Official Luthiers Forum!

hi,
I came up with this idea,
I am not a builder buy I built a prototype..
its kinda amazing that it works, but it seems to quite well,,

due to the design, i was able to make the top extremely thin,
and was able to take the top bracing OUT!!!

anyway, here is a youtube vid,
check it out.. the guitar records VERY well, and sound engineers
have been amazed when i took it to the studio..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1hWjZ7n ... annel_page

note, i made it that big on purpose, but the design will work for
all sizes and traditional shapes.

just wanted to get some feedback from luthiers as I respect your knowledge greatly.

Cheers,
Dale

Very nice!
Care to elaborate on the construction?

I would love to elaborate,
and i may end up just letting the design out..
but right now, 2 big companies are talkin to me,
and im uncertain my next steps... i.e. patent etc?

what i really need to do is colaborate with a builder to
make probably 1 or 2 more in the prototype stage..
the guitar is working awesome, but i need to nail things down
a little further before i patent.... or consider other things..

if i give up on the idea of the sale of the design,
then i will likely let the design out, and hopefully many people will
try it and put in there own ideas also, so that it can fully bloom...

thanks for the comments...

Dale,
Welcome to the forum.

It appears that you have the neck and tail blocks tied together with an interior truss of some sort and a tailpiece type bridge that transfers the string tension to the tail of the guitar. Kind of like a neck thru acoustic. One builder I know of has been doing this for a quite a few years now. He uses a carbon fiber box truss and a more traditional tailpiece. Like your's, his design uses no soundboard bracing. I like the looks of your bridge and tension strap(?), that's a bit more to my taste than others I've seen.
So, nothing new under the sun? A different take on an old design? Great minds think alike? If you can get a patent and sell it to a big builder, more power to you.

Steve

thats not whats going on,
but i could see that assumption based on what you can see of the guitar.

actually there is almost nothing that is traditional about this guitar,
other than it LOOKS like a standard guitar, almost...

I can tell you that is not a neck through, it is a bolt on neck,
what you see in the hole is not the tenon, or a strap of any kind..

I'm kind of surprized you would make so many assumptions and then deem the
design as nothing new.. but i can see how it would appear that way..

Cheers,
Dale

Dale,

If you have been using your guitar in public (public use) or are already talking to companies about your design (offer for sale), it may be too late to patent. First step: you need to consult quickly with a patent attorney if you want to retain any rights you may have. Consultations are typically free. You need to find out if you may have already given your design away to the public by your activities. Patenting is serious business with a big price tag, and maybe giving it away is not the worst thing that could happen, but having leverage to conduct talks with a company to negotiate a license will require taking the proper steps.

/This is not legal advice, just a suggestion.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

Congrats on your guitar, Dale!

You may want to carefully research before you apply for a patent, or sell the design to one of them "big companies." A whole lot of ideas have been tried before, some have already been patented but may not be mainstream, and other ideas may already be un-patentable due to preexisting designs and designs in the public domain. Three times so far, I thought I invented something in a guitar, only to find out that the ideas were already patented and/or published. There are lots of instances where two or more people independently have the same idea. You might get granted a patent, but might find it impossible to defend the patent.


Neckblock to tailblock suspended bracing in my "Basia" guitar.


Another interior view showing the suspended bracing.

Now, that said, I do agree that you're in a very cool place for further experimentation. I have been trying for nearly four years to get other luthiers to build guitars with suspended bracing. I believe that it is 1/3 of a "new" way to look at guitar engineering. The other 2/3rds are a "tunnel" bridge (a pinless bridge where the strings continue out the back of the bridge, after going over about a 15° break angle on the saddle), and a tailpiece. Ned Steinberger and Steve Grimes not only went down this road (unbeknownst to me while I was designing basically the same thing), they patented it and sold the patent to Gibson. With big names and a big company behind the idea, why didn't it already take off like wildfire? Well, frankly, I don't know - I can only guess that the prototypes that Steinberger and Grimes built and delivered to Gibson simply were not amazing enough to make Gibson do anything with it. My own experiments show me that it is pretty amazing, and I'll bet you're in agreement. Just like the delicate balance that traditional X-braced tops with pinned bridges need to find in order to go from "good" to "great", I think if we can get enough luthiers to try these ideas and share their results, we'll find some "sonic bracing" (light bracing in contact with the top) schemes, or maybe no bracing at all, may produce some instruments with an inspiring, unique, and/or enhanced range voice.

Don't stop with one! Keep going, and share your methods and outcomes (the bad ones and the good ones) with the lutherie community.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Completely brace-free, thin topped guitars with supports running from neck to end blocks already exist(a century ago...), and yes, they look perfectly normal.... Do some foot work via google patents before you fork-over 10 grand to an attorney.

Nearly everyone gets excited when they build a few guitars and they sound better than what they find in music stores. Even more exciting when you think you've plowed new ground. Sooner or later, reality sets-in....

Or other similar ideas like Boulder Creek, with the two aluminum bars supporting the ends of the top and the bridge ..

Interestinly enough - I played one at the Cdn MIAC show, in the dealers booth .. sounded not bad, but looking a little closer .. the top was already caving in front of the bridge, the action was higher than average with a thinner than normal bridge and not much saddle. .... hmmm, neck reset before it even hits retail (most likely, it will be written off) ... I left shaking my head .. but someone out there is buying these things.

Think I'll stick to the X brace for now .....

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

thanks for the replies everyone..

I would like to point out.. while most seem to be making so assumptions
about the design, you are not correct in those assumptions.

this guitar is not about a brace that runs from neck to end,

I also realize I have left you no choice but to guess at the construction,
and that is not entirely fair, and forces you to make assumptions..

I am very close in my heart to letting the design out, but I first wanted
an honest opinion of the result (based on a poor quality recording on youtube is not
a fair place to form an opinion I realize)

I know that if I disclose the design, 99% of you will inform me that it is a bad idea.
I have discussed the design before I made the prototype with some very very informed
people in the stringed instrument business, and they have never heard of anything remotely similar.

As much as I appreciate the advise and the balance thoughts about the chances of this
being done before, and that patents may not be a good idea, I would like to point out,
I agree, to some extent about patents being possibly a bad idea, and I also agree that the whole
brace thing has been done...

what I would LOVE to know, is if any luthiers with experience would like to try building a guitar
based heavily on the design.. if anyone has the time, and open mindedness, based on the
video, and possibly further examples of it recorded, to work on building a prototype to luthier
standards.. OR.. as an option, do you think the luthier world would embrace the idea of some kind of contest, or something where anyone who wants to, provided I can discuss it with them, and have some kind of confidence in them being a team player etc.. can build one.. and we can discuss results and differences etc?

and thanks again for reading and responding to my post,
you have all made me feel very welcome..

Cheers,
Dale

Grumpy, what's it gonna take to make you Happy?


I have heard numerous rumors that your guitars are pretty dadgummed good, maybe even a notch or two better than that. I also know that you are a straight shooter. Bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect guitar, and that ideally there should be quite a few distinct and beautiful voices (timbres) that would be the perfect guitar for some specific songs, or maybe particular players, or maybe a particular genre/style of music, bearing in mind that you may have already honed down the one particular sound that is "perfect" in your mind's ear, I look forward to handing you a guitar built in the way I've described. Reality is in the ear of the beholder, and I think you're enough of a straight shooter to admit it if you were impressed.

Dennis
p.s. I'm currently in the camp that says braces are better than no braces, and am using a single transverse "pivot" brace beneath the saddle, with small radial braces flanking the bridge plate area.

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

It certainly sounds good Steve.
I'd enjoy seeing what's under the hood!

Joe

ps-nice performance as well.

thanks,

my name is actually not steve, but if the compliment was for me, i do appreciate it..

Cheers,
Dale

I'm not going to try guessing what this design is, but I have two observations:

1. No patent for you! (say it in the Seinfeld soup-nazi voice) Talking to 3rd parties about your design prior to a provisional filing.....that's a no-no.

2. A guitar with a "wall" down the middle, that connects the top and the back of the guitar, with or without air holes in it, either the whole way down the guitar, or just part of the way (say, from the neck to the bridge), so that there's no need for bracing on the two halves of the soundboard is an OLD idea. I have prior art on that myself and I'm sure others have experimented with it before me also. Oh, OK, so this really is a disguised guess.....I hope this ISN'T what's going on here, for Dale's sake.

Anyway, good luck with it, whatever it is and whatever you decide to do with it.

Regards,
Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

Hogwash. So long as he's working toward a patent and puts patent pending on any drawings or literature, he should be fine. Patents are granted to the first one with the idea, not first to file. that said, if you do have something revolutionary you do need to be able to prove when you had the idea and that you're working toward production.

All that said, unless you have a total show stopper, patenting can be a huge time, money and resource suck that you'll never dig out of. It's up to you to enforce any violations of your patent. Lawyers do real well in intellectual property but usually the IP holders don't (My patent lawyer friend would hate me for saying it but somewhat agree).

In my not so humble opinion on significant IP for minor league products (i.e. <$10M in sales) it's better to get to market first and build a name as "the man" and sell as many as you can before "they" copy. On the other hand, so long as you're working toward a patent, there's no reason you can't sell your design to a major and have them patent it for you. I sold my breakthrough for $1 Haven't bothered to file ever since.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

ok,

so here is my plan,
show all you guys the idea, in its basic form.

i dont wanna fight to protect any patent I have,
and i am worried that me trying to make a boat load of money on this
will keep it from ever taking off, as I dont have a boat load of money to invest...

and ironically, perhaps this post will somehow mark me as the one
who came up with this idea, and i may get some financial reward for it in the long run..

anyway...
here it is..

its 2 separate guitars, completely separated... (except for minute crossover vibration on the neck perhaps..

the result, each side is free to resonate without interferance from the other side.
in reality the guitar is very clean sounding, with detail i have not heard on any guitar before..
and each note actually sustains in a manner quite different and pure than anything i have
ever heard.

traditional guitars I assure you sound muddy when played in comparison to this one..
(good or bad, it is undeniable when A-Bed with "traditional" guitars)
and that quality is outstanding when recording especially..

this pic will probably give it all away,

my point is, if this one that i "threw" together can sound so good,
imagine if one of you built one!!!!!

(the only thing i built before this, other than renovations, was a nick nack shelf in shop class)
oh, and a wind mill made of garbage.. (it worked too, tee hee)

Y0, Dude

I though you already had two big players interested and a protptype.

Well be that as it may....

I'm probably one of the most "open minded" builders you ever gonna find"

Now if you got the money honey, I got the time.

You got accurate drawings....if not we start there. $3k to do the drawings.

Want me to build it...$5k deposit.
Another 1/3 when she be in the white
and the final $5k on delivery.

Inlay bling work is extra.

You want a luthier to build your designs....talk money at us.


blessings
the
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

How's the bottom end on it? I couldn't get any sense of it from the video.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

Dale, Your idea looks alot like a drone flute with two separate sound chambers compared to a regular flute with one chamber.As a flute builder, i can see where it would really affect the sound as it sure does with flutes.I'm sure your design could have a place in the music world if thought out and done correctly.I don't know if it's been done before, but i like your idea.Just wondering what the sound would be like with both sides singing together as that is how a drone flute gets it's beautiful sound.

Cool idea......It seems to sound good, though on my speakers I'm searching for more low end....how wide is the lower bout on that thing, it looks like it's 20" +

Good for you for experimenting!

Cheers,

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

Well, I like the enthusiasm, the idea (which I've personally never heard) and the willingness to share it. And I liked the video. It sounded darn clean to me, and if that is you, you're a pretty good singer too.

I say run with it. Good luck!

_________________
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

I noticed the same thing,but the sound hole looked over sized as well.Perhaps a smaller one would show more bass.

Dale,
Great idea! Love it. I've also been down the road with patent attorneys and what I learned is that your patent is only as good as your ability to defend it. So even if you plop down your 10k and succeed in getting a patent, if someone steals the idea, you will probably spend over 100k defending it. So if you don't have a 100k laying around, don't waste your time. You could instead approach a big company with your prototype and ask if they would be interested for a flat fee, or a royalty settlement. You never know, they may agree. But I think it would have to be huge money saver for a big guitar company to retool their current manufacturing process. If the only thing you are saving is not putting braces on the top, I can't imagine a guitar company spending lots of money on retooling just to eliminate the top bracing. I could be wrong, but no harm in asking. I'd think your idea would be better off selling to a small shop or a luthier who builds one offs. You may be able to work a deal with them and take a small cut of the profit for every one they produce.

By the way, does it really have to be that big to sound good? Why not make a small body guitar and see if you get as good of sound from that? Best of luck and thanks for sharing!

_________________
Tracy
http://www.luthiersuppliers.com

gonna try to answer a few questions in one reply...
thanks to everyone for the input..

I agree with most of what people have said..

a few point..

no it doenst have to be that big to sound good, (its currently 18.5" bass bout)
it was just something i wanted to try, max size, just to try..
but the first proto was a standard dread.. and it worked very well also,
it was built to standard spec of the builders normal dread,
so it had all the same X bracing etc he used,
(even though it was not necessary, we built it in 2 pieces to isolate that design principal)


my plan at this point, after some great advise from Dennis (thanks Dennis)
is to make a couple more videos, or 1 at least, showing off the abilities of the guitar
more. That video i just happened to be recording cause of the song idea,
and i wasn't picky about mic placement etc,
and i didnt really show off the sound of the guitar, i was sorta strumming..
this guitar truly shines as a finger picker..

after i make that video, i plan to invite any interested luthier to build one..
on the condition that they A. contact me for design info,
and B. credit me with the design, somewhere on the label or something.

Cheers,
Dale

Dave, I hate to disagree with you, but I believe Dale has one year to file for a patent after publicly disclosing his idea. I worked in pharmaceuticals as a research chemist and hold several patents. Unless of course this has changed since I've been out of the game, but I don't believe so. I also believe that if Dale has a signed confidentiality agreement with the third parties in question, then this does not qualify as disclosure. I don't believe Dale disclosed anything in his youtube video.

Having said that, I have a personal beef with the USPO. They are under staffed and often unqualified in the area of expertise required for reviewing patent applications. I see so many patents that should not have been granted based on prior art. While the applicant has a legal obligation to disclose all prior art, it is up to reviewers to check this. I have personally looked at granted patents that did not cite prior art that would have invalided the patent.

As others have said, it is also true that you must be willing to defend your patent.

Dennis, I have read the Ned Steinberger and Steve Grimes patent. Funny thing is, they never claimed the bridge design in their patent. The design is discussed and therefore disclosed, so no one else can patent it, but if you read the claims they only claim the neck adjustment system. I thought that was interesting. It has to be in the claims to be covered under the patent.

_________________
Randy Muth
RS Muth Guitars Website
RS Muth Guitars Blog
Facebook Fan Page