Official Luthiers Forum!

Below is a link to an eighteen minute video on Vimeo of Dana Bourgeous voicing a top and talking about how he does it, while he does it. For a noob like me, this is incredibly interesting. Enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/96155522

_________________
John Lewis
Wannabe builder owned by 2 crazy dachshunds

Thanks for posting that John. Boy, those finger braces are about down to nothin'.

_________________
Steve Sollod (pronounced sorta like "Solid")
www.swiftcreekguitars.com

You mean you can actually build a guitar by feel and tapping on it?
What a concept!

Great stuff! Thanks for sharing, John.

Best wishes,
Max

_________________
Max Bishop
Brighton, Michigan

Thanks for putting that one up John. Good stuff, I liked the fact that he shows where he taps and why - gave me some ideas to improve what I've been doing.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Interesting that this post got a few looks, but hardly any comments...

Great morning learning video . Thanks

What would be your comment, Haans?

_________________
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at guitars.

Ok my comment is they "pre-cut" their bracing and then he carves it to his liking............. Nice, what he got in the end sounds similar to what I get when I'm finishing up. Nice video but nothing thats going to change anything I do. Oh yeah thats a big bridge plate.

Well, since you asked, I'm happy to see that he tap tunes, but not my way of doing it. Of course he is building dread-nots and using Martin scalloped bracing and I use Larson laminated bracing with no scallops on fingerpicking guitars. I also cut my braces to std sizes, and go from there after they are on the top.
Some things I believe are different are if you hold the top in different places, and tap in different places, of course, you will get different notes. My concentration is spent on getting to a lively top all over below the X and around to the waist. Have never been concerned much with around and above the soundhole as that is pretty much locked into stiffness. I also do a lot of tap tuning after the top and back are glued on, which he doesn't even mention. Neither does he mention the (in my opinion) importance of varying the thicknesses all over the top, with many individual thicknesses everywhere with no symmetry. I believe that adds a quality that many CNC'd instruments lack.
He seems concerned about weight as he mentions it several times. I have never been concerned with weight a lot and considering I use hardwood/spruce bracing, one might assume that the tops would be heavy. One thing I do like is that he talks a good line about triangular bracing, and I also believe in that.
Good to see the thread revived because this is at the heart of building good instruments.
So, those are my comments, let's see yours...and I might add a question...
How many of you do tap tune, and how many feel it is a waste of time and are better building by numbers.

Thanks for showing your cards haans.

Well, I don't believe it is any waste of time, but I don't buy the line I hear from folks that think they can predict the tonal impact from which side of a certain brace they shave and by how much. Nor the line from a particular builder that claims the addition of a missing x-brace cap was significant. I do believe we can read stiffness and a point where the wood gains flexibility like Dana is pointing out and adjust it accordingly.
I noticed how light and small his bracing looked in the video and have also noticed this on his guitars in person. I remember another article where he mentions he specifically starts with very stiff tops. With a stiff top, you can brace lighter. Whatever, his guitars IMO sound and look great.

Found the other article if you're interested in more of his thoughts.http://www.pantheonguitars.com/voicing.htm - includes some actions he takes after the box is closed up.

In 2005 a kid that had just completed the Red Wing Lutherie school spent a summer in my shop. Dana had visited the school and given the top voicing course.

I learned a lot from that kid. Mainly triangulating the braces to save weight without affecting stiffness that much and voicing the closed box.

I like to hear a musical tap tone over the bridge plate and the lower bout with a slow decay. I always hold the top by dangling it on a finger through the soundhole.

I have kind of figured out the frequency I like to hear that correlates with the result I am after. I usually stop while it's still a little bright and fine tune after the box is closed. If anything I am building a little tighter now. Over voicing can lead to a muddy sounding instrument that lacks tonal separation and clarity. At least on my stuff.

As far as consistency I have gotten a lot more out of deflection testing than tap tones on the free top.

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

I didn't weigh in initially simply because I lack the experience to give a very insightful response. Since I started this hobby rather late in life (after my retirement), it is quite possible that I will never acquire the years of experience necessary to speak with authority on much. I like the thought of tap tuning, but don't think I have a good enough ear. I have made some of the more "scientific" measurements that some have suggested, but only to record what I get in terms of Chaldni patterns or frequencies using available software. I'm not looking to tune anything to achieve a certain sound, just looking to build with some consistency to achieve reproducible results. I pretty much thickness to a standard (0.100 for tops, 0.09 for backs and 0.09 to 0.085 for sides). Tried to follow Cumpiano and Natelson with respect to bracing and followed advice I've gotten on this forum. My main goal right now is to build something that looks and sounds like a guitar to my untrained eye and ear. I will also admit that my unattached backs generally sound better to me than my tops when I tap on them. I do thin my tops to some extent based on how well I think they sound, but I could be fooling myself.

Martin, what is important is that you learn something every day, and put some thought into what you learn. Sounds like you are doing that.
Terry, sounds like you do a lot of things I do too. I mostly try to find a good ring in a free top and do the rest after assembly.
Glen, I don't buy this size brace makes that impact either, and actually, I have a problem with that scalloped on one side that was demonstrated in the video too. But then, I would imagine he would have problems with my laminated bracing...
Glad to see a topic like this getting a bit of play. Sure beats yuppifying the shop with spendy tools threads.

Likewise. It's one of the most enjoyable aspects of building. Most of the rest is just woodworking. I really enjoy the part when the top starts to become lively, musical and have long sustain. Having different notes produced by different areas would I think be an inherent characteristic of a top just because of the difference in mass in different areas. I will certainly pay more attention next time though.

Do you test after it's braced?

I had a Bourgeous in my shop and the 2 things that impressed me were that the top was very thick and the finger braces were very tiny. IMHO it's a smart man who puts his personal touch on as many guitars as he has.

Thanks, that was interesting.

I do the deflection on the unbraced plate with the soundhole cut out. I still tap and flex them but the deflection has been really helpful in starting bracing/voicing with a top that is of a more consistent stiffness than before I was doing deflection.

The guitars with slightly thicker tops and less aggressive voicing seem to have been the ones most favored by the really good players but my demographic is mostly middle aged to older guys that probably have some high frequency hearing loss. I certainly fit that model.

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

Sorry, what was that you said.

I'm a firm believer in thick tops, and my bracing would be considered heavy by most. To me, tops loose their identity as they are thinned.
Here's a Larson style braced top I just finished, ready to glue on the box. Note the maple UTB, popsicle brace, soundhole doubler, heavy laminated X bracing and squarish tone bars. Finger braces are fairly heavy too...



Top at this point is in the .115" range...

In the interest of continuing this thread I will agree that your bracing looks heavy with the thickness you cite. Im assuming that since you are not a factory you are choosing the stiffist top you can get too. Those three with a rosewood patch is a lot, I should add, I think.

This is a good thread. Do you start with bracing and top thicknesses from original instruments?

John, boy am I not a factory!
This top is pretty stiff, but I use some less stiff tops too.
Larson bracing is a whole different ball game. The top rings like a bell looking like this. More sanding and tapping is done after the box is together. Seems to fly in the face of Martin style bracing, but it's a different tonal quality too. The instruments sound good new, but need to develop. Takes about 6 months for initial break-in. Not into "instant gratification" instruments.
Mike, bracing is similar to originals, but there are some definite mods. No one seems to know what the original Larsons measured out at, top thickness wise. Most say they were very thin, but some have said that is false. I have experimented with this style for 4-5 years and have developed my own way of building them. Not really sure that they actually sound like a new Larson, but then, there are no new Larsons...

Thanks for elaborating, Haans, it made the thread interesting. In my limited experience (finishing 3 and 4) I love the idea of gaining a sensorial relationship with the wood and it's acoustic properties. I spend ages taping the plates and listening, taking off some wood and listening again. I have very little idea what I'm doing or sometimes why I'm doing it but I believe if I keep on doing it I will become more sensitive to what is happening and react accordingly.
The video re-enforced that I'm moving in the right direction.

_________________
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at guitars.

Sorry, I wouldn't call those Larsons. They are "Larson Bros." I have it on good authority that the insides are not very Larson at all. Neither are the outsides from a standpoint of historical trim.
Look at the video. Larsons had no scalloped bracing that I am aware of and did not use Martin bracing. The radius are shallow. They are a cheaply mass produced imitation of Larson. Looks like they are all CNC'd too. They pull their bracing out of bins. I bet they hand bend all the ribs...
This is the kind of BS advertising that is an embarrassment. It's like Harmony "Stella". You buy the name and then you turn the name into trash.
There are 3-4 builders of Larson style instruments in this country. I have heard of no one else. I would bet none of them pull bracing out of a bin.
However, you may have your beliefs. I have mine.