Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm hardly an 'oldie' in terms of instruments completed, but two things that stand out for me:

1. Don't expect to save any money. Maybe, maybe, if you have a fully equipped shop already, you can break even. Given enough luck. For the money I've spend on tooling and wood, I could own several high-end custom acoustics and electrics.

2. Build if you enjoy the challenge. Despite 1, I wouldn't want it any other way - it's rewarding, challenging and fun.

+1!!

As a newbie I'm finding it's most important to be true to who you are. If you like to build like everyone else does and find plans and paper drawings helpful for you and that's the way your brain works then you should follow a similar method.

If your brain works a little differently (not better, not worse, but each of our brains interpret the world through different eyes and filters) and you like to experiment then by all means be true to that part of who you are. Try something different.

When you cook do you like recipes? Or do you alter EVERY recipe just because you can and you are curious?

My first kit guitar has drilled out braces. Not because I knew anything about building a guitar, not because I thought the tap tone or some harmonic razzmatazz would be improved, but only because I thought it looked cool and was different. There's no way I can really do the same thing twice and I personally LOVE to experiment.

Learn who you are and build accordingly. Do you need plans? Or can you draw YOUR guitar on a computer and create from there?

Neither way is better than the other but if you follow advice to stick to a plan but your personality won't really allow that, then have some fun and experiment.

If experimenting is really not your style then by all means get a set plans and follow it to a 'T'.

Either way you will be happy and very surprised at what becomes of all those pieces of wood.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

All good! You gotta know your process inside and out, or several processes inside and out to minimize nightmares when experimenting.....

The guys who have been doing it a while can wing an entire build and make changes as they go, just because they know all the steps inside and out, even if they still like to lay out a set of plans.

There's no one set way that is THE best period.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

I've been away for a few days, but I'd like to address Frank Cousin's question about testing.

As many here will know, I'm one of those 'tech' guys, who likes to test things. However, I have to admit that, from time to time, I wonder myself how effective those things really are. I'm really happy with the way my guitars sound these days, and my older customers tell me they're getting better. I'd like to think it's because of the research I do, and the depth of the data base I've built up. But as somebody who tries to cultivate a healthy degree of scientific skepticism, I have to admit that maybe, after forty years of building, I'm just finally getting the hang of it. I can put up two pieces of evidence for the efficacy of testing, though:
1) Many of the folks I've taught have been able to get consistently good results on their own from the beginning using these tests, and
2) The data seems to be internally consistent: the ones that test better tend to sound better.

As in any 'historical' science, you can't rewind the tape and start over to see what would have happened if you'd done things differently in the beginning. Maybe when we gain access to some of those putative parallel universes, we'll be able to figure that out, but as it is we're sort of stuck. The only other way to demonstrate (but not, of course 'prove') that these tests work is to gain a better understanding of how the instrument functions, and what constitutes the difference between 'good' and 'poor' ones. Don't hold your breath.

So, no, I can't 'prove' the testing works. Science doesn't 'prove' things anyway; all you can do is show that one thing is more likely than others. To the extent that we do understand how these things work, and assuming our tests are looking at relevant variables, then testing should be useful.

Thank you for a very interesting and insightful response. I love that line (in bold) - raised a smile. For me that's the crux you see. I do not doubt that there are tests and measuremnets that will determine those properties that ensure a more consistent build... but I do suspect that a fair amount of why your instriments are getting better IS because you are getting the hang of it' - and I was not suggesting the two are mutally exclusive.

As an amateur and always likely to remain so, i have the luxury of time - no need to get to the 'destination' quickly or even have a destination in mind, just slowly try and improve my wood skills and undestanding - its perhaps a slightly romantic notion, but because its done purely for enjoyment, I like the idea of retaining more mystery in the process that's all - and maybe after 30 years If I am lucky enough to still be around, build a decent guitar

Wow!

I'd much rather spend thirty years building excellent guitars by using quantifiable test methods...

My perspective is to achieve a balance between what I call intuitive gtrmaking and scientific gtr testing.When I look at an aspect of building, I have a feeling that this brace or whatever should be a certain way.That/s the feeling side of my brain.The analytical/practical/test it out part of my brain says do some testing first before you put feelings/intuition into motion. That is the best way to describe the balance I am trying to achieve, and yes I/ve got a long way to go.

(with apologies to Al for the out-of-context quote - but bear with me...)

IMHO, the best guitars have yet to be built. If you can get to the same point after, say, 5 years using scientific methods (or any other cohesive methodology, for that matter) rather than 20-30 years of trial/error/experience, you still have 15-25 years to push out the boundaries with a solid base to build from. It does take a certain personality type to push the boundaries, though. I'm always leery of people who claim "20 years of experience" which, in fact, turns out to be only one year's experience twenty times over.

If the fun in the game is the discovery, there's far more discovery left than has currently been found.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Hey Alan, I'm not a tech guy, but thank you for a very smart, well-articulated response.

I gotta tell you, there are some pretty great discussions happening on this site recently. Thanks to all of you for making it happen.

Steve

Carleen Hutchins used to say that what this stuff does is to 'raise your standard of mediocrity': your average one is a bit better, you're a bit more consistent, and you don't make as many duds. Eventually, if 'great' is just 'more good', this could get you to great. If 'great' is something else entirely, it won't, and maybe intuition will work better. In any case, I think it's worth it just to avoid the dumber mistakes.

It seems like the clash between the "scientists" and the "Gepettos" is as healthy as ever!

My post was about advice to newbies. My guess is that we tend to be drawn to one approach or the other (scientific/artistic) due to our past conditioning - our personalities. The problems only arise when we start claiming superiority over the other camp - a trap I've fallen into a few times.

Perhaps good advice to those starting out would be to keep an open mind about the scientific approach if you are inclined towards the non scientific way (I struggle to think of the right term, but "experiencial" will have to do for now.) And visa versa.

As soon as we start feeling we're on the right track, a narrowing of vision (and hearing) can set in, and the very subject that once was a cause of joy (lutherie) becomes the source of conceit and harsh judgement - the opposite of the pleasure we used to have. It would be good to keep newbies "out of all that" until their conditioning drags them in!

It's good to get everyones perspective though, thanks. I'd never thought about full size plans, they certainly would be helpful if you've never made before. Video too. Lot's of good stuff in there chaps.

Maybe for newbies good advice too would be to stop reading and start doing - crack on and learn hand skills - just to see if you actually enjoy the process before worrying about "which camp" you're in. Kits seem a very good way to start too - that's the advice I often give anyway.

_________________
nigel

http://www.theluthierblog.com

Thanks Nigel, for starting the thread...

Maybe the thread went a little side tracked, but I do think that this was because when ooking at what advice oldies should give to us newbies, there seems no 'standard' - my point really started because it can be so darn confusing depending on who you ask - not so much about which 'camp' you sit in (I do believe both are actually closer than it seems , just using different 'techniques' to make their assessments - both qualitative and quantitative), but on the relative importance compared to say basic practical skill. In addition, as with any learning process, no one can really effectively absorb everything at once... as you say, you have to take the plunge and focus a select few areas to begin with - for me a good example is how much bling you add early on. Very strong case to keep it plain and simple as it adds nothing to the sound... but an equally good case could be made for adding what you like so that you get practice at the techniques needed from the outset, especially if these are new techniques- be it headstock biinding or mad pearl inlay etc.

The main advice given to me was to build what inspires you - what will keep you interested and committed when you make mistakes and things dont go so well - use good materials and take advice on these so that you learn to understand what makes them good. Keep it based on traditional principles as before you can really experiement you have to have a good grounding.

Above all, understand that mistakes is what you learn most from.

Whether you tap the wood and listen, look at the grain and bend in your hands to understand the properties, or whether you use 'scientific' approaches to measuring these things, both are doing the same thing - your accuracy will obviously come down to experience and interpretation of the results. For me, I find 'comparison' to be good starting point - a whole session, and often repeated, looking and assessing hundreds of tops from my mentors stash (althouhgh given it was mostly AAA+ German Spruce from 1980s and 90s, it was a struggle to find a poor one )

I appreciate that with a more quantitative approach, there is far less room for error especially when starting out, but as said before, I work in an environment where science is part of day to day, so its nice to enjoy a little more qualitative approach for what is a hobby for me.

Very interesting point of view, Frank. Never one to belittle the advances of science, I am, however, quite overwhelmed by the tests and data available. ( I'm a beginner, on my third classical). My first build was to the Hauser 37 plan. While the guitar has some cosmetic flaws, it has the most beautiful tone - strong, balanced, and musical. The credit, of course, goes entirely to Hauser and his years of hands on experience, his intuition, and his skill as a luthier. Having said that, I still plan to study and learn from the more "scientific" approach when I've gotten my head around the more basic aspects of the process. I like the quote " keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out."

You got that right. Worse yet, "Smith, Jones and Williams, with 20 years' combined experience."

Pat

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com