Quote:
And since the strings are under less tension, they vibrate in a wider arc so the extra space means they wont hit each other.
yes, i actually learned this, then forgot it
, thank you. i think this is probably the primary reason.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Classical guitars and those wide necks http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=35099 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Mike OMelia [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Anybody have historical information on why classicals have such wide necks? Does anybody stray from the path and use more narrow necks? Mike |
|
| Author: | nyazzip [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
dunno, but i have some theories: the soft-core nature of classical style stings makes them slippery and hard to pin down, ie, they "roll", so as such, maybe increasing the acreage on the fingerboard aids with accuracy. also, the average thickness of a classical string is much thicker than steel....certainly in the G B and hi E positions. so i think that is also a reason. lastly, they are mahogany, and don't employ truss rods, so the extra wood helps with strength i intend to go narrower on my current build. i have an old suzuki classical type that is extremely narrow(38mm!) at the nut, and it works for me, though it is a bit extreme. i'm thinking i will try around 45mm. pretty sure about 50mm is standard. anywho, just conjecture and wild guessing on my part |
|
| Author: | Mike OMelia [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Hmm. So build one with a truss rod? |
|
| Author: | nyazzip [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
sure, don't see why not. i'm just not a fan of truss rods really, in general. problem is(more guessing), you start putting steel in a classical neck, and it starts going neck heavy and wants to dive at the floor, because the bodies are so thin and light |
|
| Author: | Chris Pile [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Another theory. Since there is no taper of the neck, the string spacing is the same from the bridge to the nut, resulting in better intonation. |
|
| Author: | Tony_in_NYC [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
And since the strings are under less tension, they vibrate in a wider arc so the extra space means they wont hit each other. |
|
| Author: | nyazzip [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Quote: And since the strings are under less tension, they vibrate in a wider arc so the extra space means they wont hit each other. yes, i actually learned this, then forgot it , thank you. i think this is probably the primary reason.
|
|
| Author: | Kent Chasson [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Mike O'Melia wrote: .....Does anybody stray from the path and use more narrow necks? Mike I don't know of anyone who does it just to buck tradition but some people do request classical guitars with narrower necks. I'm building one now that is 1-7/8" at the nut. So-called "crossover" guitars seem to be gaining popularity too. I'm still unclear exactly what constitutes a crossover. Some people say it's just a classical with a neck more comfortable to steel-string players. Some say they voice it differently too. Maybe Steve Kinnaird will chime in. I recall seeing a crossover of his recently. |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
It's just a form follows function thing. The strings have a wider arc of vibration when hit at concert hall power, so need higher action to clear the frets. As the classical style involves lots of single note playing, you have to be able to finger high(ish) up the neck and also be able to play open strings, without buzzing. You need more space between the strings to achieve that, as a finger may have to go down deep between vibrating strings. Wide necks mean you can't play "thumb over", but that's frowned upon in classical circles anyway. It's nothing to do with intonation. Truss rods in classical guitars are getting much more common, as it makes so much sense, especially when trying to combat the differential changes in length between say ebony and cedro, which result in back bowed necks under high humidity conditions unless you have a truss rod to straighten them out. The balance thing is another red herring. If it was that critical, a wood as dense as ebony wouldn't be a first choice fretboard material for so many players, especially on 8 string classicals. |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Kent Chasson wrote: So-called "crossover" guitars seem to be gaining popularity too. I'm still unclear exactly what constitutes a crossover. Some people say it's just a classical with a neck more comfortable to steel-string players. Some say they voice it differently too. It depends which side you're crossing to... Here's a cross-over which is from classical to steel string. It's basically a classical guitar with a steel string top and steel strings, 53mm nut width: http://www.goreguitars.com.au/main/page_guitars_special_projects.html Below it is a version of my "steel string concert classical" a steel string guitar for classically trained players who want to play their stuff on a steel string guitar which is especially voiced for finger-picking (and classical) styles, 46mm nut width. There are many permutations, including guitars built to be played using the nylon coated steel braid strings... |
|
| Author: | senunkan [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
The standard width is about 52mm at the nut and 62mm at the 12th fret. During Torres' time the neck was a bit thinner, about 49mm or so. I could certainly be wrong, but I think it was Andre Segovia who wanted a wider neck as his fingers are thick. Classical music are pretty much series of single notes playing rather than strumming, so in order to have better accuracy in playing those strings individually, a wider neck / string spacing is necessary. Thumb is almost never used at the left hand in classical music. |
|
| Author: | Michael.N. [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Left hand thumb isn't used because modern Necks are so wide. Back in the early part of the 19 th century, when all the originators of Classical Guitar technique were around, things were very different. Giuliani used his left hand thumb fairly frequently. It wasn't at all unusual for Classical (or rather Romantic) Guitars to have Neck widths of 45 mm's. There is no reason why you cannot go with a Neck width that is well under the modern norm - providing you can finger the notes without inadvertently dampening adjacent strings. With practice many people can do that. Some cannot. |
|
| Author: | Gary L [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
There are typically multiple voices being played in classical music (consider something like a Bach fugue) which require considerable opposing motion in the left hand fingers. Increased string spacing allows the hand to achieve all the notes with higher accuracy. Also in classical left hand technique, descending slurs are done by pulling the finger fretting the upper note off the string and letting it hit the adjacent string (a horizontal movement to the fingerboard, not vertical) so that the first string actually "snaps" and rings. This is really hard to do if the string spacing is tight. |
|
| Author: | Stephen Boone [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
I helped to make a steel string with a wider string spacing than usual and it is a great finger picker. For flat picking it is not so great. I have always played mostly classical guitars so the wide neck seems not so wide to me but I would only make things as narrow as a flat picking steel if I were going to flat pick the nylon strings. I have made a couple of classicals with 48 mm nuts and the clients really liked them. These clients have tiny hands however. |
|
| Author: | Bailey [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
A solid or adjustable truss rod can allow you to lessen the thickness of your neck and make for a incredible easy feel compared to the thicker standard neck.That also compensates for the rod weight...also...some makers...along with myself are starting to slightly radius the classical fretboard. As a long time player, my large hands/fingers and oddly curved first finger like a wide fretboard with a minor radius for a more compliant first finger bar. I also like a 640-660 fan fret.....but that's a whole different thread. It's all in the needs or desires of the individual player. If...I were to speculate on what a player might want to buy....I would not vary much from a traditional neck design width.....maybe truss rod and lessen the thickness. Classical players are used to the wide flat necks and are more concerned with tonal issues and action. KB |
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
The wide necks really are a recent trend. The narrower necks were typical of older guitars, 48-49 was the norm back in the day. I prefer building to that older tradition. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
To be systematic: Nylon strings are lighter in weight than steel, and carry lower tension. Thus you need to have higher action to get the same amount of energy into the string without buzzing: energy in the string goes as the square of the amplitude. Nyoln has a lower Young's modulus than steel, so the tension changes less as you push it down. The pitch 'bends' less, and its easier to push the strings aside a bit when you're playing. As has been pointed out, classical players use fewer chords and more single notes than many steel string players. For this you need more space for access. The higher action further increases the need for space, and the fact that you're more likely to slip sideways a bit adds a bit more too. So,classical guitars really do need wider necks. I'm not sure what the 'right' width is. I do know that wheneverI've made a nylon string guitar with a nut narrower than 1-3/4", it comes back in a little while with the owner wonderingi f there's any way to make it wider. There is, but you don't want to go there. Better to make it wide and cut it down. In a pinch, you can get a new nut with the slots all moved toward the treble side. Where'd you get the idea that classical necks don't taper? |
|
| Author: | Ti-Roux [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Chris Pile wrote: Another theory. Since there is no taper of the neck, the string spacing is the same from the bridge to the nut, resulting in better intonation. There's about 10mm of widht variation between the nut and the 12th fret, that is more than 3/8''. |
|
| Author: | Chris Pile [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Quote: There's about 10mm of widht variation between the nut and the 12th fret, that is more than 3/8''. I take it you mean the one on your bench is this way? |
|
| Author: | Michael.N. [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
They pretty much all are and the 10 mm difference is about the average. |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
Right - 52mm nut and 62 mm at 12th fret here too. I've never seen one in person or in a plan that didn't have a taper. |
|
| Author: | jfmckenna [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
I've never really seen a need for a truss rod in a classical guitar. But lately I have been using carbon fiber rod in the neck just because. If I was going to do a truss rod it would be accessible through the sound hole. I've seen some with the access port on the peg head and it looks God awful and cheap  I've built a couple classical guitars for customers who wanted narrow necks. They were jazz players and wanted the same feel as their jazz boxes. I've also started putting a radius on the fretboard, 20. I'm not really sure what to say about that yet. In some respects I like it and in others I don't. |
|
| Author: | douglas ingram [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
jfmckenna wrote: I've also started putting a radius on the fretboard, 20. I'm not really sure what to say about that yet. In some respects I like it and in others I don't. It works better with a compound radius which goes to zero radius at the saddle. |
|
| Author: | jfmckenna [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Classical guitars and those wide necks |
douglas ingram wrote: jfmckenna wrote: I've also started putting a radius on the fretboard, 20. I'm not really sure what to say about that yet. In some respects I like it and in others I don't. It works better with a compound radius which goes to zero radius at the saddle. I may try that the next time. So you have a slight radius at the last fret and then a full 20 at the nut then? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|