Official Luthiers Forum!

I believe that by "secret" people mean a detailed set of plans.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

As Bill Monroe said to Frank Wakefield once, "Get yer own style!" So he did.

What Howard said .... its not just about numbers ... each piece of wood is slightly different from the next, so even if you built guitars with exactly the same numbers as Ervin, or Martin or Larrivee for that fact, you may or may not get a guitar that sounds EXACTLY like one of theirs. The reason why most factory guitars do sound a little different is just that .. they are mostly built to numbers, and numbers only get you so far (or so close). One out of every ten factory guitars will likely sound a bit better .. why - because those numbers, used in that guitar, with those pieces of wood, simply work better together ... its the law of averages.

Like Laurent said, he doenst have the same tactile feel that Dana has .. nor do I ... yet (hopefully though) .. it comes from building lots and and judging things for what they are, or are not, not just making a top .110 or whatever ....

And this, my friends, can NOT be conveyed in a book (or a set of plans).... I dont care who wrote it ...

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

The books were well worth the money to me, considering how much it costs for the materials and tools, and time to build each guitar. I'd rather not build 10 scratch instruments just to get an idea what it is that I should be paying attention to. I figure I'm already getting a big boost ahead of "starting from nothing" just by observing the basic design of the instrument and the standard Martin X bracing pattern, so may as well learn why it is that guitars are built that way so those first 10 can teach me more.

What I think I want more of is real-world examples of bracing layouts and such. Say you want to target a certain kind of sound, I want to see the materials chosen, top thickness/deflection and bracing layout designed for it, and rationale behind the placement and size of each brace. Plus iteration on the design. What did you change next time, and why? I think such a book would be very useful, but that sort of stuff is not at all the goal of Somogyi's writing. It's more focused on explaining how the guitar functions, and what to pay attention to. Brace coupling points, angle of the X, position of the X relative to where the bridge will be, evenness of bracing overall, behavior of the Bermuda triangle, role of the back, that sort of stuff. Gets you thinking about how to design bracing layouts to affect each of the main 3 modes. Not much about what sort of tone to expect from certain layouts. I guess that's more subtle and up to you to figure out what you like, and the book is more about the basics of getting the 3 main modes to cooperate.

The "making" book is good too, but definitely the information included in the first book is more valuable than seeing his specific construction methods. Lots of good techniques and jigs though, and the chapter on French polishing is excellent.

Dennis, another fantastic, targeted, and helpful response. Thank you.

I have two thoughts then I will shut up and this subject will never be metioned by me again...
1) There was not one picture of his current bracing (for three hundred bucks I want at least a fuzzy one!)
2) Everyone says to use this material to guide you on your journey. I'm over 60, I ain't got the time left.............

_________________
The Biggest Little City, Nevada
www.hammondguitars.com
I love building guitars!

Ervin does tell you what you are trying to accomplish... and if you have some information from outside sources, which are all available and have been discussed on this forum , and many others . and read that between the lines of his books, you can get an idea of how to go about it . it is all about the numbers.. just what numbers is what we all need to figure out, its not the numbers which most people come to this forum seeking .. such as plate thickness. so now let me build a few more guitars and we will see if I am full of it or not! Jody ! LOL

I've got the books. Worth the Money imo. Of course I am of the opinion that if you were to get just one or two really good ideas from it then it's worth the money. Knowledge that you can use forever is worth much more than a few hundred bucks.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Just curious here - how outrageous would the price on the books have to be, to make them not worth the money?



John

They are about 25% more expensive than the textbooks for my current classes, which I am willing to accept given the small market for them... as long as he doesn't release new editions every three years with essential new updates.

_________________
Evan McCartney

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. In his system there ARE no target measurements. Every guitar is different (at least in measurement). There is no standard plate thickness, or brace height, or carved profile. It uses a series of principles to think about the guitar (monopole, cross dipole, long dipole) to think about how to get the sound you want out of the guitar, and a handful of principles about how to achieve it (thin the plate to target deflection, and tap and carve, tap and carve, tap and carve until you get the box as responsive as it can possibly be). Even the bracing from one guitar to the next could potentially change to achieve your objectives

I understand the frustrations of not getting "an answer" but the entire point of his methodology is to teach you enough that you don't need to know how HE does it, he arms you with the knowledge to allow you to get what YOU want out of the guitars. He really wants you to have the tools you need to understand the guitar as a system. That is the point of the books and the class. It really isn't intended to be a guide to show you how to build guitars like his.

Now, that said... there were a lot of things I learned from him that I thought were worth exploring. The coupling of the braces to the bridge patch was a major boost in performance. Going light and stiff in the lower bout with a lattice seemed to work well too. Trying to couple all of the braces to the bridge (or as much as possible produced noticeable gains). But I also struggled with some things. I backed off driving the top out as thin as possible. I found that doing that gave me lots of fundamental but I lost some of the overtones I liked (particularly in the high frequencies). Ervin's continued help has been like a guide showing me how to get what I am after. I have even been back a few times for private consulting and he has been very generous with his knowledge and his time (this isn't free, but Ervin way over delivers for the cost).

I have never felt like he has "held out" on the secrets -- but I also never expected to learn to build what he is building. I think if you dive into his work with this knowledge (that it is a system, not an answer to how to build guitars like his) you will be pleased with the results.

For those of you saying... "yeah, but I just want to SEE what his looks like" -- first, it is in the book. It just isn't obvious. Second, his bracing approach has changed through the years and I suspect that he has an open mind about changing it again. And third (and MOST important) Ervin knows that if he shows everyone what his bracing looks like people will immediately start copying it without taking the time to understand his system and they will have missed the whole point of what he is trying to teach.

If you look at my bracing and his it LOOKS very similar, but there are some distinct differences you can't see from pictures. My tops are a bit thicker. My bridge plates are different, my lattice is lighter, my x is different. In his methodology these things add up to a significant difference in tone. But I got to this place through considerable trial and error. I came back from the class and applied much of what I learned to my current bracing system and through a number of guitars I dialed in what I liked. I threw away some ideas and adopted others. Through all of it though I used the ideas we learned in the class to adjust things in a way that made sense for what I was going for. And as I said, a couple of times I had to go back and do a little private consulting with him to attack specific issues.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Another thought: if it was only about dimensions, it would be easy to reverse-engineer any instrument and create successful "clones". I believe it's been done many times, with disappointing results.
There is a relatively tight range of dimensions used, for example tops are rarely outside of the .100" - .140" range. However a variation of even 3% can make a world of difference in service, and that depends on the materials at hand. The decision to leave a top .107" or .115" for example, belongs to the builder and is informed by complex parameters -stiffness along and across the grain, tone, weight, feel- and not all conscious.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/