| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Back brace--Spruce or matching tone wood? http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=4815 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | af_one [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can anyone please comment on any differences if possible. I like the idea of matching the back brace, but wondering if it makes a diference tonally? |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use spruce, but there are other woods that you can use. I know some guys use mahogany and other things. I think you are asking about using the same wood for back braces as you are using for back/sides? This would work with some woods but not for others. For example you would not want to brace a Cocobolo back with Coco braces. It would be extremely heavy and expensive. I think that weight is one of the big factors here. I stick with spruce for the most part because it is light. Tonally heavier brace wood will dampen the back more than lighter wood. If you do go with a heavier brace wood make sure you compensate for the weight by making the braces a bit smaller. Josh |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like to use mahogany back braces for mahogany B&S along with mahogany kerfing and head and tail blocks so that the whole of the back section is mahogany. I'm not sure if it makes any tonal difference but I like the idea of the box being just the two woods. I haven't made enough guitars (25 total) with just this variable to be able to give a meaningful opinion. Colin |
|
| Author: | Shawn [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
part of the choice is the look of the back braces and part goes to the discussion as to whether the back is a reflective surface (heavier, stiffer braces) or a vibrating/resonating surface (lighter more flexible braces). For classical guitars the instrument does not usually come in contact with the back as the player is seated and leaning forward so the bracing is usually lighter so that the back vibrates more adding to the overall tone and volume of the instrument. For steel strings the player may be standing with the guitar support against the body with a strap so that the back will resonate less so that the back is acting more as a reflector of sound. Additionally a steel string back will usually be wider and larger so back braces are much more structural also...think of the stress on the wide back of a jumbo. These are generalizations but help as you are thinking out both the look and sound you are going for. While the back plays much less of a role than the top there are subtle differences it adds to the mix. |
|
| Author: | arvey [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I used to use Spruce but Mario put me on to using Douglas Fir and I really like it. It is now all I use. |
|
| Author: | Roy O [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=arvey] I used to use Spruce but Mario put me on to using Douglas Fir and I really like it. It is now all I use.[/QUOTE] Why Douglas Fir? |
|
| Author: | arvey [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Douglas fir is very stiff for it's weight, brittle but stiff. Just try putting a nail into an old Douglas fir 2x4. Mario (I think) mentioned it as his prefered Back brace material so I figured I try it. I have made two identicle guitars with just the back brace material different and I found that the Fir guitar had a brighter and to my ear more plasing sound. I've really liked the sound on the ones I have done with fir. Main reason though is because I have a lot of it around, salvaged from Old Hydro poles. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|