Official Luthiers Forum!

I don't want to cause big arguments here on this and not so much about the building of each style, but more the type of voice/sound/ whatever get with various types of classical guitars bracig styles

My particular issue is lattice bracing vs say Ramirez style 6 or 7 fan bracing patterns. I have very little experience in classicals, but finding like the tone of them more than steel string for playing (what little I do) I have some folks asking me about building one. I told them I am not set up for it and if I did it at this point, doubt would get into rigging up for spanish foot and would do a dovetail or bolt on neck. I know probably or may be difference in voicing just with that aspect. I don't own to my dismay a classical, but working on that part of it for a personal guitar, as again I just prefer the sound more than steel string, but alas, I build steel strings and what rigged for in molds etc at thsi time. I can do the bracing and build if needed, but want what seems to be more traditional sound (whatever that means or is) I think read Smallman style very good sound and better than the other fan bracing styles. Others commet lattice style is more nasal, bright or high pitched than traditional. Never heard one or have again knowledge of different bracing styles voice. Hence the stupid question or way of asking in convoluted way

It must really be up to the customers i think. What do they like, what do they expect. If they don't really know, at least ahve them explain what they expect, and list some CD's they like so on etc. Once you establish this, you can start digging in for construction details.

Unfortunately the matter of bracing it is very complicated. We could easily name at least 10 major varieties, covering all spectrum of top thicknesses and bracing weights shape and etc etc.
At one extreme is the Smallman school with very thin tops, rigid lattice bracing, very heavy back. Many people will say they love the responsiveness and power, others will say they are indeed bright nasal and thin. I could add you can get a hernia from hauling the guitar around. I heard the analogy "wooden Dobro". Myself i think the sound is crap. I fell in love and grew up with that old romantic Spanish tone played on a traditional guitar, a sound that is able to convey emotions and colors, not bore you to death and give toothaches.

Another modern thing is the double top, and some makers are now able to produce guitars with a really excellent tone. I heard a duo playing a pair of Gernot Wagner guitars and they were fantastic. But, this sound is not exactly the traditional one either, but at least it is a pleasant tone.

_________________
Build log

I would offer that it wold be a good start to work on a good old Torres pattern, perhaps SE114, and use it as a reference guitar. SE114 has a very well documented plan drawn up and is available from GAL.

There is nothing old fashioned or lacking in a well built Torres guitar!

Any other style of building that you pursue later will inevitably be compared to "something", that something might as well be a reference that lots of people can relate to.

Now get started! Its really not that hard to set up for.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

Douglas' advice is really excellent (and not just because I am a big fan of the traditional style). Having a well grounded point of reference for your future builds would be very helpful. I'd imagine that since you say you like the sound of a classical better, you're likely to have developed that opinion listening to guitars that are largely Torres based.

The SE114 plan Douglas mentions is a great place to start. Segovia's 1937 Hauser is another where many people start.

You should have no problem doing a spanish heel construction. All you need is a hand saw, a chisel and an idea of what you're doing. I'd recommend looking at WaddyT's posts about his first classical build. You can see a great double wedge method of doing the spanish-style construction there (very easy and effective.)

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

Lots of classical guitar makers are using plug-in necks of one sort or another. I have not seen any bolt-ons tat I can think of, but know of no reason why it would not work.

The idea behind the 'lattice' and 'sandwich' tops is simply to reduce the mass of the top without reducing the stiffness. One result of this is that the pitches of all the resonant modes are raised, and that effects the timbre: you may or may not like that aspect. The lower weight makes the tops easier to drive, and gives more power, which is the object in these cases. These guitars seem to be more popular with folks who play in large halls than for the average 'parlor' player. The harshness of tone of some of these instruments does seem to be mitigated in a larger space.

Both the lattice and sandwich tops can be hard to voice, particularly the Samllman type with carbon caps on balsa braces. There is no good way to shave the braces and reduce their stiffness, which is the normal method of voicing. These tops either work or they don't. Small corrections can be made by adding mass here and there, but that defeats the purpose, and even Smallman has been known to rip the tops off finished guitars and re-do them when they don't sound right. Most sandwich tops do use more or less standard bracing that can be voiced to some extent.

The methods of voicing a classical top are the same as those used on a steel string, with the understanding that you've got a lot less bracing to work with, and things are pretty much balanced on the head of a pin. A couple of shavings in the right (or wrong!) place can make quite a difference in the sound of a classical guitar, and 'almost right' can be very wrong!

There is also a basic difference in that steel strings have a lot of energy in the high frequency range, while nylon and gut strings don't. The central problem of making a good classical guitar is to preserve the little bit of high-end energy you've got, while on a steel string it's to get enough bass to balance out the abundant treble. This, and the difference in the total tension, accounts for most of the difference in the 'standard' designs.

The upshot is that it's harder, IMO, to make a really good classical guitar than a really good steel string. This may be one reason why the best players of steel strings often use factory instruments, while the best classical players use hand mades with very few exceptions.

Trad.Verses lattice !
Guitarists buy guitars that suit their needs !
Some compromises may happen .
I build with both systems .
I like both!
But if I was washed up on an deserted island -I'd take the fan brace guitar!
Warm and personal !!

Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

Using a well established and traditional pattern first is a good idea. As mentioned above both the Torres SE 114 or Hauser 1937 plans from the GAL are good points at which to start. Mind you they are quite different in approach even though they look nearly identical. However as a beginning classical builder you may not be at the point where the difference is anything you will be able to use to advantage.
So really either are a good choice. Personally I think starting at the beginning (i.e. Torres) has value.
The other valid approach is to copy a particular guitar that you like and have access to. This is what I did for my first classical 25 years ago. A friend had a very nice Papazian guitar which I patterned out and replicated. Papazian built very much on the Torres/Hauser plan so I was a bit lucky to have had access to it. There can be a lot of value in first person impressions of an instrument.

www.guitarsbydavidlaplante.com