Soundhole Size

[NEALLA]

Does anyone know why the Asian made f-250e has a smaller 3.75 inch soundhole compared to my F-50's 4 inch one? Makes it hard to fit a soundhole cover on it. I had to get one from Maton made for a mandolin and I still had to put a small ring of duct tape around it to make it snug enough!

 

[chazmo]

No idea, Nealla.

The Asian-made Guild acoustics (GAD, 100-series, and Westerly series) are all somewhat inspired by their US-built originals, but they do not necessarily match in any of the dimensions.

 

[fronobulax]

Does anyone know why the Asian made f-250e has a smaller 3.75 inch soundhole compared to my F-50's 4 inch one? Makes it hard to fit a soundhole cover on it. I had to get one from Maton made for a mandolin and I still had to put a small ring of duct tape around it to make it snug enough!

No idea.

Expecting consistency from Guild can be very disappointing.

If I had to guess I'd go down two rabbit holes first. One is the possibility that it was someone's aesthetic decision - the change in size made it look more proportional or symmetric or sounded better to someone's ear. The other is that doing so lowered manufacturing costs. Maybe the factory was already set up to make the smaller hole, or they had a stock of already made and sized rosette material or the smaller hole reduced the time and/or cost to install the bracing or...

Tangentially I think using a sound hole cover is more niche than mainstream and it may also be that no one thought the size difference would matter in the market place.

 

[Roland]

Maybe with some Asian guitar manufacturers they are using a measurement system other than inches. Maybe four inches has no significance to them. Are you sure it is 3.75" or could it be close to that? I don't know that, I'm just throwing it out there as a reason.

 

[fronobulax]

Maybe with some Asian guitar manufacturers they are using a measurement system other than inches. Maybe four inches has no significance to them. Are you sure it is 3.75" or could it be close to that? I don't know that, I'm just throwing it out there as a reason.

Good point. Wouldn't be the first time metric measurements muddied the water for Americans

 

[NEALLA]

Maybe with some Asian guitar manufacturers they are using a measurement system other than inches. Maybe four inches has no significance to them. Are you sure it is 3.75" or could it be close to that? I don't know that, I'm just throwing it out there as a reason.

It's very close to that. I mean, that's a pretty big difference I think. I was wondering if they were trying to alter the sound.

 

[chazmo]

Nealla, just so you know... 10 years ago, back in New Hartford, we had very good access to the Guild shop and we got lots of our questions answered from the Guild staff and management. We also had a direct line into Fender (Guild's parent at the time) where we might've been able to get an answer to a question like yours. In fact, we got some very solid insight into what was being done to the 100-series modifications (née GAD series) at the time from the guy who was in charge of that.

Unfortunately, we don't have that communication going on anymore. Maybe we'll see it in the future as Yamaha takes the reins of Córdoba Music Group. We'll see. At this moment, we can't give you any solid answers about what's going on with the Asian-built acoustics (Westerly series, that is).

In any case, I'm pretty sure any answer you get to your question here, Nealla, is conjecture. I think the metric system is very likely the cause in this case, but again conjecture. Your soundhole is probably 100mm.

 

[chazmo]

@SFIV1967 , do you agree with what I'm saying above, or have you gotten any direct information from CMG on Westerly series guitar specs?

 

[SFIV1967]

@SFIV1967 , do you agree with what I'm saying above, or have you gotten any direct information from CMG on Westerly series guitar specs?

I have no info and no communication with anybody from CMG.
The Guild website specs the Jumbo F-250E with:



Just to compare, the Dreadnought D-240E is spec'd with



So it's intentional for the F-250E model to use a slightly smaller soundhole I'd say.

Ralf

 

[chazmo]

I have no info and no communication with anybody from CMG.

Copy that, Ralf. Unfortunate that we have no "in" with these guys to answer questions like this.

So it's intentional for the F-250E model to use a slightly smaller soundhole I'd say.

Yes, now, seeing the specs, as you copied them, it does seem intentional that they downsized the sound hole.

So, I'm going to retract my support for the metric system as the underlying reason for the reduced size of the sound hole and reiterate that we have no knowledge (collectively on the site) of the reasoning behind it.

 

[maxr]

I'm trying to find a soundhole plug for my recent Guild Jumbo Junior Bass - that has a 92mm soundhole - looks like a custom one might be the only option.

 

[chazmo]

Perhaps that's the reason. They're trying to prop up the sound hole cover business!

(That's a joke, by the way, in case it wasn't entirely obvious. )

 

[SFIV1967]

I'm trying to find a soundhole plug for my recent Guild Jumbo Junior Bass - that has a 92mm soundhole - looks like a custom one might be the only option.

Interesting, yet another diameter in the portfolio.



Ralf

 

[maxr]

Yeah, 92mm is probably metric equivalent for a soundhole originally designed as 3 5/8".

 

[Bill Ashton]

This probably the right thread to ask this very infantile question...why a sound hole cover?

Is it to reduce feedback on stage? Having stuffed an f-hole hollowbody-electric and duct taped the f-holes with no good
resolution...?

Certainly one sees the sound hole covers with performers on TV. Does an undersaddle p/u cause feedback? Does not a sound hole cover render useless the soundhole controls that seem to be in vogue?

Clearly one can see that I do not appear on stage or platform,I am just trying to understand the concept. I have in my mind I never
should have had the DTAR system put into my D55, in perhaps wrong thinking (?) that the under saddle p/u has somehow effected
the coupling between the top and bridge...help me understand why my D55 "unmodified" wouldn't be better just as an acoustic guitar
mic'd by a Shure SM57, or is THAT the case that requires a sound hole cover...that I cannot fit right now? My D55 seems to me to be
"anemic" as is for use as a bluegrass guitar as it is...no punch

 

[chazmo]

This probably the right thread to ask this very infantile question...why a sound hole cover?

Is it to reduce feedback on stage? Having stuffed an f-hole hollowbody-electric and duct taped the f-holes with no good
resolution...?

. . .

That's my understanding, Bill. Feedback reduction.

Also, there are some really cool covers out there that might be neat just for the looks.

 

[Bill Ashton]

Looks? Gotta D55...BAH!

 

[Nuuska]

As of feedback battle - once I saw Leo Kottke pull a pair of pants ( is there a non-pair pant? ) out of his guitar and telling which material is best for pants inside guitar . . .

 

[maxr]

- once I saw Leo Kottke pull a pair of pants ( is there a non-pair pant? ) out of his guitar . . .

Well, the Irish sometimes use the phrase 'a trousers', if we are to believe their writers. I don't suppose that helps...

 

[chazmo]

. Always wondered about that non-pair pant thing myself. I think the answer is "yes," as in a pant leg... Strange use of singular vs. plural form. And then there's the English slang, as in "Oi, pants". Well, we won't go there.