# What's the difference between hollow body and hollowed out?



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm talking about the physics/mechanics of their respective sound. By "hollow body", I mean those instruments that have a back, a top, and sides, comprised of separate pieces, with or without a center-block. By "hollowed out" I mean those instruments like the Gibson Midtown and similar, where there is no "back" and "sides", but rather a single block that has been hollowed/routed out to form a big resonant cavity, and then has a top affixed to it, with F-holes. This latter form-factor is not intended to be the same as a "chambered" instrument, with body-hollowing to reduce weight and add some resonance, but rather meant to be a different sort of semi-acoustic.

So, what happens, or perhaps doesn't happen, when the back and sides are one big continuous hunk of wood? 
How much of that is largely because of the kind of wood used for it, as opposed to the structural qualities? (My sense is that maple is often used for hollow-body, but mahogany for hollowed-out)
Do folks have any good or bad experiences with hollowed-out models, or caveats they might mention?
Are there significant design aspects that have to be omitted, or added, with hollowed-out? (e.g., I gather highly arched backs are unlikely)​


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Not sure what you are really after. The difference I find is that hollow bodies will feedback sometimes more than you want. Didn't Gibson start gluing a centerblock in the 335/355 series to combat this? 

As far as hollowed out, I did it based on weight saving rather than tone considerations. Ya there is a slight difference in tone but I was using heavier woods ( Coco bolo and Purpleheart ) so weight was the main thing.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm talking about these, and similar: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Designer/Gibson-USA/Midtown-Custom.aspx

If you can simply glue back, sides and top together, or route out a couple of slots and slap on an F-hole for looks, like a Telecaster Thinline, why bother to invest labour into hollowing out a big block to mimic a semi-acoustic? This thing may _*look*_ like an ES-339, but it isn't _at all _the same construction. It is a top, mounted to a hollowed-out thick slab body.


----------



## 335Bob (Feb 26, 2006)

I have both. A Gibson ES-335 which is maple top, back and sides and a CS-336 which is the solid mahogany body with maple top. Needless to say, the tones are not the same. I'd even say they are quite dis-similar. And though , I frequently play them both and they both have great tone, I'm partial to the 335. I find the range of tone and versatility surpasses the 336. But then again, the 336 has that aggressive edge, (think Les Paul/335 hybrid). I also have a Les Paul Classic plus and it's another favorite as opposed to the 336. I'm assuming that there was a demand for a 335 style guitar with a 336 body size. Hence the maple top/back construction. I have not played a 339, so I can't comment on how it compares to my 2 guitars.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

The difference (besides sound) is that it takes far less time and far less skill to hollow out a slab and glue a top on it, than to build a 335 in the traditional manner.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Most, if not all hollowed out guitars would have less acoustic properties than a hollow body or even a semi-hollow as the vibration is not there with the hollowed out as it is in a hollow body.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

335Bob said:


> I have both. A Gibson ES-335 which is maple top, back and sides and a CS-336 which is the solid mahogany body with maple top. Needless to say, the tones are not the same. I'd even say they are quite dis-similar. And though , I frequently play them both and they both have great tone, I'm partial to the 335. I find the range of tone and versatility surpasses the 336. But then again, the 336 has that aggressive edge, (think Les Paul/335 hybrid). I also have a Les Paul Classic plus and it's another favorite as opposed to the 336. I'm assuming that there was a demand for a 335 style guitar with a 336 body size. Hence the maple top/back construction. I have not played a 339, so I can't comment on how it compares to my 2 guitars.


Maybe not, but you've provided about as authoritative and informed an opinion as I might hope for. Thank you!
Now that we've identified a tonal difference, I return to my original question as to what about the different construction is responsible for it. I note the following:
1) Different wood for both back/sides and center block
2) Different body thickness
3) _Possibly_ different cavity volumes (hard to determine from outside)
4) Different mass
5) No kerfing
6) Continuous grain between back/sides

There are probably other things too, but those jump out at me. Naturally, being a curious little boy, I wonder how much each of those contributes to the difference in tone.


----------



## Mike Potvin (Apr 30, 2009)

With a true hollow body (archtop, carved plates etc) the back has a lot of movement. With a chambered slab, the back is usually not carved inside and out, so you don't get the same movement. They may look similar, but they're completely different beasts.


----------

