I sand all my sides to .080 to .085 - no thicker - why -because I break them!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Two measurements please... http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=1845 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | RCoates [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi guys I'd like to know what everyone else is doing... For sides, I leave them as thick as I possibly can. I have this theory about it but I'll spare you. Anyway, typically about 3mm +-. How about you? Second, when you're finished what string height do you acheive above the twelfth fret? I've have been consistantly gettng my low e just under 4/32 and my high e about 3/32. Is this low enough or should I shoot for something less? I thought I read that those were the Martin specs but can't find them now. Thnx Ronn |
|
| Author: | arvey [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I do my sides from around 2mm to 2.3mm (.078" - .095") and for real tight cutaways I've done even thinner. I also wonder what others are doing for string action. I ussually get a customer to measure an instriument they really like but other wise I set Low E at about .105" and High e at about .085" I've done guitars lower but only if the customer requests it. |
|
| Author: | Robbie O'Brien [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ron, are you having difficulties bending at that thickness? |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I sand all my sides to .080 to .085 - no thicker - why -because I break them!
|
|
| Author: | Mario [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That is pretty high action. 4/32, which is more commonly refered to as 1/8", is high. Of course, action needs vary from player to player..... Why, oh why, do you leave your sides so thick? |
|
| Author: | PaulB [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mario, that's what cumpiano says to aim for in his book (actually he says 8/64" & 6/64"). What do you recommend? |
|
| Author: | RCoates [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok, Mario "My" theory is that I can expect a bit more punch or quicker response from a guitar with thicker sides. Picture a dragster launching off the line ( the attack of the notes) now picture that same dragster launching from a line in the sand. Not near as responsive. I know that's pretty extreme but even the high dollar drums tout the stiffness of their sides... I'm only working on #4 so my experience is more theory than real world, but so far I've not been disappointed. Robbie. Yes I am having trouble bending Bubinga at that thickness. Thnx all Ronn |
|
| Author: | crazymanmichael [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ronn i beleve martin 12th fret factory specs are: treble e: 1/16" min -- 5/64" max bass e: 3/32" min -- 7/64" max i know dan erlewine quotes the same figures. remember that the factories are selling to an undefined customer and don't want warranty work for buzzes. in my set-ups i have taken the base e down to almost 3/64 with no problems on small bodies/short scales/ light strigs for gentle fingerstyle players. so much depends on the player's style. |
|
| Author: | RCoates [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No No No. I would never be foolish enough to think I could build two identical guitars save one item. Like I said it's just a theory. Thicker sides is an idea that has been adopted by other builders as well. Daniel Friedrich for one. He laminates his and has a final thickness of 4mm. Jim Redgate I believe is another. Both admittedly classical builders, but... I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here. It's just my theory. Each to his own and that's why I posted I just thought it would be nice to see what everyone else was doing and maybe why. My inexperience is shown by me breaking those Bubinga sides. I guess I'll have to tailor my specs to the type of wood I'm using and not just decide on a standard measurement... unless it's a lot thinner. 
|
|
| Author: | ShaneE. [ Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ronn- Here's a theory on your theory from the novice of novices. Would it make sense to thin the sides down more in the area that would have the tightest bend? That way you could leave some parts thicker yet have increased flexibility in the areas you need it to prevent making red-orange kindling. Is having sides that are not of uniform thickness a bad thing. You all would know better than me. I'd rather test on paper (the forum) before testing on wood. So, so much to learn. |
|
| Author: | Mattia Valente [ Sun May 01, 2005 2:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shane, that's pretty common advice given to people bending tight venetian cutaways: thin the cutaway area down, leave the rest alone. If it gets very thin, some laminate veneer or add other reinforcement to the bent side after the fact. |
|
| Author: | Bob Steidl [ Sun May 01, 2005 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ronn, there may be a few species that bend well at 3 mm (0.12"), but those are rare exceptions. Bubinga is not one of those. If you are after extremely rigid sides, you'll either need to laminate them or to pick woods that are exceptionally bendable. For what it is worth, I bend between 0.80 and 0.90, depending on the species. |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Sun May 01, 2005 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
if your definition of "punch" is up close loudness then you should be looking at Cross-dipole stiffness not side thickness. Quicker response I would think comes partly from choice of bridge wood and how you do bracing. you can stiffen your sides by using more side braces without having all the weight of "thick" sides. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|