Official Luthiers Forum!

hey jfmckenna,

you are correct!
actually after I assembled this proto2, I did have the same Idea, and I did actually put some ports in the center "wall"
I was concerned about cross over, but it is not an issue, and one of the things that will be different in "proto3" if and when
it is built, is that the ports will be quite a bit larger in the wall... once I realized there is not significant cross over, i realized I can go very large on those, without fear of loosing the clarity I was after... that will also allow for smaller bodies, which is a huge benefit.

another idea I had, in order to expand the bass chamber, was to put 2 ports in the wall, and joint the ports with a tube of sorts, so that the bass chamber snakes around inside the treble chamber, in effect giving the bass side more physical volume without effecting the balanced appearance, and the string placement.

thats one of the problems, is that there are so many things that really should be tried on this, but i simply will be too slow if I develop it on my own, and I will likely miss many many great combinations...
oh well, i will follow that path that comes to me, and it will be what it will be..

but yeah, great idea with the ports, it did for sure open the guitar up greatly when I added them... the tricky part was cutting them, as the guitar was already assembled, it was actually quite ugly, and im sure if you all saw that in progress I would loose any respect you might have right away LOL..

I reluctantly add a few comments:

- it's impossible to judge of the sound quality of a guitar through a compressed YouTube file without any element of comparison. The voice does not bother me, I hear the guitar just fine. And it sounds just like an acoustic guitar with some EQ, compression and very slight delay (it may be the effect of file compression too).
- What is revolutionary about it? The construction or the tone? It seems to be the construction, although it is not clear to me how the instrument is constructed, and what the benefits are if any.

Dale, I think the only way for you to get honest and frank opinions on your work and ideas would be to record your guitar the best you can with a good player, alongside a "run of the mill" guitar (say, a recent D-28 or D-18, something the majority of us are familiar with). Use the same exact settings, player and tune for both, and any future comment will have value. We all know the tone & dynamic response of an average D-28 and can take it as a point of departure.
For now, it's like judging how a Maserati drives on a dirt road. All IMHO, of course.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

I completely agree, it was put up merely for interest sake, as others have known about this guitar, and its structure for some time now.

I have thought of recording along side a "traditional" guitar, I do not have a D-28, but i do have a guild DV52, which is
a fairly traditional dread, although I'm sure the tone is not as much a point of ref. as a D-28, but I think that would clearly demonstrate the difference I'm talking about, as it is not a subtle difference....

I realize it is impossible to determine the sound of the guitar especially with any context, but you can get a rough idea how the guitar records... although, as you say, so many settings etc make it a floating target.

I will record "proto2" and record the guild on the same setup, same clip, without stopping the tape,
and this might at the very least demonstrate the difference, however it will stilll be a floating ref.. but i like the idea.
if I had some other "known" guitars, i suppose i could do a short recording of them all, and that would
help even more..

thanks for the input, its good!

If you are adding sound ports between the two halves, it sort of defeats the purpose of the separate sound chambers, does it not?

A recording reveals little about the sound of any guitar, and a lot about the recording equipment, technique of the recordist, and technique of the player (although not in such a way that these components can easily be distinguished). MP3 sound files played through a computer reveal even less about the guitar. Their main usefulness is as a sales device.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

I'm guessing part of the idea behind the two chambers is that it makes a strong box that requires very light bracing.

Dale I think you just have to be patient with something like this. You are going to have to build several to dial in the tone you want and my guess is that you will either finally get something you like or just abandon the whole project. There are so many potential variables at play and possible options and you will only ever know what the outcome is when you string the thing up.

When I was doing experimental stuff I built them so that I could take them apart. I have one walnut guitar that has had 4 tops on it in various bracing patterns and what not to try and get it right. In my case, I found that I liked the traditional tops the best and that is where she stands now

But have fun and don't give up.

Oh and yes a comparison recording would be really nice to hear.

Dale, Useing a capo makes it hard to judge sonicly as open string sound is just as important as fretted to most people judgeing a guitar for it's sound . You might want to show it without the capo to get more responces on the guitars sound from others. From what i've heard so far being fretted all the time from the capo, it sounds thin to me.

i thought it would, but oddly, it doesnt seem to..

true... i would say however, obvious it may be, and yet overlooked...
a recording does give a fairly good idea about how a guitar RECORDS....
and being recorded is one purpose a guitar is actually used for.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, but i just find it hard to understand that so many people are focused purly on the fact that a recording doesnt
sound like the guitar in real life.. I honestly think this guitar's "killer app." is for recording,
so a recording is actually a very useful tool.

now i agree 100% that a youtube compressed video is really not the way to go for demonstrating such abilities.
I also agree, all any performance, recorded or live reveals is what the combination produces, artist+technique and use of any particular instrument..
and if the performance is really good, those things become transparent, and what is actually revealed is the artists emotion..

hi mark,

it sounds thin.. to be honest in person it is a touch thin, but that is easily fixed in proto3,
but the EQ mix on the recording has a bass and mid cut, and a treble boost. also as you can see the mic placement is
favoring the vocals..

re:capo....
sadly as i have said, im no luthier, in fact, im the farthest thing from it.
one of the problems with building a guitar without the ability to do so, is that the fretwork ah.. ummm... well.. it SUCKS!!
sorry cant think of a better word for it..

no amazingly its playable, except for the first fret first string frets out if I dont capo the guitar... (when played open)
so for this prototype i am limited to capoed playing..


when I record a comparison video with the guild, I will record it with the EQ set flat, no FX, and with the MIC in a suitable position to pickup
the guitar a bit better...

thanks for the input!!!
Cheers,
Dale

Dale, If your first fret is fretting out when playing open, your string height at the nut is too low. Just raise the nut or nut slot to bring the string up. Easy fix.

If I'm understanding correctly, this design had a piece of wood running lengthwise down the cinter of the body splitting the body into two chambers. The main benefit of this (I'm guessing) is the large structural stiffness it provides against the pull of the strings. Everyone always says a lightly built guitar is on the verge of swallowing itself through the soundhole........well this one isn't! (assuming I'm understanding correctly). Maybe this would allow a thinner top or a lighter braced top......or both.

What would be interesting to me is to combine this design and the traditional design by running the center divider from the neck block down to the bridge plate........leaving the entire lower bout free to move as one unit. This might provide essentially all the structural benefit of the new design and still allow good lower bout movement for good tone (especially bass) and volume. Both halves would still vent through the soundhole in the typical location. That would be fun to test! I would love to try it on a size 5 guitar for my youngest daughter......hmmmmm......some nice, silky white oak stained dark, a cherry neck, rosewood binding, spruce or cedar top???......or how about an eastern, aroumatic red cedar top??? <smile>

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Dale, congrats on a build that you're happy with.

I have a hard time telling much from the video. It sounds thin in the bass, but it's hard to tell how much of that is a function of the recording EQ, mic placement, etc. as opposed to the guitar itself. So, please take everything I am about to say with the understanding that I haven't heard your guitar in a meaningful way, and my thoughts are based only on some gut reactions.

1) I believe thin bass is inherent in your design. Bass frequencies like a large internal volume, and your design trades a box with a larger internal volume for two 1/2-sized boxes with 1/2-sized internal volumes. This is a case in which two halves do not make a whole. Adding some type of port or two between the chambers may improve bass response, but not deliver anything close to the type of bass response you would get with a single box. My belief is that you will always get poor bass response with this design.

2) A good luthier can get outstanding note separation and sustain with a traditional design. Perhaps you have found another way to accomplish those things, but I'm skeptical that you can get much better separation and sustain than what a skilled luthier can get through traditional means.

3) In light of number 1 and 2 above: If my goal over the next year were to learn how to get great separation and sustain without sacrificing bass response, the most sure way to accomplish that goal would be to take Ervin Somogyi's class. (I have not taken it, but it's on my bucket list!) I don't mean to discourage you from experimenting and inventing. I hope you come up with something that works great. But there are tried and true ways to get the results you are looking for. I'm skeptical that a revolutionary new design will achieve better (or even equal) results compared to what you can get by putting in the time to develop tried-and-true skills.

hi Darryl,
thanks for your comments..

I had the same concern you have about the "smaller" sound chambers, that was the reason my proto2 had such a huge body,
because I wanted to eliminate that part of the design for test purpose.. i.e. each side actually has as much internal space in the sound chamber.. (its a thick body as well).

tho it appears to be smaller (each half) than a dread, it is in reality as large, (depending on guitar of course)

re:thinner top and lighter bracing...
you are correct, this design allows for a EXTREMELY thin top, AND, no top bracing..
(i forget the exact measure on the top, but it is WELL below anything currently used to my knowledge)
my friend who is a buddy luthier making very fine guitars, was present when i was "thicknessing" the tops
and I do believe he felt they were too thin to possibly be used. It was a great concern of mine that once assembled,
the tops would not take the string tension....

if you are going to attempt to build one, or a variation for your daughter,
I think you should contact me, because there are some things going on with the guitar that are not obvious,
and that I have not discussed, that make it "work", it might be worth talking about those details, because without them,
i believe you will be back at proto1 stage, and while proto1 was very cool, the volumn was simply to low to make it usefull
as a everyday playing guitar..

thanks Kelby,

yeah, im pretty happy with the result, if i look at it as a step on a path... not a final product of course..

re: wether it is better to stick with tried and true approach to guitar building.. or to start a drastically different design,
and "re-evolve" on that basis to see what happens...
I believe that same question could be asked about almost anything in life. There will always be those that are of the mindset you explain, that surely it is better to learn from the years of experience that is banked using the current wisdoms etc..

there will also always be the people with the mindset to explore other options or ideas that come to them.
the only path that will work, is the one that is right for any given person at any given point.. im not interested in the slighest about trying to refine the current guitar idea... to be honest, and hopefully respectful, mostly what i see in current
guitars are reproductions of a very old design. (its a good one, no doubt) but I just dont feel a need to mess with that design too much, if I wanted a good "current" design guitar I would just go get one.. (which I have done)...

my idea just came to me, it was not driven my a dis-satisfaction with my current guitar,
or with a desire to market something different, or any other thing, I simply get ideas. most that have come to me
work out, if i try them... for some reason I felt this particular idea was well worth putting some effort into,
and that is that. I dont have a argument in my brain of this guitar vs. tradtional guitars, because I have no interest in
tuning traditional guitars etc, or taking courses on how to build a really great old martin etc..

(i am not knocking those guitars, or the desire to build traditional guitars in any way,
in fact i am thrilled there are people that are of that mindset, cause I love the guitars produced)

Imagine if when the wheel was being invented, the people of the day said... dude... you will be much further ahead
working on the square, its been tried and tested for years... take some classes from the elders on how to not move around so fast.. etc etc... im sure it happened, like with everything else, there is always people going to say...
"why are you trying something new"... and thats cool... and im sure in many cases it is likely the "wise" approach..

im also not sure the world is better off with the wheel, but thats a whole other story!
(see the gulf)

thanks Mark,
I should have thought of that much sooner, thanks so much for mentioning that,
I guess I should recut a new nut... I think i have a spare blank to fit it...

Dale,

I think you misunderstood my point (or very likely I didn't make my point very well). I'm not worried about the size of the sound chamber........the part of this new design I'm no crazy about is the middle partition running through and anchoring the middle portion of the lower bout rign where it has the largest movement.

The lower bout is the most critical area for producing sound (my opinion). Most of the bass/power/volume of the guitar comes from the lower bout vibrating in the monopole mode (where it vibrates in/out like a speaker). In this mode, the largest movement of lower bout is roughly in the very center of the lower bout......the are that is anchored and not allowed to move using your design. I would predict that any size model using this design would be struggling for power/cut/volume/bass (however you want to describe it) because it wouldn't have a monopole mode that takes advantage of the large area in the lower bout. You might have a monopole mode on each half (not sure)......but it would be much smaller (so couldn't move as much air), and the peaks of the anti-nodes would be smaller, and the monopole mode would be at a much higher frequence (compared to one that utilizes the entire lower bout) so you would loose the strong bass you can get with a traditional design. Have you ever heard Doc say "never trust a guitar without a belly"? The middle of the lower bout needs freedom to move to produce the best sound.

Since the strength of the new design is strengthening the weakest point of a traditional design in the area where it's the weakest and it's worst point is making the lower bout rigid where it needs to move most, I suggested it would neat to try combining these designs by using the middle partition through the upperbout down to the bridge plate but leaving the lower bout free to move for bass, power, punch, and volume.

Does that make sense?

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Hi Darryl,

thanks, yeah, that makes more sense to me, i did indeed mis-understand your original point, I thought you were talking about the volume of the sound chamber (i.e. size of the box)

your point now does make sense to me, and is spot on correct based on my findings with this design so far.

one of my steps made after I built the guitar was to attempt (with some success) to move the point of vibration contact away from the "middle" so in other words out into the "belly" of the bass top... although the bass top is narrower, the guitar is a fair bit larger than a traditional jumbo, and the actually surface area of the bass side is actually fairly large.. (likely about the same surface area as a OM) and I have heard many OM guitars with very acceptable bass..

no of course there are other factors, and your idea is a good one...
for instance, im not certain that the top can vibrate as effectively with a flat side...
(a wave with continue much much longer in a round pool)

i actually also considered doing something along the lines of a ying/yang symbol, which would allow for a round "belly"
portion on each side, that I could transfer the vibration to..

and infact, oddly enough, when this idea came to me, it looked like a bunch of balloons, only flattened,
although sphereical would be funny to try, so i was thinking each string could have its own "belly"
its own top etc, much like the MIT example above, except I never though out that idea too far because I wanted to
make something that looked roughly like a guitar, so i decided the 2 chamber idea was a good compromise to also allow
the use of a traditional birdge... (although cut into 2 separate)

I should also mention, the desire for booming bass is not high on my list of priority,
because I feel this guitar could be a great guitar for recording, and if I listen to any songs that I admire,
and listen carefully to the acoustic guitar, it always has a sound with a bass cut, and it sounds compressed etc,
but in a mix it works very well, when I record my other guitars that have a loud bass, or even moderate, the bass
is way way too loud for use in a good quality recording, I have talked to sound engineers and producers, and this
is an ongoing issue, and it is frequent that the acoustic bass is EQ almost out completely,
also why OMs and smaller body guitars are used for recording a lot..

that said, for sitting around strumming, playing live without PA etc etc, the bass is really nice to have,
so it comes down to what kind of guitar is this going to be, a good all-rounder, a recording guitar, a campfire guitar etc etc..
likely a good variation would be needed to hit perfect for any particular use...

An oversized sound hole helps remove the boominess from an acoustic when playing in a mic for live performance or recording. Think Clarence White's old guitar that Tony Rice made famous. I'm putting a 4 1/4" diameter sound hole on my current build (an OM) where most are 3 3/4" - 4" diameter.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Dale,
I admire your adventurous spirit and desire to innovate. I introduced myself similarly here back in December. I took much of the advise to heart, perhaps you will find some of the comments I received helpful, I certainly did, and though at first some of them seemed close minded, I quickly realized that they were right.
viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=25054

First, it would be helpful to restate your goals of the build, which if I remember is better separation for recording. I don't see why one would mess with the guitar if the recording process is the issue, seems a multi-pin out put jack with a multiple pickup array would be more relevant.

What I realized with the help from the forum, you can really mess with your mind to figure out how to alter bracing for a desired effect, staying within the boundaries of conventional luthery wisdom. I agree with the suggestion about Somogyi's class, you will get to your goal faster jumping off of his experience, then what you are doing. At very least, you should read his book, as well as other's, these authors are not lost, and are not preaching the world is flat, there is solid research done in a controlled fashion. Tom Edison invented the lightbulb by trial and error, but he did so with the process of making a vacuum in a glass set, so he could plug in filaments until one worked. If you are serious about making this work and creating a viable prototype, you need to be able to create or access rims and necks that are reasonably alike. I am halfway through Guit #2, not including the prototype as a number, I have set up to make rims and necks, and what a surprise, the whole top and back bracing and tuning takes only a few hours, and is a small part of the time to make a guitar, though critical.

Personally, when (if) I go back to experimenting with braceless or alternative bracing, I would jump off from Brunner's work and Klepper's, but that won't be until I can make rims and necks in my sleep, and after I have a vast library of info read and understood. Somogyi, GAL books, Caruth off the top of my head.

As and opinion and a gut feeling, based on some of my prototype work, I think you are on a path of limited success, but your methods of research are likely to cause you even more time lost. If you ask your friends with many instruments which they play the most, the answer is usually the one that is comfortable and easy to play, not the one with the best sound. Making the guitar bigger is less comfortable and will be less desirable to play, no matter the advantages gained.

Best of luck, I admire your chin, you have certainly taken some shots here and come back with a good attitude.
Rob

_________________
http://shastaguitar.com/
http://www.kalimbakit.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/comfyfootgr ... ature=mhee
http://www.facebook.com/robert.renick.7

Hi Rob,

thanks for the input.. I will check your thread when i get a bit of time to give it an honest read..

there are a few things I would like to point out... that might explain my responses, and/or my approach..

1. I do not have a goal, other than to bring the idea to some sort of fruition... it came to me, i did not go looking for it,
so I just want to try it out, and see where it goes. (this explains me not wanting to work from others research, etc, im merely trying to build this specific idea,
even if its not the best, worst, or otherwise useful to anyone else, or myself.

2. I have a perhaps odd viewpoint about knowledge, I feel "learning" what someone else teaches can be good, but it can also narrow, or stifle other ideas.
i.e. if I were to believe that the guitar could never be approached as 2 separate sides, which is stated clearly in the book on luthiery that i read to get started,
if i just accepted that fact, I would then not follow my idea at all, but the truth is, my idea, for better or worse did work. and it did have the qualites of sound that
I thought it might produce.. again.. good or bad, and unrefined as it might be...

3. I'm not really in this for money, fame, kudos (althought they do feel good, so thanks to those that have complimented it) and I am not even 100% sure
that I would want this to be "the next big thing", it just is what it is,...

4. I don't want this guitar to sound like other guitars. It seems as if many people have advice on how to achieve a sound, how to get the guitar to sound more like
what they think a guitar should sound like... to me that has very little to do with this project, I wish I could call it something else, so that everyone could forget it
being a guitar. I.e. a voilin has a wonderful sound, all to itself, nobody says, that violin doesnt have boom bass... or power, etc... (they might, but ofcourse I dont
read those threads

5. I want it to not have the bass which I believe is somewhat overpowering, and possibly partly responsible for muddy recording qualities of "tradition" acoustics.

6. I dont take comments, and critisim too personally, I realize that this is a different approach to a guitar build, and its not really a guitar, but 2- 3 stringed
instrument that could be confused for a guitar, I do not expect anyone who is used to guitars, or is in the know about guitars to accept this different approach,
especially if they don't do much recording, and particularly recording while singing with the guitar...

7. like it or not, i realize this is a slow slow slow evolving industry, and one that is also heavily grounded in some fairly old designs. A 60 year old guitar can hold
its own with most current guitars, im not saying thats bad, and not saying its good, but I am saying its not moving at the speed of light, or as fast as other
"technologies". its all good, and I love old guitars, just saying i am kinda "real" about it in my head, and I was not expecting this to "catch on" or have people
knocking down my door...

8. I am a little surprized that there are not at least a few luthiers out there, who see this and think.. "ok, this guy, with no building talent, no experience, and a
totally untested design, with zero refinements.. slapped together this guitar, which to some at least, records in a very good way, Imagine what I as a luthier could
do..." , now some have indeed said that, but they seem to lack the time and financial freedom, or perhaps lack the excitement about it to bring it to happening.

anyway, just wanted to clearly state where im at with this, and why I might answer the way i do,
i dont want to sound stubborn, it just is what it is, and im not looking to make a guitar like todays guitars are... (not trying to lump them together, but they are basically the same)

cheers,
Dale

Dale, I totally say just go for it! I was doing the same thing years ago. Nothing ever worked out for me but I sure did enjoy it and I learned a lot from doing it. Like you I had no wood working skills what so ever but I really wanted to build guitars. I had weird ideas and built weird guitars. Like I said, for me, nothing realy came out good but I sure did learn a lot of wood working skills. Incidentally, one of the builds I did and was proud of and thought was a great idea (but sounded awful) years later I found out was very similar to Jose Fernandez's de camera guitar. I think he was a guy that used to like to experiment. Some times it pays off but you have to be persistent. In my case I'm only doing traditional designs now because I don't have the time or desire to fail over and over again.

So go for it and have fun.

hey jfmckenna,

thanks for the encouragement!!!! and for sharing your experiences,
i will likely continue to slowly push this thing into refinement, at least to a 3rd prototype,
I think that for me will be the end of development, and I will hope it produces something that is irresistible to
others for further development.. I don't wanna "sell" the idea, I want it to be so appealing, that people run with it..
i don't wanna defend it anymore, or try to convince those that are against the idea, just gonna do it my way for a bit,
and if the 3rd is really good, then maybe it will find its way into someone else's hands...

(of course I do want to sell it, just not "sell" it, if that makes sense)

Love the concept that you have going here , I believe the guitar sounds great . I am interested in seeing your further prototypes and hearing them . Great work

And as for :



Most guys would be paying more attention to her cute lil backside anyway !!

_________________
The Shallower the depth of the stream , The Louder the Babble !
The Taking Of Offense Is the Life Course Of The Stupid One !
Wanna Leave a Better Planet for our Kids? How about Working on BETTER KIDS for our Planet !
Forgiveness is the ability to accept an apology that you will probably NEVER GET
The truth will set you free , But FIRST, it will probably Piss you Off !
Creativity is allowing yourself to make Mistakes, Art is knowing which ones to Keep !
The Saddest thing anyone can do , is push a Loyal Person to the point that they Dont Care Anymore
Never met a STRONG person who had an EASY past !
http://wiksnwudwerks.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/GatewayA ... rAssembly/

thanks wudwerkr...!!

i truly appreciate the encouragement... its comments like this that will help me find the energy to make a 3rd..

i might even try doing a quick side by side comparison with my guild, just to get in the ballpark, giving some who dont seem to see much of a difference a idea what I am describing when I say things like clarity, sustain, purity of sustain etc..

cheers,
and thanks again,
Dale