Official Luthiers Forum!

I have to say it seems pretty insulting to say that some of us are closed minded because we offer up some comments. If you stay around long enough you will see that just the opposite is true.

Dale,
Well, let me ask you what is the tonal goal you are after here? An acoustic guitar with a full sound and body or lots of sustain or fast decay? It might help others here as to giving their advice if that's what you are seeking. I don't know if that's what you are after or not. I'm getting the feeling that you might be taking comments the wrong way. Granted that I'm fairly new to building acoustics but what I'm offering is just some knowledge I have learned of how and acoustic guitar works and might be of some use to you in reaching your goal as far as tone. But if you are happy with the bass and know how to get the tone you are after that's great. Good luck with it.

Maybe I just read it or took it wrong then. It's been known to happen before.
I could see where the mids and highs would be more pronounced then the bass for some of the reasons I stated. As far as getting the proper soundhole size you might try a technic I think Kent Everett uses as to increase the sound hole in steps as it will seem to get louder to a point and the overall tone will change to a point and then not sound so loud or good. At that point he will bind the sound hole to make it smaller. You all might find that the treble side might be a different size then the bass side. Who knows?
The thing is I think you really should have an idea of where you want to try and go with this design tone wise. If you are after a unique tone of it's own or whatever. I mean there is just going to be limitations on what it can do with the half boxes. So you can't expect it to do what it just can't do just because of the phyics of it. It's just like a really responsive built guitar that is designed for a fingerstyle playing more then likely just ain't going to cut it for flatpicking and heavy strumming. You as a player can understand that. Can you see where it would be helpful to have some tonal direction. To get there people are going to use the same acoustic principles as on single bodied acoustics. It's just like an Archtop doesn't sound like a Dred and not like a Maccaferri. They all have their limitations and sound.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I noticed the same thing,but the sound hole looked over sized as well.Perhaps a smaller one would show more bass.

Ditto on what others have said regarding patents...

If it was Mine... Here's what I would do...

Find yourself a Skilled Local Luthier who will build them.... or just build them yourself. Tweak them. Build them some more and tweak them some more. Figure out what makes them tick, get them sounding right, and get them into the hands of local Pro musicians... (I have found that Local Pro musicians are usually always in the mood to "Borrow" a good sounding instrument....)

Here is the Key:
You don't need a Patent if it is sufficiently "Strange" and you have to be Smart or Know How It Works to make it work right! "Trade Secret" knowledge is even more powerful than a Patent... because you have to fully disclose the invention in a Patent....

Take Kascha designs... Several high end Luthiers build them and they apparently sound great. Various production companies have made them and they were Pigs.... It wasn't the Raw blueprint design that made them work... It was the Voicing by the Luthier that made them work.

Compare this to a Production Design like a Gibson 1930 L-00. If you get Prints for a Gibson 1930 L-00... You follow those Prints and Specs... and it will Sound more or less like a Gibson 1930 L-00.

So... Hurry up and start building those things and Good luck on your quest.

John

great advise about the sound hole.. (increments)
what i did, and its really low tech, so try not to laugh...
i made it big enough i could stick my hand in there. that was the key for me,
cause i had to put the neck on, and since each hole is rather smaller than a traditional hole,
that was my plan...
thanks for the input! you are very knowledgeable and i appreciate you sharing the knowledge.

Interesting Idea to say the least. I wish you well. Legal protection for your design is costly. If you can get a big name to run with your idea , you have the right to be compensated and rewarded. I do find the design intriguing.

...very cool and unique design idea. I agree with the others about the interior volume of the box being too small to have the deep bass that some players (not necessarily studio engineers) are looking for, but cool nonetheless.

I can see both sides of this and I think while some of the other forum members should be careful not to discourage you, you should also realize that you are talking to a group of people who have spent more time building guitars than you could even imagine. Don't get so caught up in defending your design that you miss out on the criticism that may actually help you improve it.

If you are serious about this, consult a patent attorney, build 10 more (or have them built), and get some real-world tests going with pro musicians and studios who know what they are doing.

Dale,
Great idea! Love it. I've also been down the road with patent attorneys and what I learned is that your patent is only as good as your ability to defend it. So even if you plop down your 10k and succeed in getting a patent, if someone steals the idea, you will probably spend over 100k defending it. So if you don't have a 100k laying around, don't waste your time. You could instead approach a big company with your prototype and ask if they would be interested for a flat fee, or a royalty settlement. You never know, they may agree. But I think it would have to be huge money saver for a big guitar company to retool their current manufacturing process. If the only thing you are saving is not putting braces on the top, I can't imagine a guitar company spending lots of money on retooling just to eliminate the top bracing. I could be wrong, but no harm in asking. I'd think your idea would be better off selling to a small shop or a luthier who builds one offs. You may be able to work a deal with them and take a small cut of the profit for every one they produce.

thanks Tracy,
appreciate the kind words..

it doesnt have to be that big, and it will work for all the traditional sizes and body styles..
I would like to also mention, it is not meant as a cost saving design, (it might but i dont know)
nor was it meant to be easier to build.. (i think it might be, but again, i have no experience)
the idea was to build the design for sonic properties, it was more or less an experiment into the idea that came to me... I really had no goal in mind.



By the way, does it really have to be that big to sound good? Why not make a small body guitar and see if you get as good of sound from that? Best of luck and thanks for sharing!

I'm sure a factory in china is already tooling up for this idea.

Dale,
One thing that might be of help with the patent is to take pictures of your design and make up a simple drawing of it and send it to yourself in a certified letter. When you recieve the letter do not open it and keep it . That will document when you came up with the idea if you are thinking about getting a patent and someone else tries to beat you to it. If I were going to go to a company perhaps you can get them to sign a disclosure statement . Although it might be too late for that.

Is it totally sealed in between the two? I was wondering how it would affect the sound if there were ports or openings between the two, wether it would muddy it up or whatever, interesting question I think.

Is it totally sealed in between the two? I was wondering how it would affect the sound if there were ports or openings between the two, wether it would muddy it up or whatever, interesting question I think.

Sounds like a that would be moving towards some resophonic guitar and neck stick ideas and then baffles etc.
That's why I say you need to be working toward a tone and purpose to have some direction.
If not I think you will just end up spending a lot of time and find that you can get the result you are after with time testest design and construction.
I think that one thing that you all might want to consider with this split box design might be to not split the bridge and make a wide footed archtop bridge so that the feet sit in the sweetspot of each section. Sort of on the line of a T bridge in a tricone. Just an idea that might make a difference .