Official Luthiers Forum!

Well, I'm a Newbie - and both of these approaches scare me.
I don't have enough "experience" even think about using intuition, nor enough knowledge to take advantage of the scientific methods.
Sure wish there were a more definitive "middle ground."

The "middle ground" is to first build according to the specs of a known plan, but tap, flex, record everything you can, for the next build. After a short while, you'll begin to draw your own conclusions.

Therein my dilemma...

I actually want my first guitar to sound decent (since it will always be kept for posterity.
However, I am designing around an offset soundhole, cantilevered neck, and 'A' bracing.
I keep on asking McPherson and Batson for detailed plans, but all I got from them was a restraining order! JK

I know, I know... start by getting your feet wet, yada yada.

But I guess I'm one of those wreckless mere mortals that aspires to a level of greatness on the first try (greatness being relative... "that's a great guitar for your first build" level).

I go full bore at everything I do, and would rather make a big splash - even if it's a belly flop!

Oh well, I'll crawl back into my hole and keep trolling for tidbits from the demi-gods...

Rienk:
First: what Mario said. To expand on that a bit...

It's both a blessing and a curse to us that lots of intelligent folks have been building guitars for a long time. Most of them have tried all sorts of things to improve the instrument, and, every once in a while, one of the experiments works out. When it does, all of the other makers copy it immediately. As a result, the 'standard' designs are very close to being optimized: all the stuff that works is probably in there already (more on that later). You really can't go far wrong by copying a standard design. If you use good materials, and work carefully, you'll probably end up with a 'better than average' guitar, if only because the average has so many cheap production instruments in it. So that's the blessing.

The curse comes in when you try to make something that's noticeably better than, say, the average handmade guitar on a consistent basis. When you're dealing with optimized designs, the difference between 'good' and 'great' can be very small, but also very important. The difference between an 'average' good looking woman and the most beautiful one you've ever seen would probably be hard to describe objectively, but one of them works at the local bank and the other makes millions in Hollywood. A lot of what we're talking about is just that: the added effort that goes into getting a little better performance (however you define 'better') out of the instruments we make.

Now, when I say that the standard designs are pretty well optimized, I'm talking about the stuff that most guitar makers build: variations on the Torres or Martin or Gibson theme. These are the instruments that have defined the sound of the standard repertoire, and large departures from these designs can be risky. Even if they work 'better' by some measure (say, producing more power) they may sound enough different from the standard to make them unsuitable for some music (you should have heard my first two archtop classicals...). Usually I think it's a good idea for a new maker to stick to something standard, at least at first, until they've gained enough understanding of what they want and how to get it to try departures. It's a sad fact that most experiments fail, and the dusty closets of lutherie are full of these failures (I've got at least two).

It's also well to remember that 'optimum' does not mean 'perfect'; it means 'as good as you can expect under the circumstances'. In particular, the standard designs all used wood as their main material, and stuck it together with hot hide glue to begin with. Wood's good stuff, but there are modern synthetics and new design ideas that can give much greater stiffness for weight, and there are modern glues that can do things hot glue can't. There is a lot of activity in new designs using modern materials and methods. I think the jury is still out on a lot of them, but it takes time for new designs to evolve, and time for musicians to learn to use them to their best advantage. We'll see in fifty years or so what worked: something to look forward to!

So, you write:
"However, I am designing around an offset soundhole, cantilevered neck, and 'A' bracing."

Some of these features are potential improvements, and, of course, a lot depends on what you think of as 'improved'. McPherson and Batson probably built a lot of experimental models to fine tune the details of those features, and I can understand why they'd be loath to simply give the designs away. If the sound you want can only be gotten from that design, then you're going to have to accept the idea of doing similar development work yourself, and, of course, you might well get a visit from a patent lawyer along the way.

My own understanding of the way these things work suggest to me that there are good reasons for the 'normal' sound hole location, for example, and I would point out that non-standard sound hole placements have been experimented on throughout guitar history. There's probably a reason it's done the way it is: they keep going back to it, after all. Much the same can be said for many other 'improvements', which, as often as not, turn out to be more 'different' than 'better'. Again, I'm not saying that the standard designs can't be improved, just that it might not be all that easy, or quick.

Anyway, you can set your mind at ease if you don't fully understand either Mario's 'cut and try' approach or the 'scientific' methods Trevor uses. Unless you're already a pretty good wood worker I think you'll find there will be enough challenge in just making a good looking and playing guitar the first time out. And don't worry about gaining experience: in over twenty years of teaching, I've never met anybody who only made one. Enjoy the process, take notes, and keep in mind that, however this one turns out, the next one's going to be a world beater.

Alan,
Thanks for the encouragement

(BTW I wrote a similar post a while ago, but just noticed it didn't go through for some reason - sorry for the apparent delay. I'm also home sick, so nothing better to do than to cause mischief and write long, boring posts)

A little personal history: my son is a musician, and hopes to find his vocation somewhere in the industry (to brag on him a bit, a video he produced has been used a lot to show 'A' list musicians the use of a high end microphone).
I, on the other hand, am a frustrated artist stuck with an engineers brain. Though I enjoy art, I absolutely love designing and building things. And I love helping other people solve problems, so I've come up with solutions in all sorts of industries - some of which have actually made money, and a number which are purely philanthropic. I'm definitely a strange breed (currently being diagnosed for Aspergers) so I figure I'll eventually fit right in with this eclectic group of misfits called luthiers.

When my son started getting serious about buying a good guitar, we talked to a brother-in-law who builds a few guitars (I built his templates and stuff years before) and I encouraged my son to build his own. As interested as he was, with school and travels, plus the fact that he had several other instruments in various levels of completion, I figured I would get the ball rolling for him (and for a number of youth that we work with, who also would like to build a nice guitar). But what started out as a project for the kids ended up becoming a bonafide interest of mine, and now is a bit of an obsession.

In talking with people about this pursuit, I regularly heard the phrase, "Why would you bother trying to build an acoustic guitar? Do you think you can build a better Martin than Martin?" I figured they must have that style of guitar pretty well perfected, yet I'm enough of a maverick to want to do my own thing anyway, so I figured I would pursue something a bit out of the ordinary.

Of course, I soon learned that it's not difficult to build a better Martin than Martin - in the sense that a decent luthier who custom builds a guitar with good skill and a sound understanding of tone (wood thickness, bracing, intonation, etc) could indeed make a better guitar than virtually all of the 'factory' guitars out there. Woe is me! I started down a path that I needn't go. However, I realize that I actually like a lot of the more modern innovations - not because they're better, but simply because they might be! So the idea of using a cantilevered neck, an offset sound hole or ports, nonstandard bracing, and maybe even double backs to boot - has really captured my interest.

Luthery (I still don't know how to spell it properly) is a fascinating blend of art and engineering, with a practical use for almost anyone - what more can you ask for? Well, my ulterior motive is that this enterprise might actually become (part of) a career for my son. If not, I'll pursue it as a hobby as long as I'm able... I have an eye condition that is in a slow race to see if I die before I go blind, and am going deaf faster than most. With a half century under my belt, I'm a long shot for becoming an accomplished luthier - but that is also the kind of challenge I relish; and if my son carries on the torch, I would be pleased. Regardless, making one or a hundred really nice guitars that brings joy and opportunity to others is a worthwhile aspiration for a hobby, and so I move forward against the odds.

Okay, enough of the sappy soap opera... I'm having a blast designing tools, jigs and fixtures (tweaking stuff that's already out there to suit my purpose). Beside building guitars, I want to see if it's possible to scale down the technology and efficiency of a factory like Taylor to be able to work in a one or two man shop. I'm pretty sure I can do it, but I'm not convinced it's replicatable.

So what does this have to do with this thread?
Absolutely nothing, except that I believe what Trevor is doing should be a huge benefit to this craft by validating some of the science behind the art - and it's something that I hope to understand and eventually master. I've been communicating with both of you offline about receiving some of your tutelage. In the meantime, I figured I'd introduce myself better to the community, and say thanks to all of you who take the time to help beginners like myself.

I am really looking forward to pulling the trigger soon on our first few builds!
Thanks again.

I believe what Trevor is doing should be a huge benefit to this craft by validating some of the science behind the art -

Yes, that is indeed nice. but.....

Do NOT ever forget that there is also a LOT of art behind the science..

Music is, in science and physics terms, very simple. It is math. So simple, that early computer programers were able to "create" music simply by numbers. Remember "midi" music? That is what mathematical music sounds like. Nasty, wasn't it? beep-beep-boop-boop-boop-pah-dah-peep-beep....." What it lacked is the subtle timing and timber variations that make music, music! Same as what makes your's, and mine's, voice unique! Scientifically, our spoken words are simply various sound pitches, easily replicated by a machine. But when your Mother/Father/Wife/Son/ or /Daughter calls you, you instantly know who is speaking to you, right? Right! And the reason is because of the -tone- of their voice, and the subtle inflections they add to their spoken words, which, without you even thinking about it, is unique! This is the art of the spoken voice, and it is this art that makes it unique to the individual using it. Same for music and for musical instruments. Science is great, and it brings forth great understanding, but it should never overwrite the art that it seeks to understand, for it cannot.

I'm in the seasoned amateur camp and was actually going to post something similar. When it comes to all this Young's modulus stuff and resonant frequencies, I don't have a clue what people are talking about. I'd like to, but where the hell do you even start? And does it even matter if I have one or two tops on hand at any given time?

Kent Everett demonstrated a cool method in his voicing DVD that sounds similar to yours and really works for me. He holds the joined top out in front of him and wiggles it back and forth. When it starts to warble like a saw blade, he calls it good.

Yes sir, I understand and agree with what you're saying. I was trying to be careful with my words, by saying that Mr. Gore is validating "some" of the science "behind" the art, not that the science replaces the art. God gave us minds to appreciate science, He gave us souls (in part) to appreciate art. Where the two merge in harmony reflects the divine.
The counterpoint is that good music - or even good "sound" is objective. I'm not a fan of the sitar, traditional Asian music, or Rap. But I can appreciate the fact that it is music (well, maybe not rap) and is art. I would suggest that Mr. Gore is not trying to validate or verify art through science - that would be impossible. Rather, I believe he is trying to understand the physical (wood) in order to enhance the spiritual (music). After all a guitar is not music - it is an "instrument" in making music! Mr. Gore et al are trying to help us understand the physics of how wood produces certain sounds, not how to determine what the best sounds are.

If you can learn to understand the nuances of how wood makes the sound/tone you want through "intuition" - fantastic! But virtually no one can build their first guitar that way, and expect it to sound "good" except by dumb luck.
Let me use an analogy... as a small child, I loved to draw and paint. But of course, I wanted to paint like the Dutch masters (if you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!). To help me catch a vision of what I could do, my parents gave me paint-by-number projects. Yes, it was more scientific than art - but at least it actually looked like a galloping horse in a meadow! Without those sort of tools, I may have given up on art. I still had to learn to put some soul into it, but it sure helped me learn. I could expand this concept more, but I think my point is clear.

That being said, I believe there is a difference between art and craftsmanship. There are musicians (artists) who can create beautiful music, but could never "build" a decent guitar. There are great craftsmen who can build stunning instruments yet can hardly play them (Collings comes to mind). Too often people tend to confuse the two: art and craftsmanship are similar but not the same. The guitar is not the music, but the "instrument" (tool) that makes the music.
I am trying to learn how to make great instruments, not great music. And for that, I need science, not art. Your intuition is not art - it is actually science at the subconscience level. Unfortunately, you are not (easily) able to explain your intuition - let alone teach it. I believe you and Mr. Gore are approaching craftsmanship from two different sides of the same coin; it's just that his system lets a newbie like me start painting by the numbers, until it becomes intuition - maybe someday near your level.

Thanks for both of your help and input!

You know what I love about this thread? In the true spirit of the OLF you've got very experienced Luthiers (whom any of us would aspire to be) who can agree - disagree - agree again - explain - cajole - critique - explain - expound - and agree to agree all while having a smile on their face.

I can just see Mario laughing at the wobble board, and Trevor laughing at the hydrometer quib, and Alan chortling about whatever makes Alan chortle .

Great information from the greats. NOW Damhit!!!!! How do you put all that information into the rest of us NOOBS!

Nice post, but...

The guitar is not the music, but the "instrument" (tool) that makes the music.

Ah, Grasshopper, you are missing a lot, here! The instrument makes sound, and that sound isn't simply mere science, but rather, the more mystical "tone". That's where I differ... I want you to understand that pitch is only one aspect of sound, the other, is tone. When you measure this and that on an instrument, you're measuring the pitch(in hertz) of whatever you're measuring. But if that is all you study, you're doing so at the exclusion of what tone color that pitch contains.

I'm not saying that measuring and studying pitches is wrong, or useless; not so at all! It's a very useful and precise method of arriving at the correct structural properties for the instrument. What I want to make you understand is that that is not the be-all/end-all.

If you have two(or more) guitar tops, or bodies that you're "tuning", when you get them to the same pitch, sit down in a quiet room, and for the next hour, tap, thump, rub, whatever, each one, and -listen- to the tone of each one. Study that tone with the only tools that can be used to study it; your ear and mind. Make notes of what you're hearing; silly notes, like "dry", or "lush" or 'warm', or 'nutty' or whatever pops into your mind that you can relate that tone to. Then as you string-up the instruments, write down your first impression of what the -tone- is like. Then once you have a few of them done, go back over the notes and compare them. It should be enlightening, and I will bet the farm that you'll be surprised at how accurate and complex your understanding of tone really is. It's there in all of us(from the moment of birth, we learn to recognize the tone of our Mother's voice from all the other sounds that are bombarding our ears), but few will ever sit down and work at developing a conscious knowledge of what comes naturally(but at the sub-conscious level).

I keep very few items in my bank's safety deposit box, but among the items is my original notebook, containing the very notes(from my first ten years) I suggest you begin keeping, also. I pulled it out last fall and re-read the whole notebook for the first time in many years, and found that I had already "forgotten" many details. I now plan to do a yearly "book review" of my most important book...

This thread is one of the most interesting, intriguing, informative, enlightening, enjoyable and entertaining compositions I've ever read. Thank you all for sharing your diverse approaches so freely and respectfully. This truly is a wonderful place to spend a bit of one's spare time.

_________________
George :-)

I save my artistic redefinings for the music I write. Somogyi's artistic book had some pretty pictures and about three pieces of useful information. Every page of the Gore/Gilet book was 'oh', 'ah', 'so that's why', etc. It got me from wondering what a guitar would sound like to deciding what a guitar would sound like over a controlled experiment with four instruments. And while I agree the art is in finding the last five percent the math can't define, it's a real good first step to get the 95% math part out of the way first so you don't have to think about it anymore and can get right to the arty pants bit...and yup, I know I still have a long way to go...

First of all, I'm still home sick, and thus have nothing better to do than write long posts. If you have better things to do, please skip these musings. Warning! This post includes references to religion - read at your own risk (thankfully, it does not reference politics).

Mario, when it comes to making guitars - I am the grasshopper, and readily admit it. I'm hoping I don't have to insert that caveat every time I express an opinion or understanding (that may well be wrong).

I do "understand" that there is a difference between pitch and tone, and that both are parts of "sound". I definitely do NOT yet understand how to get either of them out of a piece of wood in a controllable fashion.

But here is where i diverge with you. In your analogy of a mother's voice, you mention that there are unique attributes to that sound - which is true. You mention pitch and tone, but others words/attributes might also be used (timbre, sharpness, clarity, etc). I personally could not tell you the difference between all of those, where they overlap and where they are distinct. However, there is one thing that seems logical to me. I can electronically record a mother's voice and replay it - and the child will instantly recognize it. In fact, if I played a good recording of the voice in another room, the child would probably not know the difference between the recording and the real voice (and in most cases, nor would 99% of us). My point is this. If a sound can be recorded it can be duplicated. If it can be duplicated, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be analysed.

I would respectfully disagree with you that the "uniqueness" of a sound is the same as the "art" of a sound. Just like voices can have the same pitch and tone, the uniqueness comes into play based on how they are used. I have thought a voice belonged to someone else, until I had the chance to listen more to the way specific words or thoughts were expressed (just like I have been confused for both my father and son).
I believe the "artist" is the musician - expressing their unique "voice". Just like I can distinguish my son's voice, I can also usually recognize his music - but I could not tell you whether he was playing his Martin, or which Martin it is.
Maybe it's all semantics, but to me the musician is the artist and the luthier is the craftsman. Many musicians praise the builders of their guitars, but they wouldn't start playing different kinds of music by playing a different guitar. They may use different guitars for different songs or types of music - but their music is still unique to them as an artist (not because of the instrument). Their "music" is their voice, the guitar is more like the type of microphone or speaker used to project it.

Where you and Mr. Gore seem to part ways is in the conviction that something which can be analysed can be understood well enough to be useful (mathematically) and be reverse engineered to be replicated by other means. Of course, we all seem to agree that we'll never be able to get different pieces of wood to consistently replicate physical mechanics (the sound from plucking a note on a string) in the same way that we can get other materials such as metal and plastics to be virtually identical - like in audio speakers. But then, isn't that also the allure? ... if we could get the exact same thing out of every piece of wood, where would the sense of discovery and wonder be?

Where I assume you are on the same page is that you both agree that a good luthier needs to both learn good sound, and learn how to get different pieces of wood to deliver that sound through an instrument. Some can learn this in such a way that it will become "second nature" to them, others will have to depend more on tools and techniques to get what they are after.

Thus, I would posit that good sound is not the same as good music, nor is either the same as good craftsmanship. It doesn't matter how good (or bad) the instrument is, a poor player will still be poor, and a great player will still be great - regardless of the instrument used. To put it another way, I am convinced that you, Trevor or Allan could make a fantastic guitar using only tools from Harbor Freight. I'm also convinced you could all make a good guitar using only baltic plywood. I bet you could all make an acceptable guitar using Harbor Freight tools with plywood!

It's fascinating that anyone who is excellent at something (or even a genius at it) assumes that it should come naturally to everyone else. Everyone has a different and unique set of strengths (BTW, I highly recommend the StrengthFinder tool from the Gallup organization to help discover what those are - especially enlightening for our kids or grandkids... if interested, get a copy of the book "Now, Discover Your Strengths"). I would argue what comes naturally to you will not come naturally to most of us. This natural ability that you have honed and are perfecting is not necessarily something that can be duplicated by just anybody - but that doesn't mean that others can't be good luthiers (though it might be a hindrance).

What every new builder is trying to discover are the tools and techniques that we can use to get the absolute best guitar possible out of our first guitar - and every subsequent one (I'm sure that each of you masters can remember having the same desires way back when - and still do). I firmly believe that the only way this craft will "progress" is by each successive 'generation' of builders not having to learn all the same lessons as those who've gone before (I do not want my son to have to learn to use punch cards in order to learn how to become a programmer), but hopefully will be taught in such a way as to have time to not only become masters, but to then have the time to experiment, discover, and to expand the boundaries of the craft. After all, there is a reason that we are not all still playing lutes.

Unfortunately, too many luthiers have turned the craft into a religion.
To wit; my personal belief is that true spirituality is growing in relationship with God... religion is various groups' formula for how to do that, but then insisting that the only way to be spiritual is to follow their rules or formulas (dogmas). Religion can be useful for becoming spiritual - but religion is not the end goal. Too many people want the old ways to be carved in stone because that is "tradition", a fault that is encouraged by neophytes because they want tools to help them on the path toward true spirituality... unfortunately those very tools/traditions often end up getting them both stuck in religion.
Event though there is ultimate truth, everyone's relationship with God is going to be unique... we're all different pieces of wood. We are different species, different ages, different climates and living conditions, etc. yet in the hands of the Master Craftsman, every piece of wood will have it's best use if it is properly worked and nurtured.

I know the analogy is faulty, but the same is true for many "crafts" such as lutherie. Too many old timers want to force "tradition" on newcomers "just because", and too many of us newcomers want to learn the "rules" (dogmas) that can help us become masters. Both often forget that tradition or techniques are not the end goal.

What I am hearing from you is that relying solely on formulas and techniques (such as what Trevor teaches) will get us stuck in the "religion" of the craft, and that you want us to truly "experience" the wonder of it, such that it becomes a part of our nature.
I would expect that Mr. Gore might share that view - but is a bit more specific in helping others get there. Maybe he is akin to a "theologian" studying the intricacies of the art and parsing the subtleties of the science, whereas you are more like a "friar" working from the perspective of the common people - but both sharing the same goal (I hope this comparison doesn't offend either of you).

Well, I am lucid enough to know that i may be drifting too far out into left field.
So I'll wrap up with this defense of what I believe Mr. Gore's perspective may be, using the paint-by-numbers analogy I used earlier.

Most experienced luthiers tell newcomers to copy an existing good guitar - paint by numbers (PBN).
The first PBN I did was, in fact, very crude - with very few colors, and large blocks. This looked similar to the original, but would not be confused as it.
Later on, the number of paints increased, and the blocks became much smaller. This painting was much more accurate to the original, and from far enough away, it looked pretty good.
As you increase the range of your pallet and the accuracy of your paint application, you can get pretty darn close to a passable forgery.
With a good scanner and inkjet printer on a 3D substrate, you can fool almost everyone!

I think most of us beginners are hoping for the tools to help us build something that can be a good forgery of an original (replica may be a better term, since presumably none of us are going to try to use someone else's headplate).
Some of us will get stuck in the religion of copying others, but hopefully most will eventually move past that and come up with our own "originals".

We'll try to learn from as many masters as we can - especially in areas that they mostly agree.
We'd appreciate it if ya'll would get your act together and come to some sort of consensus!

Okay, time for some more meds!

This is a really interesting thread which I haven't had enough time to go through yet, but I thought I'd interject a thought that is related to my part-time amateur status. I'm an engineer/physical scientist by profession, and so the approach of the techies would come to me very naturally. When getting into this craft as an amateur, I very specifically wanted to go the other way, to exercise those alternate parts of the brain. Therefore, I'm intrinsically interested in discussions and hints that open windows in the area of developing an ear and the feel for what components should be like. However ... I've come to learn, as a part time builder, that it is often long enough between voicing one top and the next that the notion of developing a muscle memory or an auditory sense is very elusive - the time intervals are too long. As a result, starting with my next build, I plan to go full bore down the techie measure-everything road. I don't see any other way to establish a true degree of continuity from one build to the next.

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu