Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi-

Do you guys feel larger steel string guitars are easier to voice than smaller guitars? (Are smaller steel strings less forgiving in the voicing process?) This may be a strange question, but it seems that the larger surface area might make it easier to "get the sound right" when carving and sanding the top/bracing.



Thanks-

_________________
John Lewis
Wannabe builder owned by 2 crazy dachshunds

Seems to be the opposite really...more room to screw up?

I think if your talking somethig really big it, can be a little hard to get a nice firm bass.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

? My experience is that big guitars, built light, have a great low note fundamental, but often trade away high note sweetness and sustain. Small guitars can be plenty loud, wonderfully sweet, but slightly nasal on the low notes.

Maybe I built it to heavy, it wasn't that it didn't have bass, it just didn't have a firmness to it that I like, It was kind of mushy if that makes sense.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

I'll agree with Jim; it can be tough to get a "bright"(tight/focused) bass from a large body. They're naturally treble-poor(thus -appear- bass-heavy), and most end up "muddy" unless you're careful(or crafty... ).

Small bodies are easy to pull great, tight, deep bottom end from, but it's very tough to get that "little guitar" "boxy" sound out of 'em, and the more you try to 'push' the tone in one direction or the other, the more you'll realize that they are touchy little b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s!

So yes, smaller guitars are tougher to "voice" nicely.

Hey Todd, what would you consider mid-sized? I want to build a 0 size soon, is that mid-sized?

Thanks. Any words of wisdom on getting a large body guitar to sound right? (wow, big question!)

Make it smaller.

_________________
Francis Richer, Montréal
Les Guitares F&M Guitars

It always seems to me that good treble is in the top: if you can get the top working right the high end will be good. The trick is figuring out a way to get the top working right consistently. for me 'free' plate tuning seems to work, tap tuners and deflection measurements also seem to work. Some folks just 'get it' intuitively. I think it's more about getting the top and bracing working well together than anything to do with the style of profiling: I've heard good treble from scalloped, straight and tapered bracing profiles, although the guitars, of course, sound different.

Back when I took voice lessons, my teacher pointed out that the way to get the low notes to sound right was to work on the high ones. I think the same is true of the guitar. In other words, most of the sound really _is_ in the top, and if you get that right the 'solid' bass and clean, full treble will follow.

I could, of course, be wrong.....

As Romanillos says, with his nice accent: The sound is in the spruce!

_________________
Francis Richer, Montréal
Les Guitares F&M Guitars

On my size 2's I've always splayed the X more than normal and lengthened the bridge to 6 3/4" to put the ends over the X. The last two Rosewood ones had a Lutz top and BZ bridge and they were very well received. Everyone thought they were my best. Me too.

My oldest with the splayed X is a Mahogany/Sitka with an Ebony bridge. It's five years out and the top is fine so far so it seems stable. Here's a sound clip of an identical instrument. (upper left on the page)

http://kennedyguitars.com/_Kennedy_Guit ... clips.html

Lutz sounds even better as does a BZ bridge.

My conclusion- use a Lutz top, Brazilian bridge, splay the X a little and lengthen the bridge accordingly, and thin the edges of the lower bout a bit prior to binding. If it's a size 2 I think you will like the result.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

Terence - any guess as to what your x angle is on your size 2? Sure sounds nice!

I just voiced a Size 2 with, believe it or not, a double X. I figured if it didn't work, I could just plane it off. Turns out, using free plate tuning, worked just fine with a closed ring+. But did take more time, smaller guitars are harder to voice.


Terence, that Size 2 sounds great! Nice playing too!

Chuck

_________________
_________________

I think for a large bodied guitar you want to thickness the top (thicker) for good "treble", and for a small bodied guitar you thickness the top (thinner) for good bass. Then you add the bracing to provide structural integrity.

Around 93 degrees Charlie. Thickness in the .100-.110 range for the top. Thinned to around .090 on the edges of the lower bout based on tapping the closed box. In the past I've gone thinner on the top, mid 90's on some. I'm liking the sound of a slightly thicker top a little better these days.
The Sitka one in the sound clip was built 5 years ago and was .094 thinned to .085 on the edges.

These pictures are pretty much where I'm at now.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

Super helpful info for a hack like me. Thanks very much, Terence!

I am not sure its been talkt about already, if so I am sorry.
I justwanted to say to what some of you've been saying...
I agree that the sound may be in the top BUT that is really in a co-working way with the back. A top matched with a to thick or to thin back, will still not have the sound of the tops full potential.!!. Top and back in good correlation is whats needed to sound right. tap the top while holding your hand on the back !

Lars.