Official Luthiers Forum!

I am building a pair of nearly identical OMs. The first is 4-1/2" deep at the tail. The second, I am about to set the depth, and figure maybe I'll try something different to see the impact on the sound.

So in the name of "research," how deep do you like your OMs?

I have both plans, but I have been using the OLF plan. My only change to the OLF plan was to increased the body depth an extra 1/4" on the first OM. I believe the Martin spec is for 4-1/8" at the tail; the OLF plan is 4-1/4" at the tail. So I tacked on an extra 1/4". For this next OM, I could go either closer to the 4-1/4" or beyond the 4-1/2". I am reluctant to go smaller than the 4-1/4", because I think the Martin OMs sound too thin.

Kelby, I don't have enough experience to add much but I'm interested in this discussion. I have just finished an OM made from the Antes plan (which considerably lighter bracing) and am going to start another which I was planning to make deeper. The Antes one does have a nice focused sound, which suits solo fingerstyle well. I'm worred getting too deep may cause that to go away, but I'm planning to move up 1/4" across the whole body (3 5/8, 4 3/8).

_________________
David White, Toronto

"All my favourite singers can't sing."

Kelby, I built one once that was the same depth as a dred. Actually, I did it by accident. I was working on two or three at the same time and simply forgot to trim the sides down. Didn't even realize it till I took it out of the mold and was ready to bind it.

I asked around on the MIMF and everyone said go ahead and finish it. I was skeptical but finished it anyway. I really liked the way it turned out. Nice balance and tone. Wish I had a pic of it around here but I don't think I do.

_________________
Dave Rector
Rector Guitars

I now make my OM 4 1/16" deep. To do that though I also make the soundhole smaller (between 3.7" and 3.74" I find it gives a great sound that way with out being boomy. I find with the deeper body it is a little louder maybe but the definition between the strings is not as clear. The smaller soundhole raises the volume for some reason with out loosing the definition. Just my experience.

I like the tail of my OMs to be 105mm (4 1/16), but this is mainly with mahogany or walnut type woods rather than rosewoods. I'm usually after the crisp separation for my playing style, as I tend often towards fairly quick note succession on jigs etc and want to hear each note separately rather than them muddying up. Tapers down to 95mm at the headstock. Still use a 100mm soundhole but very light "parabolic" bracing and thin top.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

The last one I sold, the owner said about 60 feet deep worked best...said that was the deepest spot in his pond!

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

my first OM was 4 1/4" at the tail. the next three have been 4 1/2". all four sound great. but what i think is gained with the extra depth is a bit more bass. on the down side, that cuts down on the definition and separation a bit. on the plus side, the extra depth seems better suited to more agressive flat picking/strumming. almost like having the power of a dread without the boominess.
so if you want it mostly for fingerstyle, stay a bit thinner. if you want it to be a 'one-size-fits-all' instrument, i'd say give it the extra depth.
(and if you're building with the antes plan, use thinner braces).
phil

How deep?... about a "dropped D" deep

Couldnt resist Shawn39012.6966435185

Hesh, have you looked at the various hybrid bracing options to tailor the sound you want! Do you remember this thread, have a look and next time your sitting in your old workshop have a good think on the various possibilities, just as in most things in life bracing isn't a black and white issue.   Oh, and stick an X brace, "parabolic" of course, on the back as well.



Bracing

ColinColin S39012.7385416667

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

[QUOTE=Hesh1956] One of the OLF OMs that I built does every thing fairly well and I think that Serge, Alain, and Anthony (if he is not still mad at me for not building him one....) could add something here.
[/QUOTE]

Hesh I am not angry at you for not building me an OM....I've moved on to something else

Interesting thoughts on design and changes you'd make. What are the major differences between the OLF OM and the Antes plans?

My OM are 4.5 at the tail and 4 at the neck!!!

_________________
Andy Z.
http://www.lazydogguitars.com