What Guitars are the loudest unplugged?

[braintheory]

The loudest I’ve ever tried acoustically hands down is my EGC, which is all aluminum (no wood to be found). It’s technically not a solid body since that would make it insanely heavy being all metal, but it sounds solid enough imo and a neck-thru. My Ogre guitar (all magnesium) is also very loud, but the EGC even a bit more. I remember them being even louder than the 1958 Gretsch Country Club hollow body I used to own (was my dad’s guitar). The EGC and Ogre are among my top 5 favorites in my collection, even though they’re pretty unusual. The EGC though I think of as more of a blues, classic rock guitar, but the Ogre is very tight and metal imo. They’re very rare though

For what it’s worth though, I don’t think it’s that important how acoustically loud a guitar is. My two most tonally complex and best sounding guitars acoustically imo are my Nik Huber Dolphin and Barlow Falcon. Both guitars are very quiet acoustically, but have great tone. My Knaggs Severn might be my next loudest guitar to my metal ones, but I don’t like it’s tone nearly as much as the Huber or Barlow. And for whatever reason most of the other knaggs I've tried (I’ve tried many, even their hollowbody) were quieter than mine.

One of my friends had a Ruokangas. I thought it was nice and definitely high quality, but overrated and overpriced and average in volume. Huber or Barlow are in another league imo. The Huber is my favorite in my collection. One of my friends has a freakishly good ‘56 Les Paul that may be the best sounding guitar I’ve played both acoustically and plugged in and again it’s average in acoustic volume. He got rid of a really 59 because of it if that says anything! When you play it acoustically every note sounds so rich and textured and rings out. Very special guitar!!

It is though funny to me how most guys these days talk about almost everything with a guitar from fit, finish, attention to detail, playability, frets, etc., yet barely talk at all about how the damn thing sounds acoustically. If they cared more about that, I think brands like Suhr, Charvel, Jackson, and Anderson would probably go out of business, but to each their own I guess

Oh and also all the McInturff guitars I’ve tried have been loud and great sounding acoustically. Those are awesome and quite underrated imo. I think though that most guitars that have the qualities we want for metal and hard rock (like being tight, focused and punchy sounding) tend not to be as loud acoustically most of the time

I know a loud one acoustically could possibly not sound great plugged in. I was more interested in a builder that nails both. Loud acoustically and it sounds great plugged in.

So, are you saying that those brands (Suhr, Charvel etc) sound terrible unplugged?? Wow, I've had some VERY resonant Charvels (USA Promods and Customs) and the last Jackson USA Soloist was HUGE sounding unplugged. I guess these exotics are even more resonant? LPs are pretty resonant and the Charvels and the Jackson were right with the LP (78 Custom). And, every single really resonant Charvel or Jackson had killer tone plugged in as well. I have played some dead sounding guitars, and if they were dead unplugged they were pretty lame plugged in as well.
For me, my experience it usually goes together.

I completely agree that dead guitars tend to sound unimpressive plugged in too and that the experience goes together. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider late 70’s Les Paul Customs or most Les Paul Customs for that matter to be the best or most resonant sounding guitars. They tend to sound dense and punchy which I like, but lacking in tonally complexity and detail to the notes. They’re a completely different sound than the standard late 50’s style Les Pauls, which tend to sound warmer, sweeter high notes, more growl, complexity, but not as dense or rock solid sounding, maybe more airy sounding

I wouldn’t go as far as to say any of those guitars sound terrible, but I’ve found most Suhr’s to sound quite sterile/not lively at all acoustically. The Charvel’s and higher end Jackson’s I’ve played I thought sounded ok, but nowhere near as good as some of the other boutique makers. I didn’t like the way the Guthrie Govan Charvel sounded at all, but I liked the other custom shop ones I tried better, but still nothing that special too my ears

I know Nik Huber’s are very pricy, but I got a good deal on my Dolphin ($3200) and honestly I don’t think any of those guitars can hold a candle to the Huber. It may come off as snobby, but to my ears there’s a richness and resonance to its acoustic tone that those guitars just don’t have and the high notes are just so sweet and musical. I find the McInturff’s and Woody Phifer’s to sound similarly impressive and sometimes you can find very good prices for used McInturff’s

I recommend trying some of those guitars if you can come across them. They can be priciy and you may not agree with me and still prefer the Charvel’s or Jackson’s, but still worth checking out imo if you get the chance. For what it’s worth, I’m not too picky about playability or things like fit, finish, attention to detail, but I’m super picky about a guitars acoustic tone. That all being said, my friends Woody Phifer guitar is possibly my favorite guitar I’ve tried in both sound and playability

Hey no worries, we all have our preferences, for me the 2 biggest are playability and tone...how does it feel, smooth, slinky, easy to play...and does it have good resonance. The Plum USA SoCal I have now just blows away anything I've ever played...just an incredible easy playing guitar. Effortless. Resonant too. I had a '90 USA Soloist not too long ago that was even more resonant...and just sounded killer...best I've owned in that category. But it didn't have the Charvels' slinky feel.
My issue or rabbit hole are amps...and always will be. I find one or two guitars that are keepers and then it's a battle to hold the amp GAS down...

I’ve been in a similar boat for a while. I’d have 3-4 guitars that would be my keepers, but since I now own and have tried most of the amps I’ve been interested in (only have 19 on my radar now lol) and pedals, I’ve dug pretty deeply into the guitar rabbit hole this last year or 2 and it’s more annoying than the amp rabbit hole because at least with amps guys talk about how it actually sounds, but with guitars they’ll talk forever about almost everything but the damn way it sounds, so it’s harder to figure it out. I hate when guys talk about how gorgeous the top looks or how perfect the fretwork, fit and finish is, but not describe at all the sound. It’s kinda like how some amps are supposed to be very beautifully/immaculately laid out on the inside, but don’t necessarily sound great, while others like the Cameron stuff can be sloppy inside from what I heard (I’m not a technical guy), but still sound incredible.

I’ve actually been in the pickup rabbit hole even longer than with amps, but luckily I have that basically sorted out now too

 

[Racerxrated]

The loudest I’ve ever tried acoustically hands down is my EGC, which is all aluminum (no wood to be found). It’s technically not a solid body since that would make it insanely heavy being all metal, but it sounds solid enough imo and a neck-thru. My Ogre guitar (all magnesium) is also very loud, but the EGC even a bit more. I remember them being even louder than the 1958 Gretsch Country Club hollow body I used to own (was my dad’s guitar). The EGC and Ogre are among my top 5 favorites in my collection, even though they’re pretty unusual. The EGC though I think of as more of a blues, classic rock guitar, but the Ogre is very tight and metal imo. They’re very rare though

For what it’s worth though, I don’t think it’s that important how acoustically loud a guitar is. My two most tonally complex and best sounding guitars acoustically imo are my Nik Huber Dolphin and Barlow Falcon. Both guitars are very quiet acoustically, but have great tone. My Knaggs Severn might be my next loudest guitar to my metal ones, but I don’t like it’s tone nearly as much as the Huber or Barlow. And for whatever reason most of the other knaggs I've tried (I’ve tried many, even their hollowbody) were quieter than mine.

One of my friends had a Ruokangas. I thought it was nice and definitely high quality, but overrated and overpriced and average in volume. Huber or Barlow are in another league imo. The Huber is my favorite in my collection. One of my friends has a freakishly good ‘56 Les Paul that may be the best sounding guitar I’ve played both acoustically and plugged in and again it’s average in acoustic volume. He got rid of a really 59 because of it if that says anything! When you play it acoustically every note sounds so rich and textured and rings out. Very special guitar!!

It is though funny to me how most guys these days talk about almost everything with a guitar from fit, finish, attention to detail, playability, frets, etc., yet barely talk at all about how the damn thing sounds acoustically. If they cared more about that, I think brands like Suhr, Charvel, Jackson, and Anderson would probably go out of business, but to each their own I guess

Oh and also all the McInturff guitars I’ve tried have been loud and great sounding acoustically. Those are awesome and quite underrated imo. I think though that most guitars that have the qualities we want for metal and hard rock (like being tight, focused and punchy sounding) tend not to be as loud acoustically most of the time

I know a loud one acoustically could possibly not sound great plugged in. I was more interested in a builder that nails both. Loud acoustically and it sounds great plugged in.

So, are you saying that those brands (Suhr, Charvel etc) sound terrible unplugged?? Wow, I've had some VERY resonant Charvels (USA Promods and Customs) and the last Jackson USA Soloist was HUGE sounding unplugged. I guess these exotics are even more resonant? LPs are pretty resonant and the Charvels and the Jackson were right with the LP (78 Custom). And, every single really resonant Charvel or Jackson had killer tone plugged in as well. I have played some dead sounding guitars, and if they were dead unplugged they were pretty lame plugged in as well.
For me, my experience it usually goes together.

I completely agree that dead guitars tend to sound unimpressive plugged in too and that the experience goes together. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider late 70’s Les Paul Customs or most Les Paul Customs for that matter to be the best or most resonant sounding guitars. They tend to sound dense and punchy which I like, but lacking in tonally complexity and detail to the notes. They’re a completely different sound than the standard late 50’s style Les Pauls, which tend to sound warmer, sweeter high notes, more growl, complexity, but not as dense or rock solid sounding, maybe more airy sounding

I wouldn’t go as far as to say any of those guitars sound terrible, but I’ve found most Suhr’s to sound quite sterile/not lively at all acoustically. The Charvel’s and higher end Jackson’s I’ve played I thought sounded ok, but nowhere near as good as some of the other boutique makers. I didn’t like the way the Guthrie Govan Charvel sounded at all, but I liked the other custom shop ones I tried better, but still nothing that special too my ears

I know Nik Huber’s are very pricy, but I got a good deal on my Dolphin ($3200) and honestly I don’t think any of those guitars can hold a candle to the Huber. It may come off as snobby, but to my ears there’s a richness and resonance to its acoustic tone that those guitars just don’t have and the high notes are just so sweet and musical. I find the McInturff’s and Woody Phifer’s to sound similarly impressive and sometimes you can find very good prices for used McInturff’s

I recommend trying some of those guitars if you can come across them. They can be priciy and you may not agree with me and still prefer the Charvel’s or Jackson’s, but still worth checking out imo if you get the chance. For what it’s worth, I’m not too picky about playability or things like fit, finish, attention to detail, but I’m super picky about a guitars acoustic tone. That all being said, my friends Woody Phifer guitar is possibly my favorite guitar I’ve tried in both sound and playability

Hey no worries, we all have our preferences, for me the 2 biggest are playability and tone...how does it feel, smooth, slinky, easy to play...and does it have good resonance. The Plum USA SoCal I have now just blows away anything I've ever played...just an incredible easy playing guitar. Effortless. Resonant too. I had a '90 USA Soloist not too long ago that was even more resonant...and just sounded killer...best I've owned in that category. But it didn't have the Charvels' slinky feel.
My issue or rabbit hole are amps...and always will be. I find one or two guitars that are keepers and then it's a battle to hold the amp GAS down...

I’ve been in a similar boat for a while. I’d have 3-4 guitars that would be my keepers, but since I now own and have tried most of the amps I’ve been interested in (only have 19 on my radar now lol) and pedals, I’ve dug pretty deeply into the guitar rabbit hole this last year or 2 and it’s more annoying than the amp rabbit hole because at least with amps guys talk about how it actually sounds, but with guitars they’ll talk forever about almost everything but the damn way it sounds, so it’s harder to figure it out. I hate when guys talk about how gorgeous the top looks or how perfect the fretwork, fit and finish is, but not describe at all the sound. It’s kinda like how some amps are supposed to be very beautifully/immaculately laid out on the inside, but don’t necessarily sound great, while others like the Cameron stuff can be sloppy inside from what I heard (I’m not a technical guy), but still sound incredible.

I’ve actually been in the pickup rabbit hole even longer than with amps, but luckily I have that basically sorted out now too

The question I'd ask is, when you want to know how a guitar sounds, the only term you can really use is resonance? Because plugged in, so many factors will change the tone...pups, bridge, if Floyded then what block is used, etc...or are you talking about how the tone is unplugged? I'd have a hard time doing that from guitar to guitar other than how resonant it is...

 

[JimmyBlind]

The Suhr Satins are pretty loud & vibrant. Super light & natural finish. I think I read John Suhr say in a factory tour that if a guitar doesn't sound good unplugged, it's unlikely to sound good plugged in.

That being said, my old Mayones Regius was super loud & resonant unplugged. Also the heaviest guitar i've played by a clear mile. It wasn't at all dynamic & kinda sterile when plugged in.

I'd say all the lighter guitars I've owned have generally sounded 'better' when plugged in.

 

[dfarr]

Tom Anderson. Any of them.

 

[Racerxrated]

I wonder what a builder looks for when it comes to wood....for instance, with Alder, do they look for wood farmed from a certain part of the world? Is old growth the most desirable? I'd imagine it is. I see that aspect advertised when it comes to the 5 figure 59 LP replicas...I've noticed a huge variance when it comes to the USA/MIJ Charvels compared to the Mexi Charvels, in that the Mexi Charvels are hugely inconsistent tone wise. Haven't owned any Mexi Charvels but I have pulled a few off the wall and that's been my experience.
I'd love to try some of these exotic guitar brands but man, for that much coin, if you don't like it, seems to be harder to move guitars these days vs amps.

 

[K-Roll]

my experience:

tinniest - ibanez rg550, sounded like paper unplugged
loudest- prs custom 22 in drop B

I've had or played maybe 20 guitars in total, but the moment i got my custom 22 even our singer who sat across the whole room said - that thing unplugged is super loud.

 

[braintheory]

The loudest I’ve ever tried acoustically hands down is my EGC, which is all aluminum (no wood to be found). It’s technically not a solid body since that would make it insanely heavy being all metal, but it sounds solid enough imo and a neck-thru. My Ogre guitar (all magnesium) is also very loud, but the EGC even a bit more. I remember them being even louder than the 1958 Gretsch Country Club hollow body I used to own (was my dad’s guitar). The EGC and Ogre are among my top 5 favorites in my collection, even though they’re pretty unusual. The EGC though I think of as more of a blues, classic rock guitar, but the Ogre is very tight and metal imo. They’re very rare though

For what it’s worth though, I don’t think it’s that important how acoustically loud a guitar is. My two most tonally complex and best sounding guitars acoustically imo are my Nik Huber Dolphin and Barlow Falcon. Both guitars are very quiet acoustically, but have great tone. My Knaggs Severn might be my next loudest guitar to my metal ones, but I don’t like it’s tone nearly as much as the Huber or Barlow. And for whatever reason most of the other knaggs I've tried (I’ve tried many, even their hollowbody) were quieter than mine.

One of my friends had a Ruokangas. I thought it was nice and definitely high quality, but overrated and overpriced and average in volume. Huber or Barlow are in another league imo. The Huber is my favorite in my collection. One of my friends has a freakishly good ‘56 Les Paul that may be the best sounding guitar I’ve played both acoustically and plugged in and again it’s average in acoustic volume. He got rid of a really 59 because of it if that says anything! When you play it acoustically every note sounds so rich and textured and rings out. Very special guitar!!

It is though funny to me how most guys these days talk about almost everything with a guitar from fit, finish, attention to detail, playability, frets, etc., yet barely talk at all about how the damn thing sounds acoustically. If they cared more about that, I think brands like Suhr, Charvel, Jackson, and Anderson would probably go out of business, but to each their own I guess

Oh and also all the McInturff guitars I’ve tried have been loud and great sounding acoustically. Those are awesome and quite underrated imo. I think though that most guitars that have the qualities we want for metal and hard rock (like being tight, focused and punchy sounding) tend not to be as loud acoustically most of the time

I know a loud one acoustically could possibly not sound great plugged in. I was more interested in a builder that nails both. Loud acoustically and it sounds great plugged in.

So, are you saying that those brands (Suhr, Charvel etc) sound terrible unplugged?? Wow, I've had some VERY resonant Charvels (USA Promods and Customs) and the last Jackson USA Soloist was HUGE sounding unplugged. I guess these exotics are even more resonant? LPs are pretty resonant and the Charvels and the Jackson were right with the LP (78 Custom). And, every single really resonant Charvel or Jackson had killer tone plugged in as well. I have played some dead sounding guitars, and if they were dead unplugged they were pretty lame plugged in as well.
For me, my experience it usually goes together.

I completely agree that dead guitars tend to sound unimpressive plugged in too and that the experience goes together. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider late 70’s Les Paul Customs or most Les Paul Customs for that matter to be the best or most resonant sounding guitars. They tend to sound dense and punchy which I like, but lacking in tonally complexity and detail to the notes. They’re a completely different sound than the standard late 50’s style Les Pauls, which tend to sound warmer, sweeter high notes, more growl, complexity, but not as dense or rock solid sounding, maybe more airy sounding

I wouldn’t go as far as to say any of those guitars sound terrible, but I’ve found most Suhr’s to sound quite sterile/not lively at all acoustically. The Charvel’s and higher end Jackson’s I’ve played I thought sounded ok, but nowhere near as good as some of the other boutique makers. I didn’t like the way the Guthrie Govan Charvel sounded at all, but I liked the other custom shop ones I tried better, but still nothing that special too my ears

I know Nik Huber’s are very pricy, but I got a good deal on my Dolphin ($3200) and honestly I don’t think any of those guitars can hold a candle to the Huber. It may come off as snobby, but to my ears there’s a richness and resonance to its acoustic tone that those guitars just don’t have and the high notes are just so sweet and musical. I find the McInturff’s and Woody Phifer’s to sound similarly impressive and sometimes you can find very good prices for used McInturff’s

I recommend trying some of those guitars if you can come across them. They can be priciy and you may not agree with me and still prefer the Charvel’s or Jackson’s, but still worth checking out imo if you get the chance. For what it’s worth, I’m not too picky about playability or things like fit, finish, attention to detail, but I’m super picky about a guitars acoustic tone. That all being said, my friends Woody Phifer guitar is possibly my favorite guitar I’ve tried in both sound and playability

Hey no worries, we all have our preferences, for me the 2 biggest are playability and tone...how does it feel, smooth, slinky, easy to play...and does it have good resonance. The Plum USA SoCal I have now just blows away anything I've ever played...just an incredible easy playing guitar. Effortless. Resonant too. I had a '90 USA Soloist not too long ago that was even more resonant...and just sounded killer...best I've owned in that category. But it didn't have the Charvels' slinky feel.
My issue or rabbit hole are amps...and always will be. I find one or two guitars that are keepers and then it's a battle to hold the amp GAS down...

I’ve been in a similar boat for a while. I’d have 3-4 guitars that would be my keepers, but since I now own and have tried most of the amps I’ve been interested in (only have 19 on my radar now lol) and pedals, I’ve dug pretty deeply into the guitar rabbit hole this last year or 2 and it’s more annoying than the amp rabbit hole because at least with amps guys talk about how it actually sounds, but with guitars they’ll talk forever about almost everything but the damn way it sounds, so it’s harder to figure it out. I hate when guys talk about how gorgeous the top looks or how perfect the fretwork, fit and finish is, but not describe at all the sound. It’s kinda like how some amps are supposed to be very beautifully/immaculately laid out on the inside, but don’t necessarily sound great, while others like the Cameron stuff can be sloppy inside from what I heard (I’m not a technical guy), but still sound incredible.

I’ve actually been in the pickup rabbit hole even longer than with amps, but luckily I have that basically sorted out now too

The question I'd ask is, when you want to know how a guitar sounds, the only term you can really use is resonance? Because plugged in, so many factors will change the tone...pups, bridge, if Floyded then what block is used, etc...or are you talking about how the tone is unplugged? I'd have a hard time doing that from guitar to guitar other than how resonant it is...

Yes of course pups, bridge, backplate and all that stuff matters and I’ve experimented with it all. I’ve tried different bridges, blocks and backplates (on bolt-on guitars) and looked for the differences I could hear both acoustically and plugged in. They can be subtle, but still there. I also tried different saddles on my teles (brass, stainless steel)

When I play a guitar acoustically I try to test if it has the tonal qualities I want to have when it’s also plugged in. For example, I’ll do various palm muted stuff to try to get an idea of how tight and punchy it sounds acoustically (for example the Mayones Regius tend to sound super tight and punchy, but sterile), I’ll play some upper notes to see if the high notes sound full, round and ring, I’ll play powerchords in various registers to see if it has that rich, complex sound that I know translates to a more complete growl than guitars that lack that acoustically. I get that their acoustic tone is at the end of the day is a very small piece of the tonal puzzle and may seem silly to some, but it still interests me. I’m not too concerned though with how loud it actually sounds acoustically

I’ve had now 4 VERY different sets of pickups (that I had in various other guitars) in my Huber and no matter what it still seemed to have that same rich growl, dark sound and moderately tight bottom end, which I think is consistently there because it has those qualities acoustically. Likewise, I had a similar amount of equally different pickups in my Mayones Regius and it also still sounded super tight, cutting and sterile with a lean bottom end no matter what I put in it and again I heard that right away when I played it acoustically when I first got it. So yes, I agree that many things will change the tone when plugged in, but much of it will also still be there and I very rarely use any modulation effects like reverb, delay or chorus or tons of gain, so it perhaps comes through a bit more. I’ve found the some of the same pickups to sound very different in different guitars of mine and those differences I hear tend to be basically the same differences I hear in their acoustic sounds

And also fwiw when plugged in, I can definitely still hear that bright metallic zing and clarity with my aluminum and magnesium guitars that none of my wooden guitars have. My Zerberus with its stone marble top also has its own distinct personality whether played acoustically or plugged in, even with the high output pickups I have in it (very interesting guitar)

 

[Beandust]

James Trussart. Made to be louder has a metal plate on the headstock. Sounds like it's going to resonate like holding your electric guitar down on the table , its louder as EVH quotes ,he did as a kid

 

[jco5055]

I would think the answer may be Aristides, since they have no wood and are made out of a synthetic material designed to be as resonant as possible.

 

[braintheory]

I wonder what a builder looks for when it comes to wood....for instance, with Alder, do they look for wood farmed from a certain part of the world? Is old growth the most desirable? I'd imagine it is. I see that aspect advertised when it comes to the 5 figure 59 LP replicas...I've noticed a huge variance when it comes to the USA/MIJ Charvels compared to the Mexi Charvels, in that the Mexi Charvels are hugely inconsistent tone wise. Haven't owned any Mexi Charvels but I have pulled a few off the wall and that's been my experience.
I'd love to try some of these exotic guitar brands but man, for that much coin, if you don't like it, seems to be harder to move guitars these days vs amps.

That’s very true, but if you can find any of them at a good enough price used I think it can be worth it. I’ve been able to sell a few of mine for slightly more than I paid since I got pretty good deals and maybe also good timing. On some I took a small loss, but nothing too bad, but I never paid anywhere near top dollar for any of them used

My EGC is one of the only guitars I ever bought brand new because they tend to sell for just as much used as they do new and always sell fast. He seems to have a good following

 

[braintheory]

I would think the answer may be Aristides, since they have no wood and are made out of a synthetic material designed to be as resonant as possible.

I owned an Aristides and played many others. I thought they were nice, but weren’t nearly as lively or complex, rich sounding as the wooden guitars in my collection. I do remember them being pretty loud and resonant, but I think a few of my wooden guitars like my knaggs were still more so, while sounding more inspiring to me and my EGC and Ogre (metal made guitars) are surely more loud than the Aristides guitars

Also, one thing that disappointed me about the Aristides I had is that it had perfect action when I first got it, but needed a set up a few months later. The action got noticeably higher. I thought this wouldn’t be an issue (or at least less of an issue) since it’s not made of wood, but unfortunately it didn’t seem any different in that regard

 

[braintheory]

James Trussart. Made to be louder has a metal plate on the headstock. Sounds like it's going to resonate like holding your electric guitar down on the table , its louder as EVH quotes ,he did as a kid

I played a Les Paul style Trussart with a steel body and wooden neck. I had my EGC with me to compare side by side and for me I much preferred my EGC and it was much louder and more articulate than the Trussart. Wasn’t even close

The Trussart though still sounded woody to me despite the all steel body, so I guess it was an apples to oranges comparison still. The neck seems to make a big difference from my experience. I have one guitar where both the neck and fretboard are both ebony. It has a very interesting sound

 

[jco5055]

I would think the answer may be Aristides, since they have no wood and are made out of a synthetic material designed to be as resonant as possible.

I owned an Aristides and played many others. I thought they were nice, but weren’t nearly as lively or complex, rich sounding as the wooden guitars in my collection. I do remember them being pretty loud and resonant, but I think a few of my wooden guitars like my knaggs were still more so, while sounding more inspiring to me and my EGC and Ogre (metal made guitars) are surely more loud than the Aristides guitars

Also, one thing that disappointed me about the Aristides I had is that it had perfect action when I first got it, but needed a set up a few months later. The action got noticeably higher. I thought this wouldn’t be an issue (or at least less of an issue) since it’s not made of wood, but unfortunately it didn’t seem any different in that regard

I imagine maybe from a pure "if we looked at every guitar ever made by each company and took the average" in terms of resonance Aristides would maybe still win out, but I can imagine certain pieces of woods could still be the overall most resonant.

 

[braintheory]

I would think the answer may be Aristides, since they have no wood and are made out of a synthetic material designed to be as resonant as possible.

I owned an Aristides and played many others. I thought they were nice, but weren’t nearly as lively or complex, rich sounding as the wooden guitars in my collection. I do remember them being pretty loud and resonant, but I think a few of my wooden guitars like my knaggs were still more so, while sounding more inspiring to me and my EGC and Ogre (metal made guitars) are surely more loud than the Aristides guitars

Also, one thing that disappointed me about the Aristides I had is that it had perfect action when I first got it, but needed a set up a few months later. The action got noticeably higher. I thought this wouldn’t be an issue (or at least less of an issue) since it’s not made of wood, but unfortunately it didn’t seem any different in that regard

I imagine maybe from a pure "if we looked at every guitar ever made by each company and took the average" in terms of resonance Aristides would maybe still win out, but I can imagine certain pieces of woods could still be the overall most resonant.

Agreed. Although I think the metal guitars like my EGC and Ogre would still be the win over Aristides

 

[Beandust]

James Trussart. Made to be louder has a metal plate on the headstock. Sounds like it's going to resonate like holding your electric guitar down on the table , its louder as EVH quotes ,he did as a kid

I played a Les Paul style Trussart with a steel body and wooden neck. I had my EGC with me to compare side by side and for me I much preferred my EGC and it was much louder and more articulate than the Trussart. Wasn’t even close

The Trussart though still sounded woody to me despite the all steel body, so I guess it was an apples to oranges comparison still. The neck seems to make a big difference from my experience. I have one guitar where both the neck and fretboard are both ebony. It has a very interesting sound

Possibly, It sounds great plugged in. Louder not plugged in than anything I own. Prs, suhr, Anderson. Friedman is very close. But it's the amp , and guitar combo that interest me the most.

 

[glip22]

I wonder what a builder looks for when it comes to wood....for instance, with Alder, do they look for wood farmed from a certain part of the world? Is old growth the most desirable? I'd imagine it is. I see that aspect advertised when it comes to the 5 figure 59 LP replicas...I've noticed a huge variance when it comes to the USA/MIJ Charvels compared to the Mexi Charvels, in that the Mexi Charvels are hugely inconsistent tone wise. Haven't owned any Mexi Charvels but I have pulled a few off the wall and that's been my experience.
I'd love to try some of these exotic guitar brands but man, for that much coin, if you don't like it, seems to be harder to move guitars these days vs amps.

There are definitely builders that look for specific woods. Giulio Negrinni GNG is one who spent a load of time searching the World for what he considers the best woods for resonance, density, tone, etc. His maple necks, mahogany and Alder bodies is the best I have ever seen or felt. Lighter weight as well.

 

[glip22]

I would think the answer may be Aristides, since they have no wood and are made out of a synthetic material designed to be as resonant as possible.

I owned an Aristides and played many others. I thought they were nice, but weren’t nearly as lively or complex, rich sounding as the wooden guitars in my collection. I do remember them being pretty loud and resonant, but I think a few of my wooden guitars like my knaggs were still more so, while sounding more inspiring to me and my EGC and Ogre (metal made guitars) are surely more loud than the Aristides guitars

Also, one thing that disappointed me about the Aristides I had is that it had perfect action when I first got it, but needed a set up a few months later. The action got noticeably higher. I thought this wouldn’t be an issue (or at least less of an issue) since it’s not made of wood, but unfortunately it didn’t seem any different in that regard

I imagine maybe from a pure "if we looked at every guitar ever made by each company and took the average" in terms of resonance Aristides would maybe still win out, but I can imagine certain pieces of woods could still be the overall most resonant.

I also find that a guitar can really vibrate (resonance ) but that resonance doesn't necessarily make it have a loud unplugged sound.