Official Luthiers Forum!

As Douglas said access to the 14th and higher frets is not a problem with the correct playing position. Ask yourself how many classical players have you seen with 14 frets to the body, answer none, and classical players tend to use the upper frets a lot more than most steel string players do. On most steel string players' guitars any fret past the 5th is there purely for adornment.

In classical guitar some gimmicks come and go, but if you look around at the better players and in the music colleges the vast majority prefer to play a standard Torres or Torres evolved guitar. As I said before, for this one just get a good Torres plan and build it, then you'll have some base knowledge to work from. Don't try and overthink it.

To me a well built Torres is the best of all worlds.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Ricardo,

Start with this: http://www.luth.org/plans/plan52.jpg

Torres SE114, one of Taregga's guitars, drawn by Jeff Elliot.

As a starting point, you can't do any better than this. A great guitar by the greatest maker of hie era, played by the greatest player of his era, and drawn by a great builder/documenter.

Start with this and see where the muses lead you.

As has already been stated, and I argue as well, once you have this in hand, anything that you build afterward will have a valid and widely understood point of comparison. Its a Gold Standard.

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

Thanks for all the advice guys.

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

John Hale asked:
"Just an aside would high tension strings help in the hunt for trebles or are they more of a gimick as the difference is negligible?"

The treble problem has more to do with the nature of nylon as a string material than with the weight/tension of the strings. Nylon has a relatively high 'damping factor'; it tends to dissipate vibration energy rather quickly. You can hear this if you tap on a piece of nylon and compare that with tapping on a piece of steel. The steel rings for along time, and the nylon doesn't.

One way of quantifying this is the 'Q value' of the material. There are a couple of ways of measuring this, and it's expressed as a dimensionless number. That number tells you what proportion of the energy in the vibration is being lost per cycle; if the Q value is 100, the 1/100th of the energy in the vibration is being dissipated every time it goes around. Since high frequencies have more vibration cycles per second, a low Q value material will tend to die out much faster at high frequencies than one with higher Q. I don't know the Q values for steel or nylon offhand, but I do know they're much different, and that steel is much higher.

Another thing that works against nylon strings at high frequencies is simply that they're fatter. They tend to lose a lot more energy to viscous friction as they move through the air than steel strings do.

The results can easily be seen if you can look at the wave form and spectral content of steel and nylon string signals after they're plucked. At first, assuming they're plucked in the same place, the wave forms are the same, and have the same spectral makekup. However, with a second or less the nylon string will have little, if any, energy above about 3000 Hz, while the steel string will still be going strong in that range. The nylon string wave form is much more rounded over, as the short-period high frequencies dissipate.

It's possible that using high tension strings on a given guitar would give a better high end sound. That would depend on the exact nature of the structure, and the impedance match between the strings and the top/bridge. Generally I'd expect heavier strings to give more bass balance, but you never know.

Ricardo:
I can't add much to what I've already said, at least not while keeping it brief. You can do any of the things you've asked about: cutaway, elevated fretboard, 14-fret neck, 000 size; it can all be made to work on a classical guitar. You could even make a 'wedge' with a 'port', and all of those other features too. But the bar is pretty high in the classical world, in part because the traditional designs are so well worked out, and in part because of the limitations in power and treble content that the strings impose. It's pretty easy to make a decent classical guitar, but it's very hard to make one that's better than that. You've got to get everything just right, and the further you depart from the standard designs the harder it is to know how to do that. With enough experience you can apply a few luthier tricks that will help, but, as Scottie said:"Ye canna brreak the laws o' physics, capt'n!" My two 12-fret 000 classicals are good guitars; one was good enough to impress Sharon Isbin. But it didn't impress her enough that she would buy it. Next time I'll show her something more 'normal' that sounds better.

Alan, I guess you are saying stick to the tried and true plans (and body sizes). Thanks for your esteemed opinions.

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

To summarize:
1. There's only One Right Way to play guitar, which is the classical way.
2. Playing any other way is heresy.
3. Heretics have to use steel strings, which don't melt as quickly in the fires of Hell.
4. The standard classical guitar is perfect for playing in the One Right Way, and it has the One Perfect Tone.
5. If you create a nylon string guitar with any non-standard features to accomodate a different style of playing, it won't have the One Perfect Tone; and
6. By doing so you'll be encouraging heretics in their fiendish practices, and so you'll end up joining them in the Inferno.

Hi Ricardo. Just want to chime in to say one thing, Nobody can know how well it will sound ! so you may end up with something sounding crap, or sounding amazing. and if you are willing to risk some nice wood and parts then I am on your side on this, I just love new ideas. also, by looking at that masterpiece with 2 soundholes,and the rest of what youve shown at your website, I would say go for it. !!! . Another question is, who´s it for ! you ? well then it dont matter, if trying to sell it to a classical player, I would as a player myself "Steel String" say like others Classical players are a bit hard to understand, like talking to an accountant about money. they just know it all.

Lars

Lars, thanks for the encouragement. I respect the knowledge and experience that others have (and I don't have). I try to learn as much as I can from them. I just like doing something a bit different. Like I said, I might have got lucky with my first guitar. I don't think I'll wander much from the beaten path with a nice koa set. If I get a nice sounding classical I'll be real happy. Already ordered my Torres plan from GAL.

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

Suggestions to start with known traditional designs are good ones, but steve grimes is a known quantity of awesomeness- i would not hesitate to build a copy of anything he has designed and succesfully built, the guy makes amazing guitars.

Going out on a limb with kooky ideas and unproven methods is one thing, and should probably be discouraged without some real life experience and a few "normal" guitars under your belt. Taking guidance from steve grimes is a good idea.

_________________
Jordan Aceto
Ithaca, NY

The reality is that the true Heresy is to be a traditionalist.

More people complain about the excellent advice that sticking to tradition is the best start than traditionalists do about something being different.

Point is: the traditional designs work. Most (thought certainly not all) variations are failures or hubris.

It is the typical, casual and lazy builder who comes down on the traditionalists - and rarely vice versa.

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

As I understand it, Torres' very first guitar, though it drew heavily upon much that had come before it, was nonetheless a new design and could even be described as a radical departure from tradition. It didn't look or sound like anything that preceded it, but it worked great, and it reflected the vision of a genius; it wasn't "better", but it was awesome in its own right, and it sure did open doors. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't build any copies of "traditional" guitars first.

To be inspired by Torres, for some, means to follow in his footsteps of innovative thinking, rather than to copy what he did.

I would also add that there are other, more contemporary, designs that also work great. If one decides to start with a proven design, using one of these as a starting place is just as valid as using a Torres plan.

I ain't knockin' "traditionalists", mind you, just adding my own to the conversation...

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

I've made classical guitars with lattice, X-lattice, 5, 7, 9-fan, fan with treble bar, and fan with bridge bar design. My #37 is the first Torres copy I made. I'm totally convinced then. Jeff Elliott's plan is highly recommended.

Todd, it is a little more complicated than that. In his youth Torres was a carpenter, and drawing from a letter wrote by a later close friend, he constructed his first guitar in Granada, apparently between 1836 and 1842. After his wife died, he moved to Seville in 1845 trying to make a living. There is little known, whether if he tried to work as a carpenter, or drawn by the probable previous guitarmaking experience, tried to apprentice with an established luthier, of which several were known to be active in the period. Certain is that c. 1850 he was convinced by the great guitarist Julian Arcas to became a professional builder. The earliest known guitar is dated 1854. The decoration work is complex, at that time he already mastered it. The arching of the soundboard is similar to what other builders were doing in the 30's, but the size is large, while the bracing is more advanced compared to earlier builders, but not yet his established pattern as can be seen a few years later. The guitar is clearly an intermediary step, and the evolution was steep enough, but he definitely did not dream up anything radical over the night.

_________________
Build log

In addition to Alex has said, many of the elements that Torres used, and is famous for, already existed. Fan bracing, larger planitllas, doming, etc. His genius is in the successful integration of all the elements, and that he had players of note (Arcas) to recognize and support him.

He also had contemporaries who built guitars that many consider to be equal to his. Vincente Arias comes to mind. Torres did not live and work in a vacuum.

I also want to add to what Joshua said. There is a tremendous amount of innovation and experimentation going on with classical guitars. It only appears to be extremely conservative from the outside.

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

Of course Torres did not 'invent' fan bracing, or any of the other elements that go together to make one of his guitars, just as CF Martin did not invent X bracing, or Novax fan fretting. Torres guitar were not a radical departure from tradition but what he did do, (as did Martin) was to realise their elements full potential such that the sound of his guitars is now considered to be the standard. I've restored guitars that were made in London, Paris, as well as Spain from before Torres' time that were evolutionary precursors to the guitars he built. But he brought to the art an understanding of what made the guitar work that raised it to a new (and in my opinion still not surpassed) level. Players such as Arcas, Tarrega, Llobet and Pujol defined a whole sound and style of music due to the range and sublety that a Torres guitar gave them. As I said I've played guitars from most of the high end European and Australian builders of classical guitars, and the closer they are to the Torres concept the greater the subtlety and musicality one can bring to the music.

As Alex said it is thought that Torres was building guitars for more than a decade before his first positively identified and labelled guitar FE01 was made in 1854, even this did not have the fully developed bracing sytem that we think of today having only five fans and no closing bars. And indeed FE02 is pear shaped rather than the more traditional waisted shape we think of today.

Just as the Martin style X brace, with only minor modifications according to the idividual builder's knowledge and experience, is still the gold standard for steel strings, the Torres based classical is still the gold standard for the classical builder. More radical designs have come and gone from other builders and there is some support for the Smallman style of guitar (not from me as they lack the sonority of the fan braced guitar), but come back in another hundred years and see what is being built then and more importantly played, It'll be Martin X brace and Torres fan brace guitars. Sometimes, something is just right.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

The only temptation of modifications I have are to make the transverse brace on an angle thus changing the length of the tone bars. Does anyone have experience with this? Does it improve the trebles?

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

Great comments Colin, Douglas and Alex.

Douglas is right that there is a whole lot of experimentation going on in the classical guitar world. I think for those looking into it from the steel-string world it is a bit of a misconception that people are nazis about tradition.

On the other hand though, when inexperienced builders or builders new to classicals try to impose their logic toward changing things to fit what is convenient for them - or worse, try to improve something they have no experience with - it can be a disasterous approach.

Speaking in general about these types of discussions and not specifically this one: most who are trying to "improve" the Torres design have never heard or played a real Torres in the flesh and have no idea of the potential to the design. Their experience usually is based on factory Ramirez guitars it would seem.

If you're "improving" on mis-conceptions you're probably going to feel like you knocked the ball out of the park until you somehow become familiar with the potential of the original. Then you may feel as though you wasted your time.

In the end, the best thing anyone can do is give themselves a strong fundamental to build upon.

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

Wouldn't it be great if we had a compendium of things people have tried, those that succeeded and those that didn't. Maybe it would save the inexperienced a lot of time and material. Lets face it, every modification I think of many others have tried and already know the outcome.

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

Oh, I could so easily get drawn deeper into this discussion, but I will resist the temptation. Suffice to say that all the points made here are well taken and appreciated. And my essential points still stand as well.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

I would like to get a good set of plans for a classic guitar so I was happy to see the recommendation for the Torres SE114 by Jeff Elliot. However, when I look at the sample provided at the link, from what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of dimensions provided on the plan. Am I missing something? Are dimensions all given in the text (which is too small to read in the sample).

Pat

_________________
There are three kinds of people:

Those that make things happen,
those that watch things happen,
and those that wondered what happened.

I heard that the Elliott plan from GAL was very detailed.

_________________
A higher purpose for wood.
Rich Smith
Issaquah, WA

On lots of those plans the details are in the text.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars