Official Luthiers Forum!

Hello friends
i hope all of you are fine...
i have posted about this guitar before but want to start now and want some consultations.
the guitar is designed to sound like sitar
im going to use following

ABW back and sides
alpine spruce and african mahogany neck along with brass fretboard.

this time going to use fixed bridge against used in previous guitar..
going to use 8" wide body and 85 mm deep and back will be arched about 15 feet radius
soundboard will be F-cut. and will use 25 feet radius.
and going to use only X-braces

the tuning of guitar is 1st string - B 2nd -f# 3rd-B same octave. 4th-lower octave F#
5th - 6th same of 1st string.

the customer wants deeper strong and sustain in bass
so pls can u tell me the thickness for backs sides and the top.

here the demo videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... SQZ30pxP6k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... F3W3PmC5Sw

can u pls tell me what should do make best out of this instrument?

Thanks in advance

Hi...

sound like you building an Ommmer

First for the sound you after make sure that the guitar is tuned to A at 432hz not 440hz...I'll repost here later what that would make your B and F# hz at.

Secondly the Sitar sound comes from the jawari bridge. Not the fulcrum bridge found on western instruments. Go here.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=jawari+bridge&client=firefox-a&hs=DnX&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=f5unUsOtF8nioATAt4CgCQ&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=452

Thirdly Black African is not a tone wood.. NO it is not! It does not have vitreous or glass like ring qualities like say Padauk or most of your rosewoods. As such although, pretty and expensive, it will not contribute to the ring or sustain that you would want in a "sitarish" sounding guitar.

Forthly Re: deeper strong and sustain in bass... you ain't gonna get it from Black African or the 8 inch width...it just aint quite enough air volume to create a deep bass sustain. If he wants the black look, go to wenge as it is a vitreous wood. Now regarding thicknessing of your plates...after you have build a few dozen you will start to "get" the feel of the appropriate thicknesses for the size of the plates you are using, the type of sound you after and the feel of the wood between you fingers. In other word...the plates are like people ...no two alike. In MHO any numbers me could throw out at you are just pure B.S. without caressing, shaving, tapping, fondleing, smelling and tasting the wood. You hearing these words? Non the less speaking in very broad and general terms... the thinner the plates around the edges...the better the bass response. The thicker the top plate...the trebles come out. The thinner the back plate...the bass comes out. But be aware that your bracing can change all of that B.S.
Further more...with that body size...carved or archtop plates from 1 to 1.25 inch plates and about a .090 recurve ( but not much less) would really help the bass.

Me will post the hz freek~wince~ eeez to make this work for you later to day or tomorrow...

For more on this concept of F# or C#m Ommed out trance chant strung out and up the consciousness instruments...start reading up on me past builds and posts on freek~wince~iees and solfegio tunings and other mystical mumbojumbo on the site...much more can be found here

http://www.luthierforum.com in " the Padma Builds" sub forum.

Quite simply put...dude you appear to be asked to build a "magical instrument." This is a great honour that few loofers can appreciate or even comprehend just what it is you are being tasked with. I wish you well in this endevour, as such, offer the following...
............" may your hands be guided by the still voice within the heart."

blessings
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

+1 to Padma. A432 does have that nice relaxing eastern sound to it. And most blackwood does seem to be fairly thunky. I have a 4 piece set that rings long and deep, but still not the "clang" of Honduran or Brazilian rosewoods, padauk, wenge, etc. The way you tell the super special sets is that they'll ring at some frequency nomatter where you hold them. Most woods only ring when held at specific node points, and otherwise thunk.

85mm sounds too shallow to me. Try 100mm heel, 115mm tail.

But most of all, I think you need more strings to really get that harmonious sitar sound. Maybe try running some through the neck like Fred Carlson's sympitars. Harp guitar sub-basses add some of that reverby sound too, plus you can actually play them Here's one with both http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBKKRBc9avA

I'd be going on the thin side for the plates, but that's only cause I don't know any better. I need to try some thick plate building sometime. But my gut feeling is that the bigger the box, the thinner the plate should be, to keep the weight down. Most people seem to go thicker to get the stiffness up, but I think better to get stiffness with braces. Here's a good example... big guitar, but probably really thin plates, being built by Ervin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SadUTHYE-DA (watch out for the ridiculously loud applause at the end). Really nice deep bass sustain.

But it's easy to get a sort of "hollow" sound on the highs when building thin plate style. Ervin is great at quelling it, but I can still hear it in that video. Check out my harp guitar for an example of what you might get on your early attempts http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=555863#p555863. Right around the high E frequency, sort of hollow ahhhng sound to it.

Ya Dennis,

all what you be laying down here be quite true but remember him only going 8 inches wide so .085 ain't so thin and then ass you say ...braces.

Now regarding sympitars...go back an take a look at the proposed tuning...4, four, count em.... FOUR B strings... with 4 Bs you don't need no symps. Heck ever so slight +- a few cents in the tuning will produce all sorts of dissidence. And if the picker who ordered this really knows how to work them subtle differences...he won't need them symps no how.
Ya if properly tuned that harmonious sitar sound will be taken care of with dissidence...however Dennis ...there ain't that many pickers out there that can pull it off. .

Gotta agree with going on the thin side for the plates, but that's only cause I don't know much better ether.

Dennis ...Regarding that "hollow" sound on the highs when building thin plate style.... True...but again remember with 4 Bs rumbling around, and depending on their + - tuning , me don't thinks the "hollow" sound gonna be all that much of a problem what with all them possible + - B's stings happening.

Look Dennis...somebody wanting that tuning has gotta be a genius, an idiot or a Deobrat Mishra to order an instrument like this and well me prefer to think the former or the later. Besides...whats the difference? Then me start wondering why a dull sounding Black African back...whats this picker really got in mind of laying down?

So common Rahoul ...who is this instrument for?

Yes Dennis... all your comments are really good here...however to my NSHT they are still framed from EADGBE thinking regardless of were A is at. Non the less ...they are all still very valid points for Rahoul, and for me to think on.

========================================================

So Rahoul : In order to build it, you must first become the instrument.

Gaté, gaté, paragaté, parasamgaté. Bodhi! Svaha!


blessings
?adma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

No advice from me, but what gauge strings are you using? I like the sound for my own purpose and would like to duplicate.


Ray

Ok Rahoul,

Suggest about 89 cm string length and at that length and with that brass fingerboard, it will probably be neck heavy...whick is ok if as you can go with heavyier woods for a tailblock and neck block and thicker ribs and heavier linings but be careful to not over brace.....all to ad mass to the body...especially on the ribs as this will produce a greater rigidity for the slightly thinner plates to get the sound you after.

Suggest .009 .014 and perhaps even as thick as .022 for the strings

Question: why such a narrow body?

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Oh! Actual 8 inches. My mind registered that as 8" wide plates bookmatched, as in 16" dread type size. Well then, nevermind on the depth being too shallow. 115mm would probably be out of balance, sounding like a tube. 8" to me is ukulele size, and no bracing necessary except to stabilize the neck... that thing will be feather light even if it's so stiff it can't move at all. So is this going to be like a real sitar, long neck with a tiny body at the end? Or ukulele type high pitched instrument? Or to be more clear, what's the lowest Hz frequency of any of the strings?

Apparently Padma thinks I'm onto something, but I was entirely confused by the large guitar in those videos, so you can disregard my ideas to some extent...

You are on to sumpthin here Dennis ...now with that small body and assuming Rahoul uses the traditional long neck sitar string length of about 90cm or 35 inches and with a brass fingerboard she gonna be really neck heavy so me really wonders about the hz as well.
Me strongly suggest really heavy blocking and rim/rib thickness to stabilize the thinner plates and to help balance the sucker.

Sitars are between 63 and 512 hz.

Assuming A is @ 432 that small body just ain't gonna kick out the low end ...so then them Bs could be as low as 121.5 but are probably all @ 243 hz , then the 2 F#s would probably be 182.3 and 364.5 Note that each of these freek~wince~iees add up to 9 and are true to the 432 tuning and would not work on equil temperament fretting designed for 440 but then Rahoul is going frettless. What you think Dennis?

Yo, Rahoul...talk at us.

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Thanks friends for ur consultations
the body is 16" wide in total. not just 8 "

realy sorry for this to mention.
also going to use 25.5" scale length..
with fixed bridge instead of floating.
how should be the top bracing? just x-braces or should add more braces like typicall dreadnought ?

16 inch wide?, 25.5 inches long?, fix bridge ?... and yo wanna sitar sound?

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Ok, then I stand by my original statement... more strings. And probably a jawari bridge on there somewhere. 6 string fretless always seems to sound pretty lifeless.

Are the videos I linked before anything like the sound you're after?

You might consider backing out on the fretless... never really gonna get big bass sustain that way. Sympathetic strings tend to ring at higher frequencies, and fingers damp out the actual plucked string too fast. Fretless harp sympitar might work ok. Pluck sub basses, which ring nice and long, and play melody fretless on the board, with sympathetic strings to add a little flavor. I played my harp guitar fretless for a while, and it was definitely better than plain fretless guitar, but still not that good. Plus I have trouble holding down thin treble strings with fingertips.

You know, why isn't this guy playing a sitar? Just not enough bass due to the small body?

As for bracing, I still think thin soundboard with lots of interconnected braces would get more the sound you're after. Not standard Martin pattern, because the diagonal braces don't support behind the bridge well enough for thin plate building. Either 3-5 fan braces, or large bridge plate with 4 piece lattice in the lower bout work well. A soundboard thick enough to survive with only X brace at dread size would be way too heavy, I think.

But nomatter how you brace it, it will probably sound more or less like every other flat top guitar. The F holes should change the sound some, but I've never built anything with them before, so I can't advise on the effect they'll have.

thanks denis
but the player plays with his finger nails. pls check the videos i posted
u will get the idea of my guitar