EDIT: That should have been "bending" machine, not "binding" machine. But you don't have to buy one of those, either!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Some questions http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=24569 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Mustang_jt [ Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Some questions |
I have been building electrics for about 5 years now, but have recently decided that I want to try my hand at acoustics. I have done a lot of research and have a few questions. My first one (or 5 rolled into one) is about neck joints. It seems that most companies have gone toward the bolt on neck joint, but they still keep the traditional look of a dovetail. Is there a structural/tonal advantage to gluing up a heel as opposed to using a neck joint more like an electric guitar (think Tacoma wing series). I wouldn't think that gluing the fingerboard to the top would be an advantage seeing as how Taylor does not and McPherson makes a point of the fingerboard being detached. My next question is about the soundhole and bracing. A few companies use the off set sound hole and structurally that makes sense to me, I was just wondering if there is any real merit to is as far as sound goes? And, if it does make it better how come everyone doesn't do it? I don't know if I buy that the placement of the hole effects the sound because more of the center of the top is vibrating ect... but it seems it would make sense that you could use less bracing by using an A frame pattern, which would equal better sound right? Lastly, how bad can I screw up a guitar if I experiment with these things? I already have a ton of tools but to do acoustics I would get a side bending machine, go bar deck and probably a binding jig. If I invest in all of that, and experiment with bracing and such, I would hate to make a guitar that was so bad that I couldn't even give it away. |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
Actually, you can screw one up pretty bad. I have even seen some for sale that I wouldn't even think about buying. That said, not likely though, if you've been doing other types of guitars. Also, if you take your time and do it right, it'll come out fine. You don't even have to buy a binding machine. I built my first, second and third, using a pipe, with a charcoal starter stuck in it. Works fine. I build classicals, but they aren't any harder or easier, IMO, just different. |
|
| Author: | Fred Tellier [ Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
Since you are already building electrics you are well on the way, I for one would stick with a more conventional design for the 1st to set a bench mark for experimentation and to prove to yourself and others you can do it. As with you electrics accuracy is needed. As Waddy says a pipe bender can be made easily, check the web for ideas. Binding can be cut without a special machine but it takes more care. There are also plenty of ideas for binding cutters on the web. Use the web for info there is lots out there. Fred |
|
| Author: | Jon L. Nixon [ Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
For your first build it may be best to get some plans and copy a proven design. Learning the basics is challenge enough without the angst of trying out something new, especially if you are worried that all may not go well. We have loads of info and tutorials here that should increase your chances of success. (You may also want to check out the OLF plans-they are excellent.) A bolt-on neck is easier than a fitted dovetail, IMO, but jigging up to mechanically attatch the fingerboard tounge is probably more difficult than just gluing it on, at least for your first build, but likely others would disagree, and that is why we have this forum.... |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
EDIT: That should have been "bending" machine, not "binding" machine. But you don't have to buy one of those, either!
|
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
Advantage of a bolt on mortise and tenon joint that is not glued up is less risk of damage to the neck block and neck tenon when time comes for a neck reset. Both types of joints are equal in structural strength and durability. Sound hole placement and size will affect the chamber main air freq. there by affecting the over all tone. Yes you can make a very bad sounding or poorly structured guitar by experimenting with little or no understanding of what makes an acoustic guitar properly function. But that is why they call it experimenting after all. |
|
| Author: | Corky Long [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
I think you're well on the way, having built electrics, but still, expect some learning curve. If your expectation is that the first steel string is better than you thought it might be, but not near as good as the second will be, you'll be satisfied. I've only built five, so, take it with a grain of salt. If I were you, I'd use the bolt on, m&t neck joint (the dovetail is classic, but for me, a real PITA) - good instruction for M&T elsewhere on this forum, as other's have said, I'd slavishly follow the plans for a proven design you like, and I'd use Titebond or LMI white glue. I like HHG, but it's tricky to use the first time. I'd use a bending-friendly wood (EIR, Walnut, etc.) for the sides (and back). Bending is easier than it looks, even with a pipe and propane torch (fun, but keep the fire extinguisher handy), but with some really curly wood you're looking for trouble. In other words, limit the variables. Also get Kent Everett'sCD on setup - great stuff there. Have fun!! |
|
| Author: | Mustang_jt [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
Thanks for all the great tips. I was searching for plans here but did not find any, can someone post a link? Also, The neck joint I was thinking of trying is an electric style bolt on. I like this idea because I like to use 5 piece necks and I would waste a lot of wood if the neck blank was thick enough for a heel. Has anyone tried something like this, or is there any inherent flaws in its design? After Fender bought Tacoma they shut them down so I have not actually been able to play one of these. 
|
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
I don like that joint because fine tuning the neck angle to bridge height would be a more complicated, trial and error prone process that the typical acoustic M&T joint. Plus it leaves no heel which in acoustic is part of the energy transfer into the neck. We use to have a library of plans but about a year and a half the form and myself started marketing the OLF plans through Stewart MacDonald to reach a larger market. the forum receives a good portion of the cost on each OLF plan set bought through Stewmac. I have provided the forum with my OM, SJ, and MJ designs and more designs are soon to come down the pike. |
|
| Author: | woody b [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
I've reset a couple Tacoma "Wing" series necks, and also replaced one. That part is not different than any other neck. You have to calculate how much to remove from a surface to displace the neck the right amount. To increase the neck angle you take material away from the outside end of the neck surface where it bolts to the block. I don't build this way, I'm just saying it's not complicated to get the angle. You also have to option to shim the entire neck up, or remove material to bring it down. The Tacomas "wings" are different. They're braced completely different than traditional acoustics , and the neck joins the body at the 15th fret. Some electric players (and others) really like them. There's a picture of the inside of a Chief on the 2nd page of this catalog. [url][http://www.tacomaguitars.com/resources/pdf/tacoma05Catalog.pdf/url] |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
woody b wrote: I've reset a couple Tacoma "Wing" series necks, and also replaced one. That part is not different than any other neck. You have to calculate how much to remove from a surface to displace the neck the right amount. To increase the neck angle you take material away from the outside end of the neck surface where it bolts to the block. I don't build this way, I'm just saying it's not complicated to get the angle. You also have to option to shim the entire neck up, or remove material to bring it down. The Tacomas "wings" are different. They're braced completely different than traditional acoustics , and the neck joins the body at the 15th fret. Some electric players (and others) really like them. There's a picture of the inside of a Chief on the 2nd page of this catalog. [url][http://www.tacomaguitars.com/resources/pdf/tacoma05Catalog.pdf/url] yes I understan how you would do it. Calculating the amount to remove is not hard but my is thta flossing till you are there is more intuitive at leaset for me. I can and do calulate even on M&T necks the shave a tad less than required and floss the rest of the way in. I would suspect that to an electric builder this joint is very intuitive. Structrally this joint is fine. I personally do not like the apperance at all and still feel the heel is important to the guitars over all tonal resopnce. |
|
| Author: | Mustang_jt [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
Quote: Plus it leaves no heel which in acoustic is part of the energy transfer into the neck. With this design the heel is essentially inside the guitar as part of the block. I don't see why this might be different sound wise than gluing up the heel and then bolting it to the block |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some questions |
No the neck block is inside the guitar. there is no heel. not to cause arguments here at all
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|