Posted by StarGeezers on September 12, 2009 at 11:07am
I had a long discussion the other day with my Luthier friend Vinney at NOG. We explored several variations in CBG design up to the point of making our own boxes, custom machined parts, etc. ... Seemed like the more we got away from the most basic CBG , the more MOJO we lost ... The simplest ones just have a much more COOL " Blues" factor. We discussed this point for hours... with no resolution.
We've seen some pretty basic CBGs here and some outrageously NICE ones too ... Funny thing is they pretty much all sound similar , depending upon the players skill...
What do you guys prefer???
You need to be a member of Cigar Box Nation to add comments!
Yes, that's a possibility. I mounted the piezo on a bed of silicone. Same on both boxes but I think this one would have benefitted from more.
StarGeezers said:
I wonder if the mounting method isn't the cause of all those touch tones/noise ??? Mounting the piezo in a "softer" material seems to help with that... blocks of wood , plastic foams , vinyl caulk ... lots of room for experimentation there...
I wonder if the mounting method isn't the cause of all those touch tones/noise ??? Mounting the piezo in a "softer" material seems to help with that... blocks of wood , plastic foams , vinyl caulk ... lots of room for experimentation there...
The top is screwed to the neck and I had to screw it shut to stop a nasty rattle.
It's a Punch box, and the top is quite thick ply: I'd guess about 4mm.
I'm going to try making a taller bridge tomorrow and see what effect that has.
Tres Seaver said:
Jataomm said:
The two I made both have piezo transducers stuck in them. The first sounds great, the second is terrible. It picks up the sound of every scratch and slide. Same method of mounting, different box. Oddly, I prefer this second one when played accoustic.
I wonder if that means that your second is just more "acoustically live" (maybe you glued it shut, or it had a more resonant top, or something). How does the second sound if you run it through some distortion (either a pedal, or
in software afterwards?)
The two I made both have piezo transducers stuck in them. The first sounds great, the second is terrible. It picks up the sound of every scratch and slide. Same method of mounting, different box. Oddly, I prefer this second one when played accoustic.
I wonder if that means that your second is just more "acoustically live" (maybe you glued it shut, or it had a more resonant top, or something). How does the second sound if you run it through some distortion (either a pedal, or
in software afterwards?)
I've made two, and a diddley bow. I have a few more planned: just waiting for a few moments of time. For me, they will remain basic: I love the rawness you get. (Even to the point that when I pick up my 'proper' guitar' it sounds too smooth and soul-less now :-( )
Having said that, there's no harm in looking for a good sound: 'good' being what you like.
The two I made both have piezo transducers stuck in them. The first sounds great, the second is terrible. It picks up the sound of every scratch and slide. Same method of mounting, different box. Oddly, I prefer this second one when played accoustic.
Totally agree mate !!!.... it is in our nature to make things " better"....
I believe the main attraction of the CBG is the Simplicity, affordability, and "that certain TONE" which you can only get from a CBG... Adding any kind of pickup does color that tone ... for the good or bad, depending how you're playing it... at the gig , it does need something to make it louder, on the front porch , it's just fine acoustic and doesn't rile the neighbors... well not as much as my singing anyway ... hahahaha
Uke and resonators were the next experiments on the build list ... Must be that Universal Consciousness thing eh ?? hahahaha
In my articles (see"Wot no articles") I have spent a good bit of time looking at many aspects of improving the acoustical output of of a CBG. I do not regret the time and effort I have put into this as I believe that we should produce the kind of CBG that we, as individuals want, and i hope that my thoughts will help those looking for "better" sound from their CBs.
I am always pleased to see the magnificent instruments that some people are producing, but for me I have consistently used the description of "nice and twangy" for the sound that I really want.
After much thought it seems to me that the CBG lends itself naturally to the acoustic output of the Uke configuration, and to the resonator configuration.
I could add to this my preference for 3 strings (Clearer sound, less harmonics for a small box to cope with) and the amplified Diddly bo.
Mind you, once you add amplification then anything goes as the output it mostly dependent on your pickup and mixer.
There's just something very beautiful about a plain CBG...like WS's picture
I've been painting cotton fields in the Mississippi delta country lately , and seen many suitable front porches(shacks) to sit and wail away on a funky CBG... Now that's MOJO... hahahaha
I prefer a good 3 or 4 stringer, fretless... I do like a nice mini-humbucker as a pup. But, it needs to end up sounded a little "raw'. I just completed a vintage acoustic box. A little twangy, a little buzzy, and just perfect for delta blues... used it today a a library workshop and it was a hit.... the best, Wichita Sam
Replies
StarGeezers said:
It's a Punch box, and the top is quite thick ply: I'd guess about 4mm.
I'm going to try making a taller bridge tomorrow and see what effect that has.
Tres Seaver said:
I wonder if that means that your second is just more "acoustically live" (maybe you glued it shut, or it had a more resonant top, or something). How does the second sound if you run it through some distortion (either a pedal, or
in software afterwards?)
Having said that, there's no harm in looking for a good sound: 'good' being what you like.
The two I made both have piezo transducers stuck in them. The first sounds great, the second is terrible. It picks up the sound of every scratch and slide. Same method of mounting, different box. Oddly, I prefer this second one when played accoustic.
I believe the main attraction of the CBG is the Simplicity, affordability, and "that certain TONE" which you can only get from a CBG... Adding any kind of pickup does color that tone ... for the good or bad, depending how you're playing it... at the gig , it does need something to make it louder, on the front porch , it's just fine acoustic and doesn't rile the neighbors... well not as much as my singing anyway ... hahahaha
Uke and resonators were the next experiments on the build list ... Must be that Universal Consciousness thing eh ?? hahahaha
I am always pleased to see the magnificent instruments that some people are producing, but for me I have consistently used the description of "nice and twangy" for the sound that I really want.
After much thought it seems to me that the CBG lends itself naturally to the acoustic output of the Uke configuration, and to the resonator configuration.
I could add to this my preference for 3 strings (Clearer sound, less harmonics for a small box to cope with) and the amplified Diddly bo.
Mind you, once you add amplification then anything goes as the output it mostly dependent on your pickup and mixer.
I've been painting cotton fields in the Mississippi delta country lately , and seen many suitable front porches(shacks) to sit and wail away on a funky CBG... Now that's MOJO... hahahaha
I prefer a good 3 or 4 stringer, fretless... I do like a nice mini-humbucker as a pup. But, it needs to end up sounded a little "raw'. I just completed a vintage acoustic box. A little twangy, a little buzzy, and just perfect for delta blues... used it today a a library workshop and it was a hit.... the best, Wichita SamNot that there is anything wrong with that.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next