Weird question but...

Gassage

My Martin can sound a tad dead acoustically.

I removed the Fishman soundhole pickup- the difference is phenomenal.

Now, I can only assume that the Fishman was making the top overly rigid?

Thoughts?

AliGorie

That might be the case with u'r guitar Gas -
I've got a Fishy RE Blend in the s/hole of a v/ responsive guitar and it (the guitar) sounds the same, with or without it ???.
The rigidity thing - the sound board is pretty rigid around the S/h area - with all the braces etc,
so I suspect by adding weight / mass it may be causing more 'damping' reducing the 'output' - again - on u'r guitar.
Get a K&K Mini or McIntyre Feather.

JJW1

My mate got annoyed with the transducers inside his Taylor rattling and removed them plus the three controls from the shoulder of the guitar,leaving three holes. Somehow the guitar sounded better. Must have been the three extra holes!

AliGorie

JJW1 said:

 Must have been the three extra holes!

mini sound ports !



variation on a theme

AliGorie

JJW1 said:

 Must have been the three extra holes!

mini sound ports !



variation on a theme

AliGorie

hu ?

adidaslee52

Easier to retrieve lost plectrums!!

octatonic

Gassage said:

My Martin can sound a tad dead acoustically.

I removed the Fishman soundhole pickup- the difference is phenomenal.

Now, I can only assume that the Fishman was making the top overly rigid?

Thoughts?

I'd want to rule out confirmation bias but yes, making the soundboard stiffer will raise the resonant frequency of the guitar, making it sound thinner and less full.
Whether a soundhole pickup can do this I don't know.

ICBM

The pickup also blocks a significant proportion of the soundhole area. The soundhole size is quite carefully chosen, and in fact Martin used to do a signature model (I forget whose) with a soundhole 1/8" larger than standard. If you can hear a difference from that you can certainly hear a difference from reducing it by maybe 10% with a pickup.

Adding mass almost anywhere on an acoustic guitar can change its resonance too.

This is another reason why I still like a basic undersaddle or soundboard transducer and an endpin jack in the guitar, nothing more. You can do all the rest better offboard.

Lewy

ICBM said:

The soundhole size is quite carefully chosen, and in fact Martin used to do a signature model (I forget whose) with a soundhole 1/8" larger than standard.

Probably Clarence White.

There's quite a fetishisation about large soundholes in bluegrass circles because of one individual guitar - a '35 D-28 owned first by Clarence White and then by Tony Rice, and quite a few high end makers have made versions of it.

It's all about the Herzog something or other. 

The irony being that there's so much other stuff going on with that guitar that it's impossible to put its tonal characteristics down to just the soundhole e.g. the body is about 1/8th of an inch smaller all over than it should be, it was restored after a flood etc etc

octatonic

ICBM said:

This is another reason why I still like a basic undersaddle or soundboard transducer and an endpin jack in the guitar, nothing more. You can do all the rest better offboard.

I agree.

Acoustic guitars with onboard preamps are a bit of a problem for me.
Gouging out a big part of the instrument's side and stick a box of electronics in it can only have a detrimental effect.
The choice to do it is a marketing/business decision, I guess- it isn't cost effective to bundle a high end acoustic guitar with a preamp pedal.
For my own builds I plan on doing no more than you suggest- an undersaddle pickup wired to an endpin output.

octatonic

Lewy said:

ICBM said:

The soundhole size is quite carefully chosen, and in fact Martin used to do a signature model (I forget whose) with a soundhole 1/8" larger than standard.

Probably Clarence White.

There's quite a fetishisation about large soundholes in bluegrass circles because of one individual guitar - a '35 D-28 owned first by Clarence White and then by Tony Rice, and quite a few high end makers have made versions of it.

It's all about the Herzog something or other. 

The irony being that there's so much other stuff going on with that guitar that it's impossible to put its tonal characteristics down to just the soundhole e.g. the body is about 1/8th of an inch smaller all over than it should be, it was restored after a flood etc etc

Helmholtz. 
A guitar acts in a similar way to a Helmholtz resonator.

Gassage

I've just removed the FIshman.

The transformation is staggering- strident, toppy, exactly as you'd expect an 00028 to be.

Massive change in volume and tone. Huge.

TheBigDipper

+1 for @ICBM and @octatonic ;.  I just don't like the un-amplified sound of electro-acoustics compared to pure acoustics. But then, I don't usually play acoustic guitar onstage. I do have one guitar with a passive K&K pickup - the un-amplified sound is unchanged to my ears and (with pre-amp assistance) the amplified sound isn't bad either, but I've never used it anywhere bigger than a coffee shop or small pub room and certainly never played it within a rock band context. 

BigLicks67

I must admit I never liked the sound of my Martin OM with a Fishman neo D sound hole pickup, it wasn't long before the Fishman was removed and sold on eBay.

Gassage

BigLicks67 said:

I must admit I never liked the sound of my Martin OM with a Fishman neo D sound hole pickup, it wasn't long before the Fishman was removed and sold on eBay.

DId you find it made a diff to the acoustic sound?

BigLicks67

Gassage said:

BigLicks67 said:

I must admit I never liked the sound of my Martin OM with a Fishman neo D sound hole pickup, it wasn't long before the Fishman was removed and sold on eBay.

DId you find it made a diff to the acoustic sound?

My main issue was with the plugged in sound, but it did seem counterintuitive to buy a guitar with forward shifted scalloped bracing and then attach a big piece of plastic to it from a solely acoustic point of view.

Gassage

BigLicks67 said:

Gassage said:

BigLicks67 said:

I must admit I never liked the sound of my Martin OM with a Fishman neo D sound hole pickup, it wasn't long before the Fishman was removed and sold on eBay.

DId you find it made a diff to the acoustic sound?

My main issue was with the plugged in sound, but it did seem counterintuitive to buy a guitar with forward shifted scalloped bracing and then attach a big piece of plastic to it from a solely acoustic point of view.

Well, I'm 100% sure that it's added maybe 20-25% to projection and volume by removing it.

BigLicks67

Gassage said:

BigLicks67 said:

Gassage said:

BigLicks67 said:

I must admit I never liked the sound of my Martin OM with a Fishman neo D sound hole pickup, it wasn't long before the Fishman was removed and sold on eBay.

DId you find it made a diff to the acoustic sound?

My main issue was with the plugged in sound, but it did seem counterintuitive to buy a guitar with forward shifted scalloped bracing and then attach a big piece of plastic to it from a solely acoustic point of view.

Well, I'm 100% sure that it's added maybe 20-25% to projection and volume by removing it.

Yes, I agree, as ICBM stated above - Adding mass almost anywhere on an acoustic guitar can change its resonance too. 

midlifecrisis

Not quite a Martin but I have a sigma 15 Martin copy basically and there is a definite difference acoustically when I take out my fishman  rare earth pickup

rustneversleeps

I too removed my fishman pickup out of my m36 and I liked the difference.I brought a condenser mic which I use on the 12th fret.This sounds more natural to me and a lot more comfortable.