Official Luthiers Forum!

Dalester,

Guitar looks and sounds very clean and bright. I am very interested in your design. Steve Klein's guitars had larger lower bouts and some different bracing with a standard sound box. I have not built an acoustic from scratch but did work with Auggie LoPrinzi on his Augistino Guitars, some 30 years ago. I am getting setup to do repair and building and am a member of the Guild of American Luthiers. My email is [mapep@windstream.net] if you choose to reply.

Years ago I experimented with making the soundhole larger,but not as large as yours is. It actually increased the bass output when the guitars I made had larger soundholes.

I wish you'd elaborate on the bass output of your guitar,Dale. I couldn't hear a lot of bass in the recording you made. An interesting idea you have. I hope it flies!

I must not really know how to read a patent, because it sure seemed that the "stress-free bridge" was covered. In a conversation that I had with Ned, he saw photos of my tunnel bridge, and agreed that I was not infringing on his patent. Just before reading his patent claim and before seeing his patent drawings, I had decided to move the exit holes up, to reduce the torque on my bridge. I'll get very close, but not all the way to copying the stress-free bridge when I exit my strings near the same height as the strings cross the saddle. Whereas Ned's design is stress-free (no shear; no torque), mine is no shear; reduced torque. He said if I ever decide to copy his design and go stress-free, he would license it to me for a reasonable amount (we never discussed what "reasonable" was in dollars and cents.)

So Dale, you see that if I decided to challenge that patent, and hired muthrs as my attorney, I might have a shot. Ned's lawyer and my lawyer would probably be the only ones smiling in the end, however. As someone said, unless you are potentially protecting many hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, it ain't worth spending the cash.

Dennis

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

Clever idea.

As everyone else has noted, it sounds thin on the bass side on the video however, I don't think it has anything to do with the sound hole, I think it has to do with your bridge riding on two rims. With your bridge placement right on the edge of "two guitars" I think you'd get severe attenuation of the monopole mode which I think is responsible for reproducing most of the fundamental of any note being played.

I have the same problem on my banduras (avatar pic) where the bass bridge is really close to the rim. A little spectral analysis shows that as I get lower and lower in range, the first harmonic becomes louder than the fundamental. I'm kind of stuck on how to fix it other than making the thing stupid big.

BTW, have you compared the sound (specifically recorded) to a parlor sized guitar. I've only heard a few in person but they seem to sound really good in recordings.

You live anywhere near Detroit? We're having a luthier's get together next month and in person would be the best way to evaluate something like that.

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

Dennis, Looks very similar to J. Schertzer(sp?) guitars from the 1800's except he used a metal rod. J.Hilhorst a current classical maker also has been doing a similar thing for several years now. He also makes the soundhole much bigger.

Dennis,

My bad. The claims are in another patent that I didn't see. In either case, I want to be clear that I wouldn't suggest using their ideas without their blessing, patent or no patent.

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

Andy...

you are spot on about the bass reduction due to the bridge being close to the rim of the bass side body...
however, if i do a recording with the mic placed in a better position, you will hear that it is actually very ballanced, this video was made trying to capture my voice, and the guitar at the same time..
it wasnt really meant to be a demo of the guitar,
I was trying to "MIX" with the mic, as I find tracks that are bass heavy guitar mixed with vocals just sound like crap.

I have come up with a bridge design that will allow me to place the bridge further back, and move it to the middle of the bass body..
it would likely be very usefull for you also, as you could shift the bridge on your bass strings over, without
having to screw up your sting angle.
(I know it sounds impossible, but its not.. I just gotta get it on paper and one will be made,
I am certain it will work)

I don't understand how the bridge can be shifted over without adding extra weight to the bridge which wouldn't be good either.Your bridge already looks heavy.

"I don't understand how the bridge can be shifted over without adding extra weight to the bridge which wouldn't be good either.Your bridge already looks heavy."

with all due respect, i don't think anyone understands how that can happen.. cause I haven't shared that
design yet.

I have a drawing...

the awesome part is not really the ability to move the bridge further back, but the fact I can move it over..
while retaining perfectly straight strings..

I didn't think you were going to move it back as that wouldn't do anything.I was thinking on a wider or perhaps a split bridge concept.The wider would be heavier but two smaller separate bridges would be better i would think as each could drive it's own side with less weight.

it already is 2 small bridges.

and 2 small soundholes... (people seem to overlook that and think of it as 1 guitar)

its 2 everything, and everything is much smaller than you are thinking.

its not 1 big guitar.. its 2 small ones..

its not 1 big bridge, its 2 small ones.

its not 1 med weight guitar, its 2 really light ones..

etc etc etc..

that is the whole point..

Hi Dale,

You know the phenomenon where your eyes see something, tell your brain what to expect, then later you can't shake the notion of what something "ought" to sound like? Well, my brain tells me that half a guitar body means the soundboard has very little width, which would not be good for bass production. Is there a wall between the 2 guitar half bodies? If yes, then my brain further "sees" that the enclosed volume of half a guitar would also not lend itself to bass production. How are the two half-bodies connected together? How does that help? I understand that these preconceived notions may be 100% wrong, but thought I'd mention that the engineering advantages have not yet 'clicked' in my brain.

Now, I'm telling you this because you are holding onto the guitar and playing it, and you know how much bass is being produced - but with that one video, I do not have the advantage of what your ears can hear "live and in person." As I mentioned to you in a PM, I think that you'll need to tantalize some luthiers and get them excited that this design is going to (or has the potential to) produce something outside the realm of "ordinary" steelstring guitars, to get some luthiers excited enough to build one.

It might help too, to start at the beginning. Tell us what your vision was, and take us through the process, and then tell us if that vision was realized of if you ended up with something different (better, worse, or just different) than the initial vision. What advantage(s) do you see this guitar having over standard, traditional guitars? Timbre? Balance? Sustain? Instrument longevity? If the advantage is the timbre, then what way is the new timbre different? From your in-person perspective, is the timbre unique to this guitar?

By the way, whatever the outcome of this, it is good to stop and take note that the instrument inspires you. That is a huge accomplishment, and will always enhance your abilities as a singer/songwriter - it will create a highway to your muses. So, even if you are unable to get other luthiers to build this design, you'll always be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Dennis

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

FYI, in the U.S, this is true. However, the one year "grace period" does not apply to non-domestic (foreign) patent offices. In most countries there is an absolute bar to patentability if there is an exposure of the invention. What constitutes an exposure is different in different countries, but it's worth knowing about if you are going down that road.

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

hey Dennis,

the lack of bass on the recording is not as big an issue as it may seem..
I will do up another recording with the mic placed for full range pickup on the guitar,
and i wont sing

the range is actually much better (for recording anyway) than a traditional guitar,
but i do plan to give the next one more bass, just for the heck of it.

the bridge I have designed will add bass among other benefits,
and i'm sorry i can reveal that one just yet.. I gotta have one to show you...

I think its important not to over think this prototype.. hear what you hear,
and dream of possibilities, but when i mentioned the idea to luthiers before one
was built, they all seemed to fall into the same traps, thinking it could not work,
because it goes against what is currently accepted truth in luthier circles..

as soon as something is different, even if its possibly better, the trend seems to be to normalize it..
i.e." hummm great video.. sounds awesome.. here is a way to make it sound more like a D28..."

not in those exact words, but you get my meaning..
and ultimately, that need for normality is what kills many great things,
the group conscious is not ready for things to be TOO different..

same with everything, groups can change (good or bad) much slower than individuals,
and thus things like this will get "normalized" to the point of being almost pointless..

does that make sense?

So would the labor and material of making a two section body out way using braces? I'm trying to see what the advantages of not having braces is? After all that stuff is what helps to shape the tone you are after.
Don't get me wrong it sounds nice and is inventive and you might have something going for you as getting the tone you are after. But I'm not sure it is really all that much of a savings in labor or material.
Interesting idea and it might be fun playing around with the design to see what it is about and how it will hold up over time.
If you built that proto type it looks like to me you should have the ability to build them yourself. You could read up on building and post here. We just might have another builder guys.
If you are saying that you aren't going to try and get the patend then just go ahead and put the drawings or info out here and let those who want to give it a go go for it. Or get someone to draw up a set of drawings and sale the drawings.
I'm a little confused about the first one? Did you say it had 1/2 the X bracing?

the guitar is capoed on the 2nd fret. I notice when i capo anywhere on the guitar i lose a considerable amount of bass (unplugged)
sounds really balanced though. I like it.

Hi Dale,

Well, I'm still not sure that I understand the big picture of this. It would help me out a lot if you would go back and take a look at the specific questions I posed. And, I don't think anyone will go to the trouble of building such a different instrument if what they want is a D28 sound - I don't think you need to worry about luthiers wanting to 'normalize' the sound you've achieved. I just can't hear what you're hearing, so I don't know what you have achieved sound-wise.

Dennis

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

Dale:

Very interesting. I'm not an experienced luthier but your design has me thinking. What if it was OM size? What if the division was not symetrical, but the bass side larger? A divided bridge, saddle, and nut? Off set ports vs, the traditional sound hole? Two separate under saddle pickups with separate outputs?

While we can be skeptical of the benefits of the design and whether it is entirely "original", I commend you for getting it out here for observation and debate.

Thanks

Danny R. Little

Even if it's two guitars I just don't see how you are going to get a really low end from the small box acoustically. I have a little blue martin which is like a baby taylor and although the guitar doesn't sound that bad for what it's purpose is the smaller box just ain't going to give you the lower bass. All the area at the rim or the half is where the highs are going to be produced, high freq. low amplitude and the base is going to come from the center of the lower bout where you have low freq. and high amplitude. Seems to me by splitting the boxes you have pretty much split the mono pole of a big box and created two small boxes limiting or shorting the mono pole . Also by splitting the bridge I would think that you are now just putting the bass string energy into one half and exciting the top from the rim. Sort of like dropping a rock in a pooland watching the waves move across the pool and back instead of from the center out. But I could be wrong and this acoustic guitars is still pretty new to me.
I would like to hear what some of the big boys thoughts on it are too. I think a little healthy discussion on the subject is in order here don't you all?

Hi Danny,

thanks for the reply,
I like your thinking.. my first prototype had a non-symetrical layout..
i.e. the bass side was larger, and angled back, it looked normal, but due to the angle, the bass chamber
was quite a bit larger than the treble side.
the second one i built myself, so i made it easier to build and did it strait (since i never built one before)

it already has individual bridge, saddle etc..
sorry, the video was made on purpose not to reveal those secrets..

the first prototype had full bracing, very heavy bracing for that mater.

Cheers,
Dale

you are correct in that the individual bridge only transfers the energy onto the 1 soundboard,

also correct that it is 2 separate chambers, thus 2 small guitars.

wrong in that you dont need a big box to produce very respectable bass.
also wrong in assuming that current taste in bass is such a good thing for the overall sound..
in studios it is NORMAL for the bass on acoustic guitars to be cut, almost completely.,
take a listen to any CD, or song on the radio, and be conscious of the EQ of the acoustic guitar,

if traditional acoustics are recorded without EQ, i can assure you the CD would sound horrible.

I don't intend to offend, and I love guitars the way they are, just sayin'
you don't have to listen to something, and think it doesn't have as much bass,
you are free to wonder if the range may be better or different..

that said, i know how to make it much more bassy, i'm just not certain i want to..
I would suggest you wait till I put up another video recording the guitar alone before passing judgement on
the bass..

Dale:

In my earlier years I built a couple of studios and did a tremendous amount of research to do so. Bass response was an issue for the right recording environment. Back in the early '70's the accoustic journals were saying that wavelengths were a limiting factor in speaker design, i.e. that huge subwoofers were required for truly flat studio playback. Speaker manufacturers have since made design improvements that extend the low range of smaller transducers. What should have been said is that the size of the transducer makes it easier, with current technology, to achieve flat studio playback.

I am just saying that when folks say it can't be done, what you should be hearing is the caveat: with current thinking and technology.

Good luck

Danny R. Little

Dale,
Well, let me ask you what is the tonal goal you are after here? An acoustic guitar with a full sound and body or lots of sustain or fast decay? It might help others here as to giving their advice if that's what you are seeking. I don't know if that's what you are after or not. I'm getting the feeling that you might be taking comments the wrong way. Granted that I'm fairly new to building acoustics but what I'm offering is just some knowledge I have learned of how and acoustic guitar works and might be of some use to you in reaching your goal as far as tone. But if you are happy with the bass and know how to get the tone you are after that's great. Good luck with it.

gotcha Danny, thanks,
I do sorta hear that.. I just find myself trying to "answer" to the thoughts and try to point the
non-current thinking out to people when they feel it can't or doesn't make sense, in hope they may
see the wider scope of possibility when barriers are ignored, or at the least taken with a grain of salt.

I have to say it seems pretty insulting to say that some of us are closed minded because we offer up some comments. If you stay around long enough you will see that just the opposite is true.