I believe the Hollowbody IIs have a sound post, or block under the bridge connecting the top to the back. Is that correct? Does the big fat Archtop IIs have that, or are they truly hollow? Another question is I remember reading on here at some point in the last few years, they started carving the Hollowbodies differently. Can anyone give me the details on that, and when the change was made? Much appreciated guys! Oh yea, one more. Does anyone own both, and can give me a tone comparison? Is the big boy that much better sounding acoustically? Does it sound bigger and deeper both acoustically and plugged in? Thanks again for the help.
Another Archtop II vs Hollowbody II question.
- Thread starter Tag
- Start date
jfb
Plank Owner
Paging Hans.
veinbuster
Zombie Three, DFZ
I do have both from the late 90s. I can't answer your technical questions, but the carve of the two was very similar. I can comment on the sound of the two.
The archtop has a much fuller sound acoustically. It's sound is big enough that I used it as a proxy for my classical for a couple of years. This wasn't for an audience, just for me to practice without an amp. It has very good dynamic response acoustically. The archtop also strongly favours lower harmonics. The HB is more biased to mids and highs - highs particularly noticeable playing acoustically.
Plugged in, there are a lot more variables, one of which being that I tend to play with different amp settings for the two. Both my old HB and archtop have archtop pickups, so at least that is out of the mix. Settings aside, the archtop has a big edge on the bottom end. I don't strum it, but I use it when I want to play full bodied 'chords' - I almost always finger pick with it, arranging the notes in the chord to suit the feel I am trying to project. I use the HB to create textures with the top half of the chord - biased to the top 4 strings. The highs ring really well, so that is what I use it for. Not sure if that helps, I'll stop before I start to babble on.
NOTE: 12s on the archtop, 10s & 11s on the HBs.
The archtop has a much fuller sound acoustically. It's sound is big enough that I used it as a proxy for my classical for a couple of years. This wasn't for an audience, just for me to practice without an amp. It has very good dynamic response acoustically. The archtop also strongly favours lower harmonics. The HB is more biased to mids and highs - highs particularly noticeable playing acoustically.
Plugged in, there are a lot more variables, one of which being that I tend to play with different amp settings for the two. Both my old HB and archtop have archtop pickups, so at least that is out of the mix. Settings aside, the archtop has a big edge on the bottom end. I don't strum it, but I use it when I want to play full bodied 'chords' - I almost always finger pick with it, arranging the notes in the chord to suit the feel I am trying to project. I use the HB to create textures with the top half of the chord - biased to the top 4 strings. The highs ring really well, so that is what I use it for. Not sure if that helps, I'll stop before I start to babble on.
NOTE: 12s on the archtop, 10s & 11s on the HBs.
C&M Music - Lafayette
Charlie
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,183
I can answer your first question Tag with a yes. The HB II has a narrow soundblock made of mahogany under the bridge connecting the top and back. I do not have an Archtop II. I do have a JA 15 with 53 10's and it is way, way bigger and deeper than my HB II if that helps. I would put the sound similar to George Benson with more dominance, if that makes sense. Cant answer your other questions.
Hey I really appreciate the info guys, its exactly what I was looking for. I think the archtop is the one that would be a better fit for what I am looking for. I need to find one to try. Any other opinions or info would still be great!
garrett
...
Originally the construction was the same with the sound post beneath the bridge, but the Archtop had the thicker sides and the heel was more triangular. I know they did the hollowbodies with a thicker center block at some point, but I think that was a limited run? Can't confirm for sure since I haven't had my hands on another one since before I bought my HBII in '02! Seems like they're never in stores.
I remember comparing them a long, long time ago and the Archtop had more of the big jazz box feel and sound. Really fat and more of an acoustic tone. I preferred the Hollowbody, since I was after a more 335 sort of sound. So basically I'm echoing what Veinbuster said.
I remember comparing them a long, long time ago and the Archtop had more of the big jazz box feel and sound. Really fat and more of an acoustic tone. I preferred the Hollowbody, since I was after a more 335 sort of sound. So basically I'm echoing what Veinbuster said.
So the archtops have a sound post or block as well? I really need to know that as that would eliminate it from the few guitars I am looking into. I want a hollow guitar. Thanks again for any help!
C&M Music - Lafayette
Charlie
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,183
Tag, I do not know how to post a you tube vid, but if you go to that site and search Prs singlecut archtop part two of two, Paul shows the open body. It is completely hollow with integral bracing carved from the solid top. That may answer one more of your questions. I would get one, but PS just is not in the cards for me right now.
garrett
...
The sound post isn't huge. It's about the footprint of the stoptail. I believe the design was inspired by the violin, with the sound post to connect top to back and to help maintain structural integrity. There's no bracing, so it needs something. The top and back vibrate very freely. Sometimes playing at high volumes with a band, I've felt puffs of air coming from the f hole on my HBII.
veinbuster
Zombie Three, DFZ
This description is how I recall it as well. I'm not in the same country as mine right now, so can't check my 1999 version.
TAG: If it would help you, I'll try to remember to check when I get home.
jeffgoobs
New Member
The "tone post" in the McCarty Hollowbody line and the McCarty Archtop line is not a separate block of wood, like a 335. It is routed out all around it on the top and back, so that the top piece and back piece meet in the middle. This design was inspired (as mentioned above) by the tone posts of violins not only for stability, but also so that the top and back vibrate sympathetically.
The thicker block of wood (much more like a 335, where the block extends to the neck heel) was a design change that was done when the Hollowbody line dropped the "McCarty" part of the name, and just became the "Hollowbody II." At that point, the other variations of hollowbodies and Archtops were discontinued. It's a shame, too... I much prefer the wood combinations without the maple back.
The thicker block of wood (much more like a 335, where the block extends to the neck heel) was a design change that was done when the Hollowbody line dropped the "McCarty" part of the name, and just became the "Hollowbody II." At that point, the other variations of hollowbodies and Archtops were discontinued. It's a shame, too... I much prefer the wood combinations without the maple back.
garrett
...
Dave Burrluck's excellent PRS book has a gut shot of an Archtop II in production. Highly recommended read for any PRS fan. I'm sure I've seen other inside shots of HBs, but can't seem to find any right now.
Here are a couple shots inside my HBII. Nothing else but air in there. The original Archtops would've been the same, but they're an inch thicker so accordingly the post is an inch taller.
Here are a couple shots inside my HBII. Nothing else but air in there. The original Archtops would've been the same, but they're an inch thicker so accordingly the post is an inch taller.
Thank you! Do you know what year the change was made, and do all new HBIIs now have the bigger soundpost? I played one with just the post under the bridge and the rest hollow, but it was labeled a Mccarty on the truss rod cover. Sounded pretty good, but of course I would like the deeper guitar most likely for my style.
Dave Burrluck's excellent PRS book has a gut shot of an Archtop II in production. Highly recommended read for any PRS fan. I'm sure I've seen other inside shots of HBs, but can't seem to find any right now.
Here are a couple shots inside my HBII. Nothing else but air in there. The original Archtops would've been the same, but they're an inch thicker so accordingly the post is an inch taller.
Great pic, thanks!! Thats how the one I played was. Is yours a McCarty or just Hollowbody II???
Yes, they have a center post. It's under the bridge, You can see it here...
Thanks Jamie. Thats pretty mimimal. I want to find and try one. I found a Hollowbody online with a rosewood neck I may like, but its new. I need to know they type of sound post.
garrett
...
Yes, they have a center post. It's under the bridge, You can see it here...
Dave Burrluck's excellent PRS book has a gut shot of an Archtop II in production. Highly recommended read for any PRS fan. I'm sure I've seen other inside shots of HBs, but can't seem to find any right now.
Here are a couple shots inside my HBII. Nothing else but air in there. The original Archtops would've been the same, but they're an inch thicker so accordingly the post is an inch taller.
These pics give me my answer now that I have a HB II here I can compare. As someone posted above, they did completely change the bracing on the top after the McCarty name was removed. The above is the way that gives a very acoustic and resonant tone. No or very little top bracing. Its how the one I liked so much and piqued my interest was constructed. The HB IIs have a large thick brace going from the tone post forward to the neck on both sides of the top. This kills the resonance and acoustic volume, but prevents high volume feedback and gives it a much more electric, 335 type of tone. I guess the only way to get a new guitar built the old way is to go PS.
