Official Luthiers Forum!

Last week I asked OLFers which style of guitar that you prefer to play - a guitar that envelops the player with sound or a guitar that is better at projecting to an audience. Y'all did a great job of knowing what you like including some who liked both qualities in the same guitar.

This week it's my hope that we take this to the next level and discuss how one builds a guitar that envelops the player or projects well to an audience. For those of you who believe that you know or have some idea how to build any or both of these types of guitars what are your ideas for how to go about it?

Is it the wood types, bracing, backs - reflective vs. active, body size, guitar weight, HHG vs. Titebond, fossilized Mastiff poop bridge pins - what contributes to or is part of a guitar designed to either envelope or project or both? So give it up folks... what are your ideas or your experience, either will do here in my thread..., for building to spec for a prospective client a guitar that projects like a cannon and/or a guitar that drowns the player in beautiful tone?

Thanks

I took Somogyi's voicing class and have been building OMs that are definitely of the enveloping persusion. I think the key to this is a VERY lightly built top with an active, responsive back. There are lots of other things that I am glossing over.

To me, the way a guitar sounds is mostly caused by two things,design and wood selection which is brought out or distroyed by the voiceing.Weight and stiffness of the wood has a large effect on the end result.I try to use a top that is stiff and resonant more so than how many lines it has.But i also try to select a lighter top for smaller boxes.I find that different size boxes cause different sounding guitars no matter what you do.You can manipulate the wood to a certain degree to get what you want on it's actual movement, but there's not much you can do to change the size of the box.And size has a large effect on the sound because of the volume of air to pump.I always try to get a nice balance there to get the most balanced power .

Definitely the POOP bridge pins.Hesh I`ve really been enjoying your posts lately.I haven`t had anything constructive to add,probably my dunceness.Keep it up though,they have been fun.
SKIN

_________________
James W Bolan
Nashville Tennessee

Barry, what do you think we could expect from a guitar with a very lightly built top paired to a Turner-esq, very stiff, could-hold-a-grown-man, back? My understanding from his notes here and on other forums is that that's the key element in projection. Would the intermingling be an interesting design strategy, or a failure towards either end, producing a guitar that's neither enveloping or projective?

Thanks Barry and I had a feeling AND hope that some of the Somogyi disciples would weigh in here. Light weight/stiff top and materials = responsive, enveloping guitar when combined with a responsive/active back.

Mark your post says to me that you too are into selecting stiff/low mass materials and you add that we are a bit boxed in (pardon the unintended pun) by box size. It also sounds to me like you are shooting for producing guitars that are a balance of enveloping and projecting - is that correct?

SKIN bro thanks much!! Hey we will be getting together in A2 this year for another gathering. More to come.

Let's hear some more experiences/opinions please and who's making cannons and how do you make a guitar that projects to the back of the hall?

Good question James and sorry I missed your post while I was composing my long winded response...

Mark your post says to me that you too are into selecting stiff/low mass materials and you add that we are a bit boxed in (pardon the unintended pun) by box size. It also sounds to me like you are shooting for producing guitars that are a balance of enveloping and projecting - is that correct?

Yes , Hesh i try to get both qualities for a well balanced guitar.I find that balanceing the top with the back helps alot.I believe they both have to work together for a well balanced guitar.So for me, i voice the back for voicing as well as the top when building the box.

No need, I was editing

Barry and I took the Somogyi class together, my first few builds afterwards were definitely enveloping and arrived there exactly as Barry mentioned(including the glossing over ).......you do have to be careful though as too loosey-goosey and they can loose something to my ears......need to find the all-important balancing point.

Cheers,

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

That is two of you so far and without naming names another Somogyi student that I know also seems to build guitars that are IMHO more enveloping than built to hit the back of an auditorium.

The builder that I am speaking of also does very thin, very stiff tops as well with active backs.

Interesting!

What about the presence of a sound port, to enhance the character of "envelopment". I've not yet built a guitar with a sound port, but understand (from some of what I've read - like most things luthier, it seems that there remains a bit of controversy as to whether there really is an effect from sound ports). But from proponents, I understand that the effect is most apparent to the player.

How about building a "projecting" guitar - (how would one do this? we've heard some theories on an enveloping guitar), and adding a soundport? Does this provide the best of both worlds, or neutralize the characteristics of both?


Thanks!

James, I am not sure what would happen with a light top and a reflective back. Might be interesting.

Greg, I have just finished my third post-Somogyi guitar, and I am planning on making the next one a little bit more heavily built to hopefully bring up the projection. Moderation in all things, eh?

Hey Barry, I've found myself moving in a very different direction since the class, in both construction style and "M.O." and am very pleased with the sound I'm getting(going a bit heavier for some players might be the ticket)......good to know how to get what you or the customer wants though so it was an invaluable lesson.

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

IMO, all good guitars project pretty well, and also envelope pretty well. It's not really an either/or proposition, but rather a balance of things. So, assuming you already know how to make a good guitar, but want to alter the voice to have more of whatever, here's my thoughts.

For more 'projection', I'd make the body shallower, and the soundhole a little bigger. Stiffen things up just a bit, but not too much. I'm not so sure about the extreme 'reflector' back, but if you've raised the 'main top' mode a bit, you'll want to raise the back mode to track it. Wood choice makes a difference: 'dryer' wods, like maple and walnut might tend to project better for you. I find Red spruce to be the 'Ethyl Merman' of top woods: it's possible to get an 'enveloping' sound from it, but what it wants to do is belt. It's possible, too, that moving more toward scalloped bracing (I usually use tapered) would help it 'project' if you don't get it too low in the center.

Obviously, for an 'enveloping' sound, go the other way.

I think that ports do send some sound toward the player, but since opening a port in an existing guitar will raise the 'main air' pitch, it usually ends up tending more toward a 'projecting' sound. If you're working on a new one, reducing the main soundhole size to compensate can keep the 'enveloping' sound, and still feed a little high end to the player. THe port seems in large part to change the direction in which the guitar projects it's sound, but not the balance between 'projection' and 'envelopment', except as noted for the 'main air' pitch.

This is something I am currently pondering over...

#1 -- Retop Dread project guitar seems to Project quite well -- It is *Very* loud across the room... almost too loud when you are in a room sitting directly across from someone playing it... though it doesn't seem particularly loud in your hands or if you are sitting next to the player... This leads to the player playing it Harder... which makes it even LOUDER across the room... Etc.

#2-- Cherry Ditson GC -- Seems to be a decent balance of Projecting/Enveloping... It seems pretty loud across the room as well as up close in your hands.

#3 -- Oakie Ditson GC -- Seems to be an Enveloping guitar... It seems quite loud and resonant in your hands and sitting around the player (Beside, behind, etc.).. but not particularly loud sitting across the room!

If anything, I would have liked #3 to Project a little more than it does... more like #2... But... Which differences would tend to make it project more or less?

Oakie GC vs Cherry GC:
Bridge: Hon RW "Flat" vs Ebony Pyramid
Top: 65' dome vs Flat
Bridge plate: Larger purpleheart vs smaller Maple
X-Bracing: 95* vs 85*
Body: Oak vs Cherry
Neck: Oak vs Cherry

Thanks

John

Thanks Al now whenever I play my Adi topped OM it's going to make me think that I have Ethyl Merman in my lap... Great analogy though and Ethyl and Adi both can belt em out!

The guitars that I have played with sound ports the port just seemed like a monitor for the player. As such I would think that a ported guitar, all other things being equal which will never be the case...., is not going to project to the back of a room as well as a non-ported guitar. This might be a cool blind listening test to set up especially with only one guitar with a port that can be closed.

Great stuff guys - let's keep it coming please.

I know it's not scientific due to the small variations in how loudly the player would play each guitar, but I bet you could roughly measure it by recording samples on each guitar recordings and comparing the dB level in the channel strip. If you captured a handful of takes of each sample on each guitar, given a number of samples you could find some trends.

Could some of you describe what you mean by lightly built tops and backs? When I think of a typical top, I think of something with a soundboard thickness somewhere around .105", with 1/4" x .6" tall scalloped braces (the measurements Santa Cruz gave me for their OM's). I'm not asking you to give away your goods, so to speak; just trying to get the basic idea. And what about backs? I know that it's based on stiffness, but have you seen any trends?

James until the Somogyi guys see this and can answer your question about what they consider light here is what I consider lightly brace and thin topped. I have built OMs with 1/4 wide bracing that is 1/2" high at the X intersection and less than that everywhere else. I don't scallop. The top thickness on the one that I am thinking of which was Adi was around .092 in the middle and about .005 less around the edges. I use an over sized bridge plate too.

This was the stiffest top I have ever worked with and none of this, above, is a recommendation it's just what I have done and have received good results from using these specific materials.

Thanks, Hesh. I'm considering going to non-scalloped, too, decoupled from the rim. I need to wait until I have the Somogyi books in front of me to think through it more meaningfully. Based on the model of stiffness and the bracing scheme models he presented during the Healdsburg presentation, it makes a lot more sense theoretically.

are you speaking of moi?

I would say that is accurate. However, recently I have been adding a bit of mass to the plates to try and strike the perfect balance (at least to my ears).

In Somogyi-speak the enveloping sound comes from the cross-dipole component (rocking symetrical across the centerline) and the long-dipole (top rocking lengthwise) is where the projection comes from. I have largely found that to be true as well. As Alan says it isn't an either/or thing but a balance.

To influence how much of one vs. another you have I have been primarily adjusting the splay of the X as the starting point moreso than looking at the plate thickness or other bracing.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Some of my tops are less than that. I thickness them to deflection and some have ended up as thin as .08X" But at this point I have been going just a touch heavier so most are ending up around .10" give or take.

Also, I have been looking less at the KIND of spruce I am using and looking more and more at the mass and stiffness as the only serious considerations. I am skewing on the low end of the density scale and the high end of the stiffness range. There are exceptions but that is the trend.

I use 1/4" braces for the x, 1/2" tall at the lap and no scallop
lately I have been experimenting with a lattice in the LB under the X connected to the bridgeplate, for a more uniform distribution of energy. These are scary light.
The bridgeplate is about .09"
and I am finding the fingerbraces critically important to voicing the instrument.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Thanks Brock - that's a couple of Somogyi students who in time are endeavoring to build slightly heavier than they did right after the class - interesting...

Hesh and everyone who has contributed to this thread so far...

Thank you SO much for making a "Part II" to the Enveloping or Projecting thread.

I will be honest and say that as a new builder, I was lost in the theory of the first thread....

But reading THIS thread is pulling it together for me.

This is such VALUABLE information for us (me specifically) as I try to learn more about the hows and whys of guitar building.

This is exactly why I love OLF so much.

You can't replace this kind of input from so many experienced builders. I love it that we have a community of people here - not necessarily of like mind - but at least of similar interest and goals - willing to help, contribute and encourage others (me specifically).

Again - thanks and keep it up!!!

_________________
P A U L B U R N E R
Burner Guitars

Thin is scary, especially with cedar. I built an OM cedar top that was rather floppy and ended up at 0.087" thick. I put a dent in it before finishing and could not sand it out. I just had to fill it.
I normally build with as stiff a top as I can find, but this cedar had some nice figure so I wanted to give it a try. I was worried about tone but was pleasantly surprised. It did not project well, but it did envelope well, which is what the client wanted. It was warm and articulate and very responsive.
Light top to me means below .090" or even below .080" thick top with 1/4" thick X braces that are significantly carved. You must be certain the the top is properly supported - standard bracing schemes might not work long term. Be careful!

_________________
"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." G. K. Chesterton.