Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=22064		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Cobalt60 [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Hi, I'm a total newbie, even in the world of general woodworking. In building my first guitars, I keep wondering why it's so standard for the fingerboard to even touch the soundboard at all.

Wouldn't the larger effective soundboard be a good thing?

Is there something inherently wrong, structurally or sonically, with the idea of lifting the fingerboard away from the soundboard?

To take it a step further, shouldn't it be advantageous to decouple the neck from the body as much as possible, including the heel joint?

On a classical, I can accept that tradition dominates, and of course this idea would preclude a true Spanish Heel joint. But certainly there's some way to decouple the fretboard from the soundboard while maintaining a reasonable appearance. Since we're so concerned about energy loss, it seems very desirable, too. On a steel-string, this seems even more feasible, especially with the introduction of metal joinery between neck block and neck. In fact, one could almost imagine a nearly "null point" joint between neck and body, leaving the neck stable while the body wiggles around.

...Or am I missing some major points here?
Author:  Bob Garrish [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Cantilevered fretboards are done by lots of builders (and everyone who's ever made an archtop); the benefit is debatable. I don't see how the neck thing follows, as the neck generally has very little contact with the sound board.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
I doubt that the fact the fretboard is glued down to the "upper bout" would make a hugely noticeable difference as compared to a cantilevered or a free floating. as the upper bout is not near as active as the lower. It will have some affect. As mentioned many builders don’t attach the fretboard to or directly to the top. Many builders use a bolt down mortise and tenon joint that is part of the neck block and others us a cantilever. Both cantilever and M&T fretboard joints have bee around for near a century, though mostly on arc top guitars.
Author:  walnut47 [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
C F Martin built some guitars with cantilevered fingerboards in the 1830's. If I remember correctly, that may have been common to Austrian guitars. Some of them also had an adjustable neck angle.
Walter
Currently reading "CF Martin and his guitars, 1796-1873" by Philip Gura
Author:  jordan aceto [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Also, check out the neck joint on Ken Parkers new archtops. Its not something most of us will be copying anytime soon, but it sure is cool.

In general, i am not sure that "decoupling" the neck from the body is always beneficial or desirable. Most people go for a nice solid neck to body joint, whether dovetailed or bolted on, kind of mondo coupled.

Kens archtops are the closest thing i can think of to what you are getting at, and they are pretty amazing, but even those have a nice solid neck attachment system, although it is right over the neck block, kind of a dead area.

Its cool stuff to research and think about, but i will probably continue to build in a pretty straightforeward and traditional way, because... it works really well.
Author:  L. Presnall [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Because living together would be wrong? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Author:  Dave Higham [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
You're not missing anything Peter. A lot of well-respected luthiers agree with everything you say.
Author:  chewy63 [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
hello Cobalt60

If this is the direction you are choosing to take, then i recommend that you google Howe-Orme. Then search Rick Turner here, and then google him as well. This should help you. Be prepared to read a lot, because Rick is all over the place online.


Erin
Author:  truckjohn [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
If I had to guess a utility reason for gluing the fingerboard down to the soundboard.... It would be to make sure the traditional dovetail joint stays stuck together.... and doesn't pooch back apart.

The forces in a guitar are constantly trying to disassemble a traditional dovetail joint.... The string tension is trying to push the dovetail in the 'loosen' direction... while the torque is trying to lever the back of the dovetail out of the joint.

Good luck

John
Author:  Alexandru Marian [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Right, I have a guitar here for a neck reset, the dovetail crept out (it was loosely fitted with a huuugely thick glue line too)
So most of the tension was in the fingerboard extension, and the wood cold-bent after a few years. If I can't straighten it out I'll need to put a new one [xx(]
Author:  Cobalt60 [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
Sounds like an interesting thing to explore... in the long term, after I actually have some building competency. Thanks for the reading leads, everyone! To clarify my point about the heel, I meant decoupling from the overall vibrating sides, and to a lesser extent, back. My theoretical proposition is a soundbox that's totally "free to wiggle" and a neck that is nonreactive, regardless of input. In theory, couldn't the entire guitar become either smaller in size (or louder?) in exchange?

truckjohn, I guess your point actually illustrates what I'm saying. If there actually IS any structural component, would it be interesting to consider that a "problem to solve" instead of an inevitability, given the fragile nature of the soundboard?

thanks again, I'll read up some more on this Eat Drink
Author:  Cobalt60 [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
(sorry for double-posting, can't edit) Looking at Ken Parker's archtops, that's honestly very close to the type of thing I was imagining... interesting... and really beautiful!
Author:  justink [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
This seems to be a great question (being that I am on my 1st),

I have thought of trying this out on future guitars, but I suppose the old tapered dovetail joint wouldn't work for a raised/non-coupled fb. Unless you also bolted the joint (nullifying the point of a dovetail I imagine.)

But, the one post about dovetails above made me think - What if you did an up-side-down dovetail joint and assembled it before you glued the back on? I know that pretty much eleminates neck resets in the future... Maybe this is a dumb(not well thought out) question.
Author:  Gregg C [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
I just finished watching Kent Everette's DVD on Voicing (fascinating !!) and he put most all his emphasis on the lower two thirds of the top for voicing, in fact he would hold the the top between his thumb and pointer finger at the top of the top and still interpret the top's "voice" This tells me having the fret board glued to the top is somewhat of a non issue ??? Yes / No ???
My .02 .......

Gregg
Author:  muthrs [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why is the fingerboard generally married to the soundboard?
So far all of my guitars have been built with the fingerboard attached to the top in the traditional way. Currently I am working on a couple of adjustable neck guitars where the fingerboard is isolated from the top. I doubt detaching the fingerboard from the neck will have a large affect on tone unless you totally free up the upper bout like Rick Turner does with his flying buttresses. Although, depending on how well the fingerboard extension is supported, there may be some improvement in tone on notes fretted up the fingerboard.

It must be remembered that when the fingerboard is glued to the top, it is playing a structural role in helping prevent the rotation of the head block. This is not an ideal situation for providing a stable playing surface over time. So isolating and independently supporting the fingerboard extension would be a very positive thing in terms of playability. But, now the head block needs additional independent reinforcement to prevent rotation over time. This is what Rick does with his flying buttresses. I have chosen to use a pretty substantial A-frame bracing scheme to support the head block. The legs of the A are let into the head block in the usual fashion and are half-lapped joined through the upper face brace and continue on as traditional sound hole braces that terminate at the upper X. My upper face brace is also laminated with CF. In addition, I use a Spanish foot that allow the back of the guitar to participate more fully in preventing rotation. This provides a very stable system and allows me to loosen up the upper legs of the X brace somewhat to improve response and tone. This technique was noted in another post as greatly improving tone. I've been doing this for years and it really does improve the tone, but it has to be done carefully even with the reinforcements just mentioned.

I believe everything south of the upper face brace (top edge of the sound hole) is important for tone and requires tuning. So I have never been in the "it's all about the lower bout" camp. I guess I'm in the "it's all about the lower bout and half of the upper bout" camp.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/