It looks like some marketer took a entry level flat-top and added a whole bunch of faux features..
This is the web page of Richard Schneider - who was the foremost proponent of the Kasha design (other than Kasha himself) Richard died about a decade ago.
I don't know - but I agree with you. A lively guitar with a thin responsive top and a stiff neck will have sustain... Sure - a guitar with a lower neck angle that puts less pressure on the top will have a longer sustain, but at what point does it become irrelevant? What's the longest you've ever held a note or chord for effect.... 6 seconds? 7? At some point there are diminishing returns. I'm way happy with the sustain of my guitars - Gypsy and archtop and flattop....
You get one chance to enjoy this day, but if you're doing it right, that's enough.
I saw the bracing design used in this guitar in a book saying it was one of Kasha's later designs. 3 parallel braces is not far from a Selmer and
the point of Kasha's work was to make it loud. It might be a worthwhile design. What about soundboard transducers?
These guitars have side soundholes that make the internal quite clear: they have macaferri style
bracing with additional "lolipop stick" tone bars. The whole idea is to get a macaferri like responsiveness and attack without the nasal tone, with a more flat-top like tone. They are a deliberate compromise, not a purist instrument. I think they succeed in the aim just fine: there is just a hint of selmac bark on the lower string around the middle of keyboard, but the sound is never obnoxious. The playing feel and responsiveness of a selmac are all there.
The Kasha brodge works too: tapping the soundboard gives a distinctly deeper resonance on the bass
side, although the bracing is symmetrical.
The piezo is not good. And they are very inexpensive.
the initial link ended up dead, so i missed what you guys are talking about... a kasha style assymetrical bridge on a selmer-like guitar, is that correct? any more info?
also, although maybe a tangent, after some reading here and there i ended up with the idea that sustain and volume are counterweights: if you chase one, you end up loosing the other. any opinions?
Comments
This is the web page of Richard Schneider - who was the foremost proponent of the Kasha design (other than Kasha himself) Richard died about a decade ago.
http://www.cybozone.com/fg/schneider1.html
Learn how to play Gypsy guitar:
http://alexsimonmusic.com/learn-gypsy-jazz-guitar/
the point of Kasha's work was to make it loud. It might be a worthwhile design. What about soundboard transducers?
bracing with additional "lolipop stick" tone bars. The whole idea is to get a macaferri like responsiveness and attack without the nasal tone, with a more flat-top like tone. They are a deliberate compromise, not a purist instrument. I think they succeed in the aim just fine: there is just a hint of selmac bark on the lower string around the middle of keyboard, but the sound is never obnoxious. The playing feel and responsiveness of a selmac are all there.
The Kasha brodge works too: tapping the soundboard gives a distinctly deeper resonance on the bass
side, although the bracing is symmetrical.
The piezo is not good. And they are very inexpensive.
also, although maybe a tangent, after some reading here and there i ended up with the idea that sustain and volume are counterweights: if you chase one, you end up loosing the other. any opinions?
thanks,
miguel.
http://clearwaterinstruments.com/index2.php?uid=2