Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi ya Grant:

Great and you should always be doing exactly what you want to to do and how you wish to do it!

Since you asked if I was including your picture and bracing style in my comment about serviceability the answer is no you were not at all on my mind.... But, since you are asking and since I'm a honest guy.... your bridge plate may be difficult to service should.... it ever need it. I can't tell from your pic if the braces are sitting on the plate or inlaid into the plate a bit or if the plate is three pieces.

Bridge plates need to be serviced at times, we removed one on a 47 Martin last Friday. The inlet plate though not impossible to remove is harder to remove than a plate that is butted and beveled to the braces.

The major cause of bridge plate issues is slotted pins especially pl*stic pins that can distort and bend in time permitting the string balls to bear on the pin hole edges and eventually the string balls start to travel up though the plate and then it needs replacement or a cap.

The 47 Martin had an inlet plate and this is the second time that it has needed servicing in this guitar's life. Since we know who did it the first time we also know how he did it and because the plate was inlet the X-braces were also loosened in the process of removing the plate. This led to why the instrument is in our shop today, the X braces are now loose, a second plate was glued on top of the first and now that plate is failing too.

We will be restoring the instrument to it's original glory as per the Martin folks but it's a more difficult job, will cost the owner a bit more, the top has distortion that would not have happened if the X was not decoupled in the efforts back in the day to remove the first inlet plate. Because of the difficulty in accessing the plate originally heat was applied likely too much and too long and that compromised the X braces in the plate region.

I don't go around telling folks that their designs suck or are unserviceable as a practice and I am not saying that your design sucks by any means nor would I ever.

But if that bridge plate can't be easily serviced in time when it may need to be serviced it's not a design that I would personally promote or be fond of. You asked. Also the plate or plates, again I can't tell from the pic are not inlet or the braces are not sitting on top of the plate and the plate is segmented into multiple pieces it's serviceable and not a concern.

I'll add that the same holds true with a Somogyi where the braces are coupled to the plate making plate servicing difficult.

There are different objectives between repair folks and builders at times and since I am both I can relate to either perspective depending on what hat I have on at the moment. Personally I hate hats too....

We had a builder post that serviceability was not important to them because they can't wait 20 years for an instrument to open up and sound good. Again folks should do what they want, always, that's my take on things. But.... if I were a paying client and since Martin and others have set the stage that a decent guitar can be an heirloom instrument in time and serve multiple generations well the bar for serviceability and longevity is pretty high but not unreasonably so.

BTW I love your videos on the birch bark canoe and how you are keeping the ancient methods alive as well and even conveying them to the good folks who where on this planet and in your region long before the rest of us. I also really enjoyed the efforts to build the canoes exactly as they were back in the day, shell first, inner frame next. You can see I actually watched the videos from that statement... I even recall the power drill but you asked for forgiveness and are certainly entitled to same.

I Googled you after you appeared on this forum as you do from time to time through the years because I wanted to see if you are still selling tonewood, specifically the killer coco that you and I have discussed many years ago. That led me to your canoe videos.

Your guitars are very cool with no exceptions but I am curious how you were very strictly sticking to convention with the birch bark canoes but with guitars you've gone very much your own way.

The duality of man thing? Nice chatting with ya too by the way!

And lastly to be perfectly clear I am not critiquing your bracing or designs but I am commenting on the serviceability of your bridge plate "should" it ever need servicing and it in fact may never need servicing especially if you use solid pins and slot the bridge, top and plate accordingly.

Thanks Hesh. Takes a lot to miff me, I used to moderate a forum which was a dumping ground of explosive topics that the site would rather not muddy up the general section. Religion politics almost anything that people have strong beliefs about, was asked to join the mods as they thought I handled myself well even when hurled mud at trying to get a rise out of me. The members here are pussycats (not meaning that in a bad way). Just did not want to raise bad feelings myself.

On to tone, I never thought that there would be a formula that you would plug in numbers and out pops the guitar you want to build. I do believe that you could measure your wood and shoot for targets getting closer to what you are aiming for. Whether it is by instrument or by feel I expect anyone who has built a few guitars does it. I do want to dissect the guitar and hopefully get some general relationships that you (or at least I) can follow to produce the instrument we thought we were building. I do understand wood is a variable medium and sometimes we get what we get.

I can understand Somogyi taking the route he has with his knowledge, I am of a different sort. Probably why I will never get rich, had to settle for good looking. While I do hold off on sharing information hard won where people make their living off of I do think sharing information does benefit the whole.(I dabble in guitar amps, one guru shares a little of what he does as far as modifications and I am not about to produce a schematic for others to bypass him. What I learn myself I do share.)

I do want to understand where the sound comes from. Things like what I found when tap testing the back of a guitar finding out the upper and lower bouts have different resonances and you should be able to modify either to color the response of the top to some extent. Hopefully I can learn a few more relationships that may help us modify the sound we here. Stuff that we already do but maybe show a chart or graph how modifying something changes the outcome. Not math oriented enough to think I could come up with formulas to find our way through the forest. Some people read mysteries and others do puzzles. I like to figure how things work and how to build stuff. Not the best at it but it does keep me out of trouble.

Sheesh I can't even claim to be good looking!

Your approach sounds very doable (is that a word...) to me and I now get-it and thank you kindly too for hanging in with me long enough for me to begin to understand.

Al C., Trevor Gore, and some others are very good at mathematically modeling what we think that we hear or what results from testing with patterns, etc. Lots of folks use this approach and with success too. I certainly believe it to be of value and regardless of what I believe it's reality for some so there you have it.

I'll admit to being a little biased in my approach to building and this four letter word called tone..... I've posted before that when I started building the folks who I personally admired the most, folks such as Hans who though experience and that "touch" and feel for the wood can consistently produce superior and predictable instruments. There are no formulas with these folks but there is a lot of observation, experience, and likely taking some risks too.

When I was still working in the corporate world I was a Six Sigma sort who used strict, structured methodologies to solve problems such as why some bolts on a jet engine failed. The approach that Demming created with Six Sigma is very structured and as far from creative freedom as one can get.

Once my Doc told me to get a hobby or die I wanted my hobby to be much more of an artistic, less scientific approach and what attracted me to Lutherie is that "feel for the wood" (no jokes please... ) that some of the old world builders have and do. That's who I wanted to be when I grew up so to speak.

So get this I end up with a business partner who should have been a physicist because that's his approach to everything.... He gets out a Starrett caliper and measures with high accuracy and I'm more concerned with how that that may make one feel.... I'm reminded of the shrink in the Sopranos.....

Anyway you are asking the right questions it's just that there may not be anyone here or anywhere who with absolute certainty can answer them. The very nature of your questions and what you believe likely to be true I would bet that you are on the right path but you may have to break trail a bit yourself at times. That can be the beauty of what we do here too!

I'm on a few political forums and love it. It's a very different Hesh though and I'm glad that my screen name and real name are not the same because on political forums I tend to be quite the prick.....

Take care and have a great Sunday!

Thanks for the comments, Hesh. Yes, I am still around doing all the things I was, and more.

Grant

Hesh wrote:
"Al C., Trevor Gore, and some others are very good at mathematically modeling what we think that we hear or what results from testing with patterns, etc."

Trevor is much more the math guy than I am. The lack of math chops leads me to do lots of experiments, and seriously degraded hearing sends me down the path of finding other ways to shape and control the sound.

Every method has limits. Some folks get really good with an intuitive approach, but that can take a long time to master, and is also very hard to communicate at times. A mathematical treatment only works to the extent that you understand the phenomenon in question. We know a fair amount about the guitar in the low to mid range, but the high end is elusive. It may be impossible to fully model, and that does seem to be where a lot of the game is. The 'tech' approach I use can be very handy in keeping you out of trouble; telling you which things are unlikely to work, and helping you move in the direction you want to go, but it won't give a shortcut to 'perfect', at least, not any time soon.

In our town every year there are doctoral thesis written by students attempting to explain the true workings of guitars, violins, etc. This has gone on for all of time and every paper is different (hopefully....) with different assertions, conclusions, etc. It's like the Valnaggy (spelling?) thing who every ten years proclaims that he has discovered the secrets of Stradivarius.... Be it borax in a water soak or a mini-ice age we are about due for the next proclamation.... It's been about ten years since the last.

Personally I think that Stradivarius's true secret was exclusively using Duracell 9 volt batteries in his LR Baggs pup and only sourced from Costco...

Anyway the mysteries continue and maybe that's a good thing.

Off to work here, another day another dr*adnought.....

Been looking at violins also, read an interesting comment on Stradivarius, that he was not considered the best in his day and came in third. That violins were played in more intimate surroundings for less people and the better violins had a sweeter sound. But then music was played to larger and larger crowds and that a violin with more volume was needed. That is where Strads shined, they had more volume and a tone that could cut through to the back of a hall. But this was after later day luthiers modified the violins, longer necks were put on for greater tension, new bass bars installed, I'm sure others here are more knowledgeable than I am on it. But it is funny to learn what is considered the best of the best may not sound like the version that Stradivarius built, that they might have been hot rodded over the years like a T bucket Ford.

Yeah it's my understanding that the Strads that survive are highly modified with different necks as you mentioned Fred. Good analysis too on the idea that how and where they were played morphed over time too from a parlor instrument to a symphony instrument.

Who knows why they sound like they do and although a huge over simplification on my part it just may be that the passing of the centuries sweetens up a wooden musical instrument as well. Gotta get me a Delorean so I can travel back in time and find out.

Here's some stuff -- for me ZZZzzz zzz ------- At my age I am glad the standard has already been set and met.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

You state this as though the journey is already over. I would admit that there are some standards that have been recognized, but hey, all kinds of folks are trying to do more. Otherwise, why do we bother? Even the "Big Boys" continue to come out with new ways of doing things. This road will go on forever (and the party will never end).

Grant

On the contrary -- I am in fact an Industrial Engineer by trade, I invent stuff almost daily. I just have no intent or desire to chase the "Sonic Ghost" with ideas that have not met the test of time. Yes the majors are introducing stuff regularly, that is about market share -- and no surprise with assertion that the "what ever" is going to produce an instrument that meets the mystical old time standard I mentioned earlier. Nothing wrong forging a new path -- I just choose to follow the well used trails.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Hesh wrote:
"It's like the Valnaggy (spelling?)..."

I think you mean Nagyavari.

There was an article in the VSA Journal some years ago that brought out the difference between Strad and his putative teacher, Amati, very well. The Met museum in NYC had two Strads of the same model, and likewise two Nicolo Amatis. They had one of each make re-worked to the specs it had when it left the shop, as nearly as anybody can tell. Almost all the old violins were modified in the early 19th century, with the necks lengthened and set back at a higher angle, and new, heavier bass bars fitted.

The converted Amati 'woke up'. Compared with the one of the same model that had the modern setup it's tone was more 'open' and 'free', and 'lighter'; more in keeping with the character of the music written in it's time. The converted Strad, on the other hand, 'went to sleep'; losing power and projection.They said that it was almost as if Strad was building for the music of the future during his lifetime. My understanding is that a lot of the Amatis, and also Stainers, which react similarly to re-conversion, have been restored to their original specs, and provide a benchmark for 'early music' tone.

Just to insert some guitar content: I suspect that Strad actually made a fair number of guitars, but they just didn't survive.

Interesting topic.. I'm too new to have much in the way of useful knowledge but I do think rightly or wrongly if you have an idea say you want a guitar to do X then you need to build the whole guitar to that idea, I don't really think combining multiple ideas to get it "all" in one guitar work.. I'm not explaining myself very well but hopefully you get it..

Oh and I've heard one luthier (can't remember who) say Stradivaruius's real secret was he was a good craftsman and people keep looking for his "secret sauce" where none exists other than hard work and developed skill.....

Oh well it keeps me interested for sure...

Kerry

_________________
My Website http://klw-strings.com
My Luthier's Blog...http://klwstrings.blogspot.com

There is a Strad guitar at the National Musical Instrument Museum in Vermillion SD. Lots of his carved top instruments too. I was just there. Pretty cool.

I bet in one room there are 10 million dollars worth of instruments. They give you an iPod and you can both listen and see them being played in videos.

As an aside they have John D'Angelico's workshop recreated using his original tools, workbenches, spray booth, and some unfinished guitars.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

When you do finally find the tone you have been seeking five minutes later you'll go nah thats not it and continue on your journey of the perfect tone.

Sent from my SGH-T599 using Tapatalk

_________________
Another day, another dollar.

so you are telling me that Stradavarius was making the cheap, dead "Student guitars" of the violin world... Too heavily built to sound good during normal practice The only way to make them sound good is to re-neck them with a much longer, higher tension scale length and then play HARD for symphony volume.... It's pretty ironic isn't it....

That reminds me of something.... Take your average store all-solid wood Steel string guitar... String it with either Medium or Heavy strings... Give it a good setup.... Play with a fairly strong, aggressive technique...

WOW! They roar to life... Tone and sound and sweetness and VOLUME that just doesn't come out at ALL with the light or extra-light strings everybody is using today.... With those thick strings - they are a completely different instrument altogether....

And that's what they were designed for - the Dread was designed around playing out in live, open air amphitheaters and fair grounds of the 30's and 40's.... The only amplification available (If there was any) was for the lead singer... and so to hear the guitar - you play hard with thick strings... especially since Banjos were usually in the same bands.... and when you do - they sound AWESOME... but when you want to play with a light touch on the couch - they sound like somebody has stuffed them full of newspapers....

Personally - for couch playing, singing silly songs in the house with the kids and like duty - I REALLY like a super-lightly built 14" or 13" across the lower bout sort of plantilla guitar (Ditson 1, Martin 2 thru 5, L-0, etc..)... They sound so sweet and full with a lighter touch and lighter strings and they don't give you arm/shoulder trauma... and they don't project a "Beam of sound" that deafens the person sitting across the room from you....

Thanks

kwerry wrote:
"Oh and I've heard one luthier (can't remember who) say Stradivaruius's real secret was he was a good craftsman and people keep looking for his "secret sauce" where none exists other than hard work and developed skill....."

I'm one person who says that; there are others.

truckjohn wrote:
" the Dread was designed around playing out in live, open air amphitheaters and fair grounds of the 30's and 40's.... The only amplification available (If there was any) was for the lead singer... and so to hear the guitar - you play hard with thick strings... especially since Banjos were usually in the same bands.... and when you do - they sound AWESOME.."

A friend of mine got to try one of Freddie Green's guitars at a vintage show. It was set up with a super heavy set of strings: the low E was about a .070. They were around 1/4 off the fretboard at the 12th fret. He was assured that was the way Freddie used that big Stromberg archtop. When my friend finally got the strings down on the frets he hit it with a pick, and everybody in the ballroom jumped and said: "What...?" That's what you needed back then to anchor the rhythm section of a big band.