What is your opinion on cutaways on acoustic guitars?
Do you like them?
If so is it for looks, function, or both??
I personally never play an acoustic above the 10th fret, so I find a cutaway sort of superfluous on an acoustic guitar. For me, it serves neither looks nor function.
But, that's just me. What is your opinion??
PS: My Martin has a cutaway, but I bought it inspite of, rather than because of the cutaway.
I venture up as far as the 15th fret quite often, so I say the cutaways on my guitars are functional. If I wasn't going to be heading up to that altitude I probably wouldn't have a cutaway though. I'm no acoustic engineer, but it just seems to me you're losing some of the available resonating space inside the guitar with a cutaway. Don't know if there's any truth to that or not, and I've never done a comparison test with the same model -- one cutaway one without.
Has anybody else tried that? I'm curious if there is an audible difference...
I have one cw guitar, the Seagull Artist Studio CW. Never go so high up. However CW was the only Artist Studio available (I'd rather had the model without CW). and I wanted an Artist Studio.
I don't like the looks of them. Functional, they may be...but they lack the symmetry of the conventional box. I've been looking at them for decades and just can't warm up to the shape. But then I have no use for all those strats and lespauls and their offspring either.
"But as for me, give me symmetry or give me..." well you get the idea
I want to have a non-cutaway steel-string guitar but, alas, I don't have one right now - my Aria LW-15 was traded away for my Godin 5th Avenue Kingpin II, and my Seagull Performer Flame Maple CW QIT was one of 2 Seagulls available at Wolfe Guitars (the other was a Performer Mini-Jumbo) when I traded for that. Now, does my Giannini Craviola have a cutaway? What do you think?
Or, is that a "curve-away"? ;-)
Now, let me throw this out there - we all know that a good amplifier can cover up a multitude of sins - but, in pure acoustic mode, I would think that a non-cutaway would have an advantage, given a larger "box" for the sound to resonate in. Thoughts?
Oh, and I sometimes do play around on the upper frets - and my 12-fret classicals do leave a bit to be desired if I want to play up there...
I believe Giannini Craviola is a code name for Salvador Dali when he decided to design guitars ... :-)
You see, the story goes that Dali and Picasso were drunk on absinthe one day, and... ;-)
then they ran into miro....
I own the traditional and the cutaway version of the Alvrez AF410...I prefer the traditional....to me, it just sounds better...
I just checked your "inventory" - first, I'd love to see a picture of the Artcore - second, don't part with your S6 - but add a Seagull with a cutaway of some kind... ;-)
Maybe a Natural Element? I hear GAS bubbling up...
I think cutaways look cool. They give more appearance of upstairs access, than actual access, because you still have the heel, etc. stopping your hand. In order to test a cutaway's audible difference, one would need the same guitar without a cutaway, the same strings, playing style and environment. I would wager on little disparity. There would be none, if electronics are involved. Space is normally associated with "boom", but wood and design can be deceiving... my little Washburn plywood folk has as much punch as my Seagull mini jumbo... go figure.
Cutaways seem to be paired with electronics when it comes to acoustic guitars. Acoustically it probably takes away from the guitar so amplification seems the norm. I would like better access to the frets beyond the 12th to 14th on my acoustics but so far I have stuck with the traditional non-cutaway dreadnaught shape. I'll pick up my electric when I want to play up the neck.
I prefer plain old straight dreadnaughts,
The cutaway does nothing for me, and I feel it detracts a little from the sound of the instrument.
But then I also don't like built in electronics, (the hole(s)) needed in the body for the controls bug me :)