I'd like to build it with a dovetail neck. Could I angle the connection and build it with the same top and bottom radius (15' and 25') as I did with the steel string version? I'll use a classical guitar bracing pattern.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Body Shape Steel String vs Classical http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=20451 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Ricardo [ Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Are classical guitar shapes (sloped shoulders,etc.) a matter of tradition or are there practical reasons? I built a steel string using a 000 plan. Any reason I shouldn't build a nylon string guitar using the same shape? Of course the bracing will be different for the classical. |
|
| Author: | Alexandru Marian [ Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
It is likely too big for traditional fan bracing, it will likely sound weak compared to a modern sized one, which is in between a 00 and 000. And the trad size as developed by Torres, and used by Romanillos too, Hauser too (a hair larger) etc etc is right on a 00, save for a larger upper bout. For 000 you should try X bracing actually - Alan has posted a few times about such animal unless im mixing up things. |
|
| Author: | Scott A. [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Sorry to jump in, but can you just xbrace and use nylon and get a good sound? Newbie question and haedn't seen that covered yet. |
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
It has been covered, but probably not been seen by you yet. There is a LOT of reading to do, give yourself time... Just using an X brace doesn't guarantee a good nylon sound, especially for a builder who hasn't worked the "system" to optimize their results. The traditional bracing schemes for nylon string guitars have had many years of tweaking, so a new builder has a higher likelihood of achieving the desired results. Using a 000 plantilla can work, as Alex mentioned, but you would need to look at other big classicals for bracing inspiration. Ramirez was well known for big bodied guitars. Personally, if I was in Ricardo's spot, I'd highly recommend using the Torres plan for a first. It really makes a nice guitar. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
in regards to using a OOO body for a classical. it is interesting to note that a few major guitar companies have done or are doing so. Fender comes to mind. one model classical fender makes os their OMish bodywith a bokt-on M&T joint, It is fan braced. So yes it is done |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
I'd like to build it with a dovetail neck. Could I angle the connection and build it with the same top and bottom radius (15' and 25') as I did with the steel string version? I'll use a classical guitar bracing pattern.
|
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Why would you want to do a dovetail neck joint when the Spanish heel or the Romanillos variation work so well? Bolt on works well, too. The neck angle for a classical is different than for a steel string. I'd really suggest that you make Solara. Its not hard, and makes life so much easier. The front and back radii are pretty much 15 & 25, so you can use that if you need to. The overall geometry works out a little differently than for steel string. |
|
| Author: | Alexandru Marian [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
The larger (wider) you make them, the harder is to make them sound good. More width equals less stiffness across the grain, which needs to be compensated for, which adds more mass and you end up with a closed in guitar. I actually have here a guitar brought in by a friend for refret. (amazing how deep grooves nylon can dig from serious study) I noticed it looks big and clunky, and because of the thread I measured it: 38cm wide, which is what 000/OMs are, right? It is spruce with spruce-lattice bracing, has that heavy plywood frame inside, pressing the bridge and around shows the top moves - it is not overbraced, but the sound is quiet and light. Has a sweet pleasant tone, but if I pick up one of my Torres style set up with carbon strings, it is like cranking up the amp from 2 to 10....Heck, even my 600$ Alhambra obliterates the tank.... I think your best bet with the large size is use very light X bracing, and perhaps a light WRC top. It will be difficult to get acceptable volume and sonority out of it anyway. Did I read right, that WRC has better crossgrain stiffnes per weight compared to spruce? |
|
| Author: | David LaPlante [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Plantillas (literally "footprint" in Spanish I believe) are a very complex subject as to their evolution over time. Simply though, a body size close to a 00 Martin or standard Hauser pattern classical (14"+or- at the lower bout) and fan braced, has long been established as the optimal for nylon strings. For a number of years during the 1960's Martin produced a 000 size classical even they (not all that savvy when it came to nylon) eventually changed the body size to the 00 configuration. Recently they've produced a 000 nylon string again but used a very long scale to compensate and only the mahogany (not the rosewood) version worked well. Just the other day I was comparing a 00 Martin pattern with the Romanillos classical pattern, they have far more similarity than you might think which reveals their common origins in the Spanish guitars of the 1840s. |
|
| Author: | RaymundH [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Rich, In regards to X-bracing a classical, I believe Joshia De Jonge uses an X-brace/lattice hybred for her classicals. On her web page on the second page of her bio there is a nice photo of her tops. Also, I believe she uses a bolt on neck instead of the traditional spanish heel. Also, Matt Mustapick is creating Nylon Crossover's that mix both steel string and classical traditions. He has several "shop reports" that appear on his web page showing how he ceates these very nice instruments. Ray |
|
| Author: | qwrtz [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
I once saw (at Sandy Bradley's musical instrument auction at the Seattle Folklife Festival) a classical guitar with a rectangular, painted soundbox. It sounded good to me, though I'm certainly not a very good judge of that. It was similar in size to a standard classical guitar. |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Douglas, I could consider building a solara and doing a traditional classical neck. I found with my classical neck guitars finishing was a pain although I wouldn't have the fiddling I had getting my dovetail joint done. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
I've made a couple of X-braced 12 fret 000 size classicals. One is the 'Autumn' guitar you can see on my web site. It works, but.... As you make the outline of the guitar bigger you need to beef up the top thickness and bracing to keep the static stiffness high enough to resist the bridge torque over the long term. It turns out that the weight of the top goes up faster than the vibrating area, and the result is that you actually lose power as the guitar gets bigger. What you get is a 'bassier' response, in part because the low 'main air' resonance will usually be lower in pitch, and can pump more air from a bigger box. Beyond a certain point this added 'bass balance' is not always a good thing on classicals. Nylon strings don't have anywhere near as much high frequency energy in them as steel strings do. The central problem in making a good classical is to preserve as much treble as possible without getting 'harsh'. With steel strings you're always trying to get enough bass to balance out the treble that's already there in the strings, and still keep the sound 'clear'. Thus classical guitars usually work better with the smaller 'brighter' body sizes, while larger boxes tend to be better for steel strings. X-bracing is structurally more efficient than the traditional fan bracing of classical gutiars, and that's probably why Martin kept making them bigger and bigger once they started to use the X bracing- they could get away with it. Still, unless you use a very low density piece of top wood, and make the bracing much lighter than it is on a steel string, you will probably find that you're not getting as much power from your 12-fret 000 classical as you would from a smaller box. |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Alan, ok I'm convinced that I should build it using a classical plan. Which one do you recommend - a Hauser, Torrie, etc.? I will probably make it a bit of a hybrid with 14 fret to body, upper bout sound holes like the steel I did (I am a believer now) and a narrower neck (52mm). Thanks |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Hi Ricardo, As a side note - I build my OO-12 size guitars from the same mold as the OOO-12 size. I just trim the sides a little shorter to narrow up the body. They end up slightly longer than the typical OO but still fit in a standard case. If you want to use your existing molds you could play with the OOO outline - perhaps widen the upper bout as you narrow the lower to make a semi-classically proportioned guitar. Once you have settled on the shape you can make a simple jig to hold the body. Fleta used a dovetail joint for his necks. Aparently he felt there were some advantages to it. If you are breaking with tradition anyway, why not use it? |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Ricardo, have you ever built a nylon string guitar? If not then now isn't the time to be reinventing the wheel. Get a good plan, and I would suggest going back to the master Torres as nobody has improved on his designs yet, and build one or two to find out what makes a classical guitar the instrument that it is. OK if you really want you can make it a bolt on neck as long as you leave the Spanish heel, though a Romanillos double wedge traditional neck is easy enough. Do not make it a 14 fret guitar as you will be moving the bridge off of the sweet spot unless you go for an unplayable longer scale. Leave the soundhole where it is. In other words build a traditional Torres and that will then give you a base against which to measure any future changes you may like to make. Don't lightly push aside 150+ years of experience on an untested whim. This may seem harsh, but there seems to have been a rush of relatively new builders trying to reinvent the wheel recently without the background experience to rationalise their designs. I've played a lot of classical guitars by most of the high end European and Australian builders, and the ones that stayed closest to the Torres original always came out best even in blind trials. Colin |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Colin, I appreciate the sage advice. This is my first guitar: Attachment: guitar.jpg Its based on a Martin 000 plan with a double X bracing pattern. I built it as a prototype with no great expectations. I've had it evaluated by serious guitar players who say its head and shoulders above a Martin 000 in volume and sound quality. I couldn't be happier with the outcome. I do a lot of research before I build. Maybe I got lucky and hit a home run on the first pitch? Maybe I'll crash and burn on my first classical? Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Alexandru Marian [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
If you must have upper bout holes, perhaps go for the Kasha plan. |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
PS: Check out grimesguitars.com. He uses the upper bout sound holes. I got bracing plans for steel string and nylon from him. So its not exactly unproven. Willie Nelson, Keola Beamer and George Benson are just a few of his clients. Regards |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Ricardo I wasn't being critical, if you want to experiment go ahead, but do so with some base to work from. A nylon string guitar is a completely different animal to a steel string and is accepted as being much, much harder to get to work well, mainly due to the greatly reduced energy that you have to play with. The best design has not changed very much in 150 years, though many have tried, even the much vaunted lattice braced guitars though superficially louder than the traditional design tend to be very one dimensional when compared blind to the Torres pattern. Colin |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
You are probably right, a Torres is the way to start. I want the best of all worlds. Access to the 14th fret without a cutaway. Does connecting to the body at the 14th fret really hurt the sound all that much? |
|
| Author: | John Hale [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Just an aside would high tension strings help in the hunt for trebles or are they more of a gimick as the difference is negligible? |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
The interesting thing about my steel string is that it has bluegrass strings on it and I use it for slack key (open G) tuning. |
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Also, ask yourself how much, really, are you going to need a 14 fret neck? The correct playing position greatly facilitates access, as does the practice of every serious player. Access to higher positions without shortening the upper bout or using a cutaway is also accomplished by using an elevated fingerboard. You can do this. This one is by Michael Lazar. |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Body Shape Steel String vs Classical |
Douglas, do any of the classical guitar plans have an elevated fingerboard? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|