deeper bass response.
Jeff |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 6197
Location: Phoenix AZ | Originally posted by cliff:
He roots through Glen's trash cans at night . . . Yes, that's true. Among the J.D. bottles and Schlitz cans you can find hand fulls of truss rod covers ... |
|
| |
K-Bar vs. Truss rod... Sound Altering?
