Official Luthiers Forum!

My circle of friends is comprised of very experienced players and performers. Two of them are amatuer luthiers and have been building electrics and steel string guitars for 30 years. These are the guys who convinced me to build a guitar. We have had many discussions about tone which always seem to come down to quality of design/build versus quality of materials versus ability of the player. The famous Benedetto knotty pine archtop is a frequent focal point of these duscussions (I think Benedetto made it...). And I have read many posts here on this topic as well.

Of course, any discussion of "tone" presupposes a definition. Turns out for classicals, this is readily defined by the long line of classical academics, my master instructor included. He said to me once, "Come on, you have a great ear! You know good tone when you here it." I think of this like highend speakers: at a certain level of quality, where there are no complaints of technical flaws, it becomes a matter of personal preference rather than good or bad. To my ears, there are many instruments that produce marvelous tone, albeit they are all different. But, for the sake of discussion, I am happy using the academic definition of classical tone, because "we all know it when we hear it" ...

Personally, I have played a broad array of instruments, from my vintage SG, to my JEM 777, various steel string acoustics from a Hummingbird, a cheap Ovation and a generic Martin all made in the early 70's. For classicals I've played everything from a Cordoba C3M, to a 70 year old Martin, 50 year old Yamaha, to a Chinese student grade, a Yulong Guo double top, to a Rodriguez Model FF flamenco, to the Ruck previously owned by Rey de la Torre. What I have found as a player is a profoundly pragmatic combination of player skills and "guitar potential."

Focusing on classicals and using extreme ends of my guitar spectrum, the C3M is simply not capable of delvering concert quality tone, as defined above. My master instructor played my C3M and could not extract concert quality tone. At the high end, Yulong Guo's double top was very weak in the basses, forcing me as a player to adjust my right hnd technique to accommodate. My right hand becomes the "mixing board" in this respect. The Ruck? It is impossible NOT to extract concert quality tone from every nail pluck angle to every pluck intensity. At first, I could not get concert quality tone from my Rodriguez, but my master instructor sure could! He taught me right hand technique and now I consistently get concert quality tone. So summarizing, some guitars don't have good tone, some have it if you play them right, and some very few have it no matter what you do.

This brings me to the point of all this. What build or design parameters allow the guitar to have an inate potential that can then be extracted by an adept player with the minimum of conscious effort? I mean, I know many ways to pluck the strings to get tonal variation, but what is done by the luthier to specifically accommodate good tone no matter what plucking technique I choose as a performing artist?

I know, the real answer is either 42, or to read Trevor's book. But any comments on this will not only be appreciated, but will be included in my conversations with my muscian/luthier chums.

_________________
If thee meddle with dragon kin, thou will become crunchy and good with ketchup.

I've been on a "tone" quest for the last fifteen years. The culmination was a carbon fiber archtop that I thought had astounding tone and volume.
When experimenting with the CF, I had a test mule body that had started 3.25" thick and progressively got thinner as I had to cut failed tops off. I was left with a "slimline" 1-1/2" body before I move on to a new test mule. Not wanting to waste a body, I quickly carved a maple top, hacked a couple of humbucker routs into it, and slapped it on the body.
Not much tone on the maple guitar. Better acoustically than most Gibsons, but not by much.
Had both in a local show. Today I'm completing another all maple archtop as a commission. "Tone" didn't factor in. "Flame" and "Honey Burst" did.
Ask me how many like the the one with astounding tone I have been asked to build...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've forgotten where I read it, but the insights certainly aren't mine. The priorities for the buyer are:

1. Looks
2. Playability
3. Sound

It makes sense. If it isn't attractive, why pull it off the wall? Doesn't play well? You're probably not gonna get to the point where you really appreciate the tone.

Generally, regarding looks? In my admittedly limited experience, people willing to put out the bucks for a luthier made instrument want something special looking. I call it "wood bling."

One high end builder I know (8K plus) says he can't sell a mahogany guitar.

Unless you're TJ Thompson, building Martin replicas, I think that's just the reality we have to deal with.

Other opinions invited and welcome.

Steve

I suppose the first question is what factors contribute to our sense of "tone"? Lots of things. Most prominent is probably the relative ratios of the harmonics to each other and to the fundamental. But certainly other things such as loudness, decay rates, attack, etc.

I think there would have to be a certain amount of what comprises tone inherent in the materials. This is under the control of the luthier only insofar as he can gather enough data to make good material selections (ignoring heat treatment of tops, here). And also many of the other tonal properties are probably bounded by the relatively standardized size and shape of a guitar.

But there are certainly many things the luthier can do to influence the modes of the box and those harmonics. Shape, plate stiffness, bracing all certainly play a big part. And as we know, one can certainly build a guitar which sounds awful. So there is a wide range of influence.

I pretty much agree that you need all three, but in the classical market, the order is pretty much reversed. I see much more emphasis on "tone", response and projection/volume. My early guitars had tone just fine, but they didn't compete in the "concert guitar" market place. The key is to get the right balance between the top and the bridge and between the top and the back, if you have a responsive back on your guitar. There are many ways to get there, but the balance has to be right. You don't have to have Trevor's book to get it. Not that I wouldn't recommend Trev's book. I have it, but I don't use the theory or the math, knowingly . I decided that any guitar building library should have it. I build to what I think a guitar should sound like, and don't try to go to far afield. I have used several different bracing patterns, but it seems all my guitars have similar sounds. The trick it to get others to think they like them too! The hardest thing is to be loud without making holes in the sound/tone. Many double tops have a very muddy midrange, but they are loud, responsive and have good highs and lows. The Lattice guitars seem, to me, to be horribly loud and hollow, losing some of the sweetness that should be present in a classical sound, but not without exceptions. I have heard some expensive guitars that don't sound as good as my "not so expensive" ones! That said, there are some great builders out there that have it all in every guitar.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

When I first started building Jim Olson told me "They all sound good--to someone."

My approach was to start with a proven formula that has stood the test of time and just plug away, getting them in the hands of world class players, listening to what they tell you, making little tweaks, and evolving.

I think I am building a much better sounding instrument than I was 11 years ago and most of the good players I know agree, but a professional folk singer that tours all over the USA and has the first guitar I ever built from scratch in 2004 likes it better than anything I've made since. He can get a sound out of it that other folks can't.

Conclusion? I don't think there is an answer to your question. Everyone's brain processes sound differently. Just take a deep breath and dive in.

(One thing I sometimes wonder about is that since the average age of the typical high end guitar customer is about the same as the typical Harley Davidson owner we are probably talking some degree of hearing impairment. I have always wondered what a comparative listening test of an expensive luthier or boutique factory built guitar would reveal if assessed by a good 17 year old player vs a good 50 year old player. A lot of luthiers have talked about building a little "tighter" as part of their evolution and having their instruments better received. ( Certainly my experience) Maybe the buying demographic likes the treble knob tweaked up a bit. )

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

I think the word you are looking for is, responsive.

I've found that thinning the edge of the lower bout in about 2 inches has given me the best responsive guitars. I like how you say that your "right hand becomes the mixing board.' That's going to be the case for any guitar but if a guitar is responsive then it can be played quietly or loudly it just depends on how you 'mix' it. An over built guitar can never be played quietly.

I have only built one double top guitar so I cannot claim to know what I am doing but it's very mid rangey and loud but that's about it. It doesn't have what I like to call that Spanish Romantic sound that a good player can extract from i through range and dynamics.

I'm not a classical player. I know enough pieces and practice regularly but will never ever be good at it. But I know what I am looking for and that comes from listening to the greats and then just playing around a bit. I like to have an almost piano tone in a classical guitar. I also like a bell like chime. It's not easy to explain these things, I just know what I am after. After building about 20 classical guitars I've only achieved my goal once. The rest of them are ok guitars but this one is just right on.

Pretty sure each and every person taking on a guitar making project has the intent of "building tone into that guitar." The approach and nuances are endless and what make this craft interesting. The scientist have their methodology (not for me) and some of us have a more simplistic path -- If I find a guitar that I like I do my best to copy it --- and it works pretty darn good. Even the factories (especially ) Martin do the very same thing -- formula guitars if you will. Altering the finish project by shaving braces and or thinning the sound board perimeter can have dramatic results I've done both and a combination. Changing string set tension is another mod that can make or break a guitar's potential. Olson hit the nail squarely "every guitar sounds good to someone." Each guitar built in the end has its own personality whether or not it has a "great tone" is purely subjective, but of course we all know that to be the case.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

42

Tone is, as has been said, in the ear of the listener. Every guitar Martin makes sounds a little different, but each one is somebody's 'Holy Grail'. All they have to do is find that person. If you're trying for a specific tone to satisfy a certain customer, then you have to know something about how to get it. That's a bottomless question, so far as I can see. We all know 'something', but I'm not sure anybody knows 'everything', even assuming it's knowable.

I've found a few rules of thumb to be helpful, though. One came from my voice teacher: if you're trying to improve your low notes, work on the highs. Bass/treble balance is a function of box size more than anything else: larger is more 'bass balanced'. It's easier to make aloud small guitar than a loud big one. Clean trebles seem to come from a 'happy' soundboard; one that works well in itself. I use Chladni patterns to get that; other folks use other methods. 'Responsiveness' correlates pretty well with weight, with lighter guitars (and tops in particular) being more 'responsive'. To get a 'piano-like' tone you add mass and stiffness, particularly around the bridge. 'Color' correlates with lots of different tap tones/resonances. The shape of the box comes in here, as well: a more pronounced waist seems to give more 'color' because (I believe) of the way it works on the internal air resonant modes. Dreads tend to lack a few modes that more 'waisted' guitars have, that accounts for some of that 'dread sound'. In the B&S, density seems to count for more than damping. There are probably some more, but that will do for now.

I absolutely agree with this.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

_________________
Mountain Song Guitars www.mountainsongguitars.com

Thanks for the post Alan, nice straightforward summary for a beginner like me.

To my ears 'piano like' sounds more like an excessively even toned, not very loud electric piano.

I also think there is quite a lot of convergence in opinion on what is a good or bad tone, as there is in most aesthetic opinions.

"I also think there is quite a lot of convergence in opinion on what is a good or bad tone, as there is in most aesthetic opinions."

Convergence; yes, but not identity.

Boy, this is a really interesting topic!
I don't build acoustics because I am nearly deaf, but I read and study build techniques with great interest.
Thanks for the different insights!
I build electrics because I can sort of hear them.
Thanks,
Dan

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

Great topic! Broad/subjective topic with all kinds of words describing all kinds of sounds.

For me, responsiveness/dynamics account for most of what I perceive as good tone. I think this is a product of balance in construction and efficient joints. A lively top also.

I think different materials add/enhance different potential flavors/frequencies/ overtones.

Of course interface (hands/technique) can have a huge impact. Not to mention the room.

_________________
Pat

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean by identity.

An identity of opinion would mean that everybody liked the same thing. Since we know that few Classical players use steel string archtops there is no identity of opinion as to what constitutes 'good tone'. We can usually agree, though, that a certain instrument is good of it's type. The Classical guy may not want to play an archtop, but he might well know a good one when he hears it. When that opinion is generally held about a certain instrument that's convergence. As has been said: if everybody liked the same thing they'd all want my wife.

he he...

What sort of tone... Some fellows - particularly rhythm guitar players - really love a LOUD guitar that hammers out solid fundamental and nice, clean chords without a ton of chimey overtones.... Other fellows - particularly lead guitar players - really love a guitar that produces tons of chimey overtones and a very "Piano-ey" sound...

Classical guys go nuts over plucked sound... Rockers love strummed chords.... Blues guys love bottleneck slide... Jazz players love super responsive guitars which can make all sorts of cool sounds with a lighter touch in a coffee house... Bluegrassers love wanging away with a stiff pick on medium/heavy strings.... Couch players have to contend with "Play quieter, your guitar keeps waking up the kids".... Outside festival players have to contend with Banjos and Mandolins....

Who is right?

I think Al's last point is a good one... Most folks seem to know "Great" when they hear/play it - even if it's not "For me".... For example - Even dyed-in-the-wool 1938 Martin D-28 guys appreciate a great J-45, though that may not be their "Grail".... Yeah - it's not chimey at all, and it may get a bit "Banjoey" when flat picked... but man does it pound out solid strummed chords all day long without all the overtones and sustain mushing the chords into slush...

Thanks

So where does the 'tone' come from seeing that it can be different for different styles? How do you make one guitar that a finger picker would love and the next that will thump out bluegrass tones? Could you use the same piece of wood and change the thickness and bracing to do it? Is it a function of the back wood to add color to the top? Can you brace the back with a wood like maple to be chimey for one person and thumpy for the next? Or some other wood. How much control is in the luthier's hands?

Don't recall who, but a steel string guy once said,'Give them volume and they'll HEAR tone.'

Plenty -- but there is no "Magic Fairy Dust" --- finer customizing is a skill that requires becoming a student of the craft, schools, books (some very scientific) and in my view hands on experience is one of the best training aides. In reality building a "Blue Grasser versus a finger-picker" is mostly common sense.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

printer2 asked:
"How much control is in the luthier's hands?"

That depends on how many constraints they're given to work with, and how well they understand the thing. Obviously if you want the sound of a Bluegrass Dread you don't start out with a small parlor platform. Similarly, wood choices offer possibilities and set constraints: if you want it to sound like rosewood, it's a lot easier if you start with rosewood, or something very similar. Given carte blanche in terms of design and materials a good luthier should be able to come acceptably close to a desired sound pretty nearly every time. Exact tonal copies are another matter.

Not thinking too much in the realm of making a small guitar sound like a big guitar or going the easy route and using rosewood to make a rosewood sounding guitar. What is on my mind was threads on using local woods rather than exotics. How far can you make the tone go, can you make a chimey guitar (say OM) with a maple (cherry, oak, insert your favorite run of the mill NA wood here) or with the same wood get some Gibson thud going on? Is the back calling the shots or is it the top, or the bracing the luthier uses? Have you heard a guitar that used the wrong wood (common wisdom speaking) get the right sound as a result of the luithier's skill?

The way it's built - the whole package. Shape/plantilla, body depth, scale length, bracing, strings, top profile, bridge, wood, etc.

It can be done. If you read Al's posts earlier in this thread - you will see that he posted quite a bit of useful information as to how to actually do it....

That's going to be part of it... Think of the guitar market today... I would guess that over 50% of all D-pattern guitars built currently are Sitka topped.. Some are great for Rythm.. Some are great for picking.. Some are good for stage... Some are good for nothing... Now - think of a Collings Sitka/Mahogany vs a D-18 vs a J-45....

That's not really how it works either... The back isn't a magically flavored mirror that reflects or distorts sound.. What you are hearing in this "Color" is the effect of the entire back and sides unit, construction and wood as a whole..

That's really not how it works so much. You can variously improve or mess up a guitar by fiddling with back braces - but Maple back bracing isn't going to make an otherwise non-chimey guitar chimey...

You could start with a very chimey guitar with maple back braces - and then adjust the back bracing so that it has some nasty wolf notes and a mucky/woofy-ness to it that you wouldn't like... but you probably wouldn't loose the chimey nature altogether.. You would now have a chimey guitar that's also got a bunch of wolf notes and a really thumpy "E" string.....

You aren't however, going to turn a seriously non-chimey guitar into a chimey guitar by changing back bracing material alone... That's more a factor of the top thickness profile and bracing (note that I am including the bridge in "The bracing"... and Al already described how to skew the top towards "Chimey" earlier in this thread)....

A LOT! But.. As Al says - if you want to achieve some sort of specific outcome, it kinda pushes you towards the inputs you need... If a 1938 D-28 is your "Grail" - you aren't going to get there by building on an L-O plantilla...

Thanks