Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to this forum (just joined today, in fact) and new to building, and had a question that I would like to get some opinions on.

I have been doing a significant amount of research for the last 10 months about guitar building, and have been specifically interested in the results of small independent builders like many of you. One thing that seems to be common in a lot of handmade guitars that I have heard sound clips of is a glassy kind of brightness and thinness in the tone. Now, despite being new, I know that the 00 I'm trying to build right now won't sound like my vintage series Martin D-18, and I don't want it to. But I have played a few "professionally" made small bodied guitars that have a nice full, well balanced tone.

My question to you fine folks, perhaps particularly Jay Swann (your winning build sounds killer) is how do you avoid having a small bodied guitar not only sound small, but glassy?

I know there's no one thing you can pinpoint as the answer, but I would just like to have a general talk about the things a rookie luthier like me can do to avoid it.

Maybe another way to phrase the question is: How do you get a nice balanced full round sound out of a small bodied guitar, like say a Martin style 00?

Thanks!

What you hear on a sound clip is likely not the true sound. Ask- how was it recorded, and what am I using to listen to it. I assume you know well enough to use headphones, not computer speakers. Even then, you only have a digital sampling of the tone. Ask the builder of the ones you liked what he or she did to get the sound. Likely they were built very lightly.

I think glassy is everything too stiff. I would not over build the top. The top can be thinner than a D-18 and the braces lighter. Also I would make a 12 fret to the body, as I think the bridge placement gives a bit more bass.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com

Thanks guys. Jason - I either use headphones that were built for use as studio monitors, or more often a pair of studio monitors built for me that are completely flat +/- 1dB in their entire range. I also look to see if I can see a mic placed anywhere near the guitar, if not then it was probably recorded using the built-in mic in the camera, which is never a good indicator of the true tone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thin comes from over-building or rarely, gross under building (these don't last too long though) and imo many parlors sound like a truncated J200. it's almost like the attitude is "we made the guitar smaller, don't you like it?" the key is to go thinner and lighter -you shouldn't be building a scaled down dreadnaught, a parlor is a different animal.

you also really need to maximize available soundboard real estate and thus a 12 fret format is a good idea.

cut down on the lumber -you really don't need 2 tone bars on a parlor nor 4 finger braces either. and don't kill your responsive top with a reverse belly bridge.

concentrate on the monopole. on the top i brace high and narrow (.75 high at the cross and .25 wide) with no scallops and no pocketing -just a smooth taper and parabolic profile and i aim for an active back using a double x brace of mahogany.

for me assuming the top wood i've chosen meets my specs, i'm in the .093 to .095 thickness range before finishing with no top radius.

a slightly deeper body then usual can help here like a 1/2" thicker then normal or so. imo, don't neglect the soundboard north of the soundhole either. a thick utg and a big popsicicle brace is too much, think about using this area for tone production.

consider the neck as well. imo, you really don't need 2 carbon fiber rods and a jumbo double acting truss rod. a sensible lightweight single or double acting truss rod is enough. or you can go traditional and insert an ebony blank down the middle of the neck and roll with bar frets. multiple neck laminations add weight (the glue/epoxy) so leave them behind. a neck heavy parlor isn't much fun to play after 15 minutes of hefting the thing back up. think about a slot head, open tuners, and spanish cedar.


imo, imo, imo....

even with a fantastic microphone, in a professional studio, with pro recording gear, an acoustic instrument can sound many different ways based on microphone placement...then there is the story what happens to the sound when it is uploaded to the internet(compressed), then streamed or downloaded and reproduced on god-knows-what equipment.
for those reasons i wouldn't make any audio character judgements whatsoever from audio clips off the internet, especially from amateur sound engineers recording in living rooms with whatever smartphone or video camera is available: more than once i've had people rave about how great some of my junk/garage sale student guitars are, based on some clip i uploaded or sent with a cheap video camera. and i know the guitars don't sound good.
one thing i'll add is, if you don't like sparkle, then consider nylon strings.

Yep, people always seem to forget or ignore that the old little Martins were designed for gut strings.

Anyhow, build loosey goosey, and you'll get more bass. The emphasis these days seems to be on making everything stiff and light, which leads to a bright sound.

You could also try a warmer top wood such as Engelmann or cedar.

Also, instead of the knife edge taper popular these days, you could try the more rounded profile, which leavs a bit more weight on the top.

Meddling: I'm using western red cedar and hopefully that will help.

Nylon strings are not what I'm looking for. I am a steel string player exclusively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For something the size of a OO, I would first choose the longer bodied 12 fret pattern (which is about the same size as a classical) and use an average density Sitka spruce top and leave it thick enough (about 1/10th inch or slightly less) to hold up when combined with relatively light scalloped bracing. Sitka usually has a little less "sparkle" or what some might call "glassy" overtones, or at least it does to me.
Western red cedar might also work, but Sitka is a little less delicate.

I will be using a 12 fret 24.9" scale length, and have made my top out of Western Red Cedar. You're right about it being delicate, and I'm not sure it was the best idea to use it for my very first build. I will be sticking with WRC for the top on this build, but I think my next will be spruce.

Thanks to everyone who has been weighing in on this. I am hooked on instrument building and really want to avoid being too let down by the finished product.

Justin;
I've made many 00 -down to 19th century size Martin replicas.
I restored one made in the 1850's by THE C.F.Martin and signed on the inside of the top!

Of course it was made for gut strings.
I made temps. of the size.
I make them now for steel strings.
Full 25.4 scale.
And make neck widths as clients need.

I also restored a 1928 00-42
I made temps of that also.

With these small body guitar you can thin the tops down to
2.2mm in the middle &1.8-9mm on the edges.
BUT the quality of the top & the bracing play a big roll
in the sound.
I use Spruce.
As does depth of the body & s.h. width.
Leave your sides as thick as you can!
Back also!
A loose back makes for a loud but out of control sound-to my ears!
Taper you X braces to the linings!
X should be no taller then 17mm at the joint and 6mm wide.
Use webs(left over top pieces)2mm thick for the so called finger braces.
I arch the top to 25'
Back to 25'
I also add a small brace behind the bridge plate to resist the MARTIN HUMP!

Gee I guess I overloaded ya with this info!
Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

One thing nobody has mentioned is a smaller sound hole.

Mike: Thanks for the info, I really appreciate the input.

Alan: I know making the sound hole smaller will lower the fundamental pitch so to speak, but I have heard recordings of guitars that appeared to be built to a fairly traditional spec, yet they sounded thin and glassy.

I think that one of the things that has been mentioned by a few folks on this thread that really contributes to thin and/or glassy type of tone is overbuilding the top. I know that I personally do not have much of a budget, and I think some luthiers may not want to risk physical failure of a top and so they build it thicker/stronger. The entire thing is a balancing act, trying to build it light enough to really sing, but building it strong enough to withstand the 180+ lbs of tension. I feel like the thicker the wood is the less you hear it and the more you hear the strings themselves. I think that's the sound that I *don't* want.

Again, I'm extremely grateful to everyone who has posted their advice.

Another thing no one mentioned is the strings you use. My shop guitar is a Lutz/Sapele L-00. It's stung with Martin mediums and is far from being thin or glassy. A very well balanced guitar that just keeps getting better. If one is not happy with tone the first thing I would try is a few different sting brands and gauges. If you are building with stiff Spruce, you might find with a bit of time and a lot of playing if might open up to a very warm sounding guitar.

Hi Mike,

If you are adding the small brace behind the bridge plate would you still use two tone bars on a OO?

Thanks,

Shane

To avoid thin glassy tone in small bodied guitars is easy.

Build them lighter in weight and thinner in dimensions.

Now how you do that is up to you...lotta good suggestions already posted above on how to accomplish that.


HB.

Perhaps a ladder braced parlor. John How and Hans Brentrup come to mind. I've never heard the old mojo sound glassy. T

A gloss finish can really suck out the high end...

It may sound counter intuitive as most people focus on the top, but making the back a little more live can increase bass response and make it a little less glassy.

Don't overlook how the back can contribute.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

No;
I use a single Red Cedar brace that is tapered to the sides.
Angled from the corner of the brace behind the bridge.
By the way the X height should be 15mm NOT 19 as I stated.
Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

X height 15mm ... OK, but personally I find that way too tall, too stiff, I only use that height on 15.5 inch wide bodies or bigger .. on anything smaller than a 15 inch 000/OM mine are 12.5mm tall .. 1/2 inch.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

knife edge? huh? Does that refer to braces? Must be.

I think a preocupation with glassy or thin sound is a kind of....well... an obvious area to notice (?)... And may not be so important. Type of wood, light bracing, etc., are obvious choices too. Sometimes worn strings will solve the problem, or just age. Quality of construction is what passes the test of time, and any instrument carefully constructed will have it's own personality...

Or something like that.

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

The discussion starting here is pertinent to the question:

viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19073&hilit=semitone+carruth

and especially as it continues, focusing on small guitars, on page 2 of the discussion here:

viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19073&hilit=semitone+carruth&start=25

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

I don't think that anyone here is preoccupied with any one facet of building. This thread was started because I had seen recordings of several extremely well built, beautiful looking instruments that sounded like a cheap guitar from Guitar Center.

We all know that quality construction is important and that all guitars sound better with age. However, the winner of the most recent first time builders build off competition built a very small bodied guitar that sounds wonderful already.

I don't believe that anyone on these forums is interested in building a guitar with sub-standard quality, either in construction or the sound of the final product. Nor do I believe anyone in these forums is interested in building a guitar with the mindset that "it sounds like crap now, but it'll get better with age". We all want to build to the best sounding instrument we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk