Official Luthiers Forum!

What Rick just said.

I also liked what John P said: it reminded me of Randi's Problem, that the fakirs can think stuff up a lot faster than you can prove they're wrong. Especially when there's no funding! Anyway, those of us who are interested in the 'tech' side will keep plugging away because that's what we do, and maybe we'll figure some more of this out as we go along.

Dang Alan! I was really hoping you would get into if a top opens up with play and age/ how and why. I have been waiting 2 days now for your responce and you left me out in the cold

[opinion]I do see lutherie as a marriage of art and science, with a few critical and repeatable scientific principles and a heaping helping of artistry. The "mumbo-jumbo" is always within the artistry side, confused with science and blended with hype/opinion/subjectivity.

A player wants a specific scale length and mentions specific strings they like. The position of the frets is science, the intonation compensation is science, holding the saddle of the guitar in a specific position in space within a small range over the life of the instrument (top thickness/deflection and the structural component of bracing) involves science. There are just a few scientific considerations that are critical to building instruments, and the rest is artistry and artistically applied science. The artistically applied science produces results that can subjectively be considered as "bad" or "good" and all points in between. Drift back in time to two cavemen that have found hollow logs and are hitting them as drums. Some of the people sitting around the fire feel that the sound of one drum is better than the other, and others disagree. Even the results that seem "bad" to the majority might be altered by hearing music played on the instrument. Hand a "bad" guitar to someone with Leadbelly's sensibility and musical artistry, and the music that comes out will probably sound "good." So, what changed? Not the science, just the subjective perception.

So, for my money, beyond a small set of scientific principles (physics laws) that the luthier needs to consider, most lutherie information passed around is to some degree "mumbo jumbo."[/opinion]

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

The certainty of this hobby is that no matter what one person will post ,another may post just the opposite view. It would be great if there was a color meter on the screen that would turn brown as the facts get distorted by opinions . Still it is a learning process and one we must all go through.
If you want to know for sure what the end result is , build it , that way you will know for sure. I have built a few guitars that were below what I expected , some got better with age , one I just burned . It wasn't until I applied a set of datum points to begin a base line on and work from there that I could be sure of the part of the process and what that part did or did not do.
Still once typed and sent on to the forum , it becomes part of cyberland. I hope the ideas that I put forth , and were used , did in fact help.
That is the point of this . Sometimes people ask for out critique but in reality that want out acceptance. It is a fine line. Never do I want to offend anyone , but there are times I am sure what is being posed is wrong , and one has to be tactful in that situation without being crude or rude.
Education will cost , you either pay the teacher or pay for the mistake .

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

I think what I was trying to get at was that whether someone has over the years been meticulous in measuring, deflecting, note making and getting into the heavy physics etc the result is perhaps a greater understanding of what is happening from a scientific perspective, but those not doing all the 'tech' stuff, but reacting to results of trial and error are really doing the same thing, just not the measuring? The experience gained or knowledge that is accumulated is all equally valuable in that search/journey towards improvement. Anyone worried that scientific understanding will one day remove the 'mystery' of this wooden box and vibrating strings and thus somehow devalue what is art/craftsmanship, I dont think needs to worry. The complexities of the variables are such that even if there was a magic formula derived through years of research that described the specification for a particular tonal outcome, the process of following it and building to it would most likely be impossible anyway

Also as many have said, the art is also in the ear and the eye... the quality of the craftsmanship and simple beauty of design and the subjective opinions on the nature of tone.

Finally, whether someone is 'techy' and nerdy about the figures to get the consistency in quality and tone for which they strive or have learned by experience which has led to an instinctive understanding of what will work or not, both are equally valid in my opinion in helping to improve this rather amazing wooden box that can do marvelous things in the right hands ! Thus I love learning from all you experienced types whether that knowledge is derived from meticulous measurements or simple experience and instinct.

That is another interesting point - the acceptance I mean... its human nature I think to want 'shortcuts' - newbies such as myself, see the wonderful results of so many pros and amateurs alike on here, even early instruments, that we aspire to be able to achieve the same - the hunger for knowledge that will help us get there quicker - in some cases as you say the need to be reassured that we are on the right path - perhaps that way bypassing the trial and error approach to speed up our journey?

It's that combination of desire to succeed and develop skills rapidly that is not really a bad thing, but I do need to keep reminding myself at times that there is no substitute for experience and no short cuts. Maybe there is a feeling that if there is more scientific data available, it will speed up that process? Who knows, but as a scientist of sorts, I know that knowledge is one thing, but the more experience you have of practically interpreting it is what will yield the better results... maybe newbies like myself need to just remember now and again that that journey in accumulating that experience is actually what makes this hobby/addiction so much fun even if at times so darn frustrating!

A slightly different viewpoint here - just because you measure lots of things and record them doesn't make it science, that's just data collection. You can be very close to Al C's favourite "The easiest person to fool is yourself" territory. If you want to do science on acoustic guitars given all of the combinations of variables that have to be altered and explored - including the human interaction that makes the sound - you'd need several fold of the planet's GNP and a few millenia I would guess.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

wise words - although strictly speaking collecting that data is part of the scientific process, what you then do with it is another matter

On a more serious note, I think for builders having that data to hand on previous instruments can of course help in esuring consistency, if you factor in the variables in the materials that are unmeasureable (without some seriously expensive equipment). Thats where experience comes in - that 'learned' knowledge that makes predicting teh outcome a little more accurate? Interesting thoughts though

Yes and it's also part of "displacement activity" . If you always thin tops to the same deflection how do you know that it's not a Local Maximum rather than a Global Maximum or even if it's a Local Maximum? You have to move away from there and make instruments to prove that the instrument is significantly worse than the criteria you are setting to do the "science". As I said - lots of interacting variables.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Fundementally, though whether you learn by or by - 'if what you learn helps improve the next and it works for you, I guess its right for you'?

I must admit I kinda understand teh basic principles, but have more fun (masochistic I know) learning from the and or even

Here is a worthwhile read:
Richard Feynman's address on "Cargo Cult Science"
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

"The easiest person to fool is yourself" comes out of this essay.

I think the thing people so often get messed up with is "Correlation" vs "Causation"
and we get fooled into thinking that "Correlated" things (Possibly unrelated, but trend the same way) are causing eachother!

For example:
My recent guitar sounded pretty good. It had a 95* X that was turned towards the Treble side (more open on the treble side)... Did it Cause it to sound good or did it sound good In Spite of this?

and on a more famous example -- Richard Schneider's Kascha braced Classicals... Apparently they sounded very good... but was that because Richard was an exceedingly skillful Luthier and he could make any design sound exceedingly good.... or because there really was something good about Kascha's design?

Thanks

John

As the OP (a certain priviledge comes with that designation, doesn't it?) I had a certain "mumbo - jumbo" in mind, and it certainly wasn't the scientific process.

The mumbo - jumbo I speak of are legends and third-hand take-away by the great unwashed.

A person who has built more than one instrument has entered the realm where he knows nothing, his pre-concieved notions have been washed away in the sea-water that Stradavarius soaked his wood in. He doesn't have time to find wood cut during the little ice age, Maple from ancient boat oars is just not available, and he can't afford electron microscopy to determine the resin content in the tubes of the cells of the spruce he wants to try.
Wood pulled from the bottom of ancient lakes is just too expensive for a 4th build, and they aren't splitting it, they're sawing it!

He's poured over the many writings of Nagavary, and can't find a danged thing to work with.
He's conflicted about glue! And finish!

It's a wonder we get anything built at all.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

As a newbie/amateur perhaps the hardest aspect of looking for advice is deciding who to listen to! the fact is the 'great washed' with their experience and knowledge are often not totally aligned, but have each reached their own theories by their own methods - and maybe its a language thing but tis can sometimes include the mumbo jumbo you define... but how to tell? Perhaps the lesson really is discover for yourself? the can all contibute to thee fun and and maybe leave the requests until its time for

While it is certainly true that correlation is not causation, it's also true that there's no causation _without_ correlation. Maybe the X angle in your latest had nothing to do with the good sound, maybe it had everything to do with it. The only way to find out is to build some more, and look for correlations.

The way it usually works with guitars, of course, is that there IS a correlation, but it's not as simple as you think. You build a bunch of guitars with that 95* X angle, and some of them turn out much better than others. Then, at some point, somebody asks if you measured the stiffness ratio of the top woods on all of those instruments. Of course, you didn't, so you don't know if maybe there was a relationship between the stiffness ratio and the X angle that caused some of the tops to work better than others. So now you're off on another research project.

I always tell people to come up with some sort of theory about how you think the thing works, and then figure out a way to test that. That's what science is: a way of finding out which of the possible stories you could tell are more likely to be true. If you think that strumming strings makes leprechauns laugh, and that good guitars are home to more leprechauns, then figure out a way to count leprechauns. Good luck.

Sorry Michael: Tops do play in with age. We know what happens, but don't know why.

Very true, very true. I've solved this problem by taking a "simulated annealing" approach to building. - a lot of scrap though, a lot of scrap.



I can't believe he dissed the aura guy. Have you tried it? Was there a crescent moon out? I bet not, dude, it ain't gone work if you don't do it during a crescent moon.

WHEW !!!!!!!!!
guys -build guitars the way that suits your interest;and your ears !
Using any info that helps.
wood is the reason we have so much trouble making science work in instrument making.
it's a intrical part but it can not be nailed to one property -like metal !
Plus body size-scale length---etc....

Mc

_________________
Mike Collins

Hi Todd,

Yeah, I was taking poetic license with the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to mean the unproven lore and myths of lutherie - which was my take on the original poster's intent with the phrase. I'm confident that it is rarely done to purposely befuddle and bs a buyer or to purposely lead a new luthier down the rosy path. I suspect most of it is sincerely held as a belief, and that the myth was repeated frequently enough and not challenged frequently enough to have been accepted as truth.

A few days ago, I saw a singer songwriter playing 2 guitars made of Poplar, both with deer antler saddles, no soundholes in the top, and one looked like the top had an extremely thick coat of finish on it. Sounded great. Broke all the "rules", and sounded great to my ears - even though I had a chance to examine the instruments prior to hearing them, and erroneously "figured" that they might not sound so good. And that's kinda my point, that unless someone is trying to faithfully reproduce an existing instrument, that luthiers can relax the constraints, usurp the power of the myths, and produce a much wider variety of instruments that sound "good" or even "great." Of course, the opposite of that is to have players becoming narrower and narrower in their view to the point where ONLY the sound of a Brazilian Rosewood 1941 Martin D-28 is "good" or "right", and then everything else is measured in degrees of "bad" and "wrong." I think it's bad enough that so many players have fallen for the myths and are perpetuating them, and would hope that luthiers lead the charge to dispel the myths. Maybe then we'll break out of the "golden age of lutherie" and enter the "platinum age of lutherie" - where each instrument will sound different and be lauded for it.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

LOL

Shane doesn't do drugs.

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

Maybe they are mad at him for letting his Llamas poo in their forest....
It might scare the bears.

John

Keep it up guys, this thread is headed just where it needs to head.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110