Not a riddle folks but the subject of my latest blog post. Take a look, I'd be interested to hear your take on the subject - what you've learned over the years.
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/blog/fl ... inder-top/
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=41025 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | nkforster [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Not a riddle folks but the subject of my latest blog post. Take a look, I'd be interested to hear your take on the subject - what you've learned over the years. http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/blog/fl ... inder-top/
|
|
| Author: | Michael.N. [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
99% of guitars before 1850 had true flat tops. Their was a maker sometime in the early part of the 19 th century who was making Guitars similar to your cylinder model. Not a lot new under the sun, as they say. |
|
| Author: | Tom West [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Nigel: Interesting, must really raise the longitudinal stiffness. Wonder if the radius is even or just centered with the sides of the top flatter. Also, what is the radius your using? And the effect on overall sound ? Had considered doing this to the back of guitars but have not gotten there yet. Tom |
|
| Author: | George L [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
I don't have any experience with this myself, but I believe that Laurent Brondel builds with laterally arched tops and backs and I don't think he does anything without careful thought and analysis. It's been a while since I've seen him post. Maybe this thread will lure him back in. You are a daring man with that chisel, Nigel. I'd surely slip and leave a terrible gouge in the side. 
|
|
| Author: | Tai Fu [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
So is there a reason why many luthiers carve the neck already attached to the guitar? It seems easier to carve it without the body in the way, and no risk of damaging the body too... |
|
| Author: | Rodger Knox [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
I've done one or two that way, I use a different geometry now. I didn't change because it didn't work, it just doesn't fit in to my (ever-evolving) building procedures as well as my new geometry. Basically flat to the bottom of the soundhole, 15' radius dome below the soundhole. |
|
| Author: | nkforster [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Quite a few points to answer there: "99% of guitars before 1850 had true flat tops. Their was a maker sometime in the early part of the 19 th century who was making Guitars similar to your cylinder model. Not a lot new under the sun, as they say." Michael:Very true. and before 1850, I think most guitars had gut strings. So it's interesting to see the various responses makers had back then to steel strings when they became available for guitars. (When/how did that happen exactly?) The response that "took off" as we all know was the spruce x brace, but it wasn't the only one. My feeling is the cylindrical arch Howe Orme response to the structural problems is one worthy of investigation, and development. That's why I've been working with it the last few years. Tom:"Wonder if the radius is even or just centered with the sides of the top flatter. Also, what is the radius your using? And the effect on overall sound ?" I've no idea of what radius I'm using. This should give you an idea -  And how does it sound? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0zz4Pu8wyU Tai:"So is there a reason why many luthiers carve the neck already attached to the guitar?" No! In that case I was trimming the heel flush to the sides whilst it was just bolted in place. That said, I've carved necks both on and off the guitar, off is a little easier, but I've never slipped with a chisel once whilst carving a neck. It helps to concentrate the mind when the stakes are high! I've written quite a bit on my blog over the years about the Howe Orme design, if you spend a bit of time there, you might get a few more answers - there are plenty of pictures. |
|
| Author: | timoM [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Study the Larson bros. Maurer. Prairie State. The cylindrical top has been around and made en masse. A proven great idea. T |
|
| Author: | Tai Fu [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
I've always had issue when doing a uniform radius on the top that there's always a gap under the fingerboard at the neck/body joint. If I changed the angle to eliminate that gap the angle is too high. So I'm contemplating a true flat top but radius the X braces so the body still gets into an arch of some kind but not at the upper bout. |
|
| Author: | Lincoln Goertzen [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
If I understand you correctly, Tai, you are thinking about it backwards. You would be better off to radius only the upper transverse brace, and leave the X alone, like Santa Cruz did when they started out (I'm not sure if they still do it that way.) Have you watched John Hall's youtube videos? He shows his method of achieving the correct geometry, which is easy and effective. |
|
| Author: | Tai Fu [ Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
I can't find the video you're talking about. I really like to know this because I find it hard to deal with that gap and really want to eliminate it. I just don't know about sanding the bottom of the fingerboard because it always ends up coming out weird... |
|
| Author: | FishtownMike [ Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
timoM wrote: Study the Larson bros. Maurer. Prairie State. The cylindrical top has been around and made en masse. A proven great idea. T I thought of the Larson Brothers when I read his blog. I believe the reason methods like this didn't last is because it's a lot more difficult in a factory setting. Factory guitars were built pretty much by average people who were trained in specific operations. |
|
| Author: | nkforster [ Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
FishtownMike wrote: timoM wrote: Study the Larson bros. Maurer. Prairie State. The cylindrical top has been around and made en masse. A proven great idea. T I thought of the Larson Brothers when I read his blog. I believe the reason methods like this didn't last is because it's a lot more difficult in a factory setting. Factory guitars were built pretty much by average people who were trained in specific operations.[/quote Great minds think alike chaps! The design here combines several ideas - the Howe Orme cylindrical arch, Larson inspired spruce and rosewood laminated braces, and my own X brace. Tai: my cylinder tops have a fixed neck and getting the geometry right is really tricky, but it's doable.  but Howe-Orme (the original cylinder top guitars) got around the problem by having a floating adjustable neck. Theirs is a very pragmatic design.  How many of you experiment with soundboard shape beyond spherical formers? Can you imagine what the advantages of this might be? What puts you off? |
|
| Author: | Michael.N. [ Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Cylinder guitar (or at least heavily arched) both Top and Back: http://www.sinier-de-ridder.com/guitare ... r-eng.html Obviously built for Gut. There are earlier examples of this type. 1840 was near the peak of interest in the 6 string Guitar, being at or near the time when Sor, Carcassi and Giuliani were plying their trade. The switch to 6 single strings coincided with a popular surge of interest in the Guitar, hence the number of composers writing for the Guitar increased and there were a huge number of attempts to 'improve' the instrument. Some of these attempts were very weird and wonderful. |
|
| Author: | nkforster [ Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: When is a flat top guitar not a flat top? |
Michael.N. wrote: Cylinder guitar (or at least heavily arched) both Top and Back: http://www.sinier-de-ridder.com/guitare ... r-eng.html Obviously built for Gut. There are earlier examples of this type. 1840 was near the peak of interest in the 6 string Guitar, being at or near the time when Sor, Carcassi and Giuliani were plying their trade. The switch to 6 single strings coincided with a popular surge of interest in the Guitar, hence the number of composers writing for the Guitar increased and there were a huge number of attempts to 'improve' the instrument. Some of these attempts were very weird and wonderful. Great looking guitar - the side view is very similar to one of my standard guitars or a Sobell where the sides are fitted to the ribs and not pulled at all. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|