Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi guys. For the last year or so I have been studying everything I can find on acoustic guitar construction(I build electrics). I've settled on building an L-00 from the Grellier plans.
http://www.grellier.fr/plans/Gibson_L-00/Gibson_L-00_en.pdf
My question is that I would like to knock one inch in body depth off of this guitar. I have physical issues, which is why I build and play electrics, and I'd like to try a little shallower body depth and see if that helps. I like the L-00 shape and size, except for the depth, and since it will be my first acoustic I'm sure I'll be the one playing it, so I don't really see too much downside.
I was just wondering if I could get some insight into what I might give up in projection/volume and perhaps low end by doing this, and/or anything I might do to mitigate this.
Any experienced viewpoint is welcome. Thanks.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

I'll let some more experienced folks talk about the results of a shallower body depth. My thought was if maybe building a wedge into the body might help you out or if you think it may be possible for your first acoustic build. I have never built a wedge myself but I know a couple of other amateurs here have.

_________________
Kyle

Hi Mike,

I have built a few from these lovely plans, but standard depth.
You are going from 3 1/4 to 4 3/8 depth to 2 1/4 to 3 3/8.
The plans call for a 24 3/4" scale (630mm)
Might I suggest you consider a 25.4" scale?

Rob

Steve, thanks. Concerning the wedge, I think for a first build I'll stay pretty conservative. There is going to be enough to learn, deal with and get right just building a standard acoustic. Changing the body depth is one thing. Altering a build for a wedge is something I definitely want to do, but I'd like to get 5-6 builds under my belt before I start veering off of traditional build techniques. Once I feel like I understand the process enough, then I can start to branch out and try new things. I think I've got it in my head, now I need to get it to my hands. Basics first.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Rob, thanks. I actually like the short scale. It's one of the reasons I chose this design. Are you saying a longer scale might help get back what I may lose with the reduced body depth? If so, that's something I would consider.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Mike, can't say I blame you. I feel the same way. It would be a great goal to build toward though if you think it would help you. Good luck with the L-00.

_________________
Kyle

Thanks, Steve. And yeah, I will go there eventually.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Mike, all you can do is give it a try. Sure you loose a little space in the guitar but I'm sure it'll still be ok. You may lose a little here or there in terms of sound but being your first build I doubt you will be able to tell.

Filippo, yeah, I own an Epiphone EL-00. Not a high end guitar, but it gets a decent sound for what it is(of course, I shoved my hand in there and shaved some braces), and I can play it for 10 or 15 minutes if I sit down to do it, but then the nerve damage in my shoulder and arm/hand is too much for me.
But I would like to have an acoustic that I can stand up and perform with. That may not be possible.
As for the 0 size, I've considered it, but I have never even seen one in person or held one in my hands. I have no clue about it's construction, what it's supposed to sound like, etc., but I really don't want to stray from an X brace design. I saw some type of smaller bodied Gibson style plan that I think was around that size, but it was ladder braced. I'll pass on that one. But if I can find a decent Martin 0 sized plan I might consider it.
Zeke, thanks for the encouragement.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

I've built one from that plan and I don't think there's anything in the construction that should prevent you from adapting it to a shallower depth. You're obviously going to compromise the sound, but for the benefit of a slimmer body that's probably acceptable to you. Maybe if you plan to install a pickup of some sort, you can at least plug it in if you feel it lacks projection or volume.

I know Filippo recommended the 0 instead of reducing body depth but, and not that my opinion is worth much, I'd consider building the 0 and still reducing its depth, though only really if I accepted that it would perform better plugged in. The 00 lower bout isn't that small and, conversely, Martin did once advertise the 0 as their biggest guitar!

Maybe I shouldn't say it, but seeing as you're going to be fairly significantly diverging from the plan anyway, you don't really need one for an 0. Take the 00 plan and adapt (relocate braces slightly and thin them) it for an 0 size shape that you can draw in g-thang [after about half an hour of working it out if you're like me - just load up the 000 and adjust the measurements and you'll do it quicker]!

http://www.acousticguitar.com/Gear/Reviews/Martin-0-28VS-Review

Someone will chime in if that's not good advice!

Good luck!

Mike, I just finished building an 00 sized guitar - but the one thing that I learned is that the size means different things to different builders. There are two Grellier plans - one apparently the Gibbie L-00, the other a more generic one (maybe an 00-17?). I also got the measurements off of an absolutely stunning little SCGC 00 as well as my 000 (built from StewMac plans).

Depths at the tail block range from 4-3/8 on the L-00 to 4 on the SCGC (I used 4-1/8), and at the neck block from 3-3/8 on the L-00 to 3-1/4 on the SCGC (which is what I used). I also made some other changes - long scale (I down tune a lot), 12 fret, fairly deeply scalloped 5/16 braces, and, oh yeah, it's all mahogany.

I'm really happy with the little thing - its remarkably loud, nicely balanced and the mahogany gives it a woody bluesy sound (I'll probably build one just like it with a spruce top just 'cause I like it so much). One additional advantage is that it does fit perfectly in a standard TKL case. I'd be happy to furnish any information that might be helpful.

I won't highjack your thread with a picture, but if you want to see it go here

http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Acoust ... #U35912971

Nick, thanks. I have no problem altering plans if I need to. But I'm pretty set on reducing body depth with the L-00 plan as the base. I know it's not ideal, but I need to adapt. I'm also thinking of a flatter back radius, maybe 20'. That might also help the instrument feel thinner.
Freeman, thanks. Feel free to post pics if you want. Inspiration, you know. The more the merrier. That's a beautiful instrument.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Thought I may as well link http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=41607 this recent "shallow 00" build thread in case you haven't seen it.

All the best,

Mike , i did a few L00 from Grellier, with mahagony back and sides and for top i used spruce and Red Canadian Cedar and i could not believe what nice and blues sound project that small body. And like a Freeman said "its remarkably loud", really is.
I don't know what you're gona loose with reducing the size of the body, but i am sure in one thing, if that will be your first built of acoustic guitar you're gona be satisfied. I am telling you this from my experience.

_________________
My page:
http://www.jurisinguitars.info
Details about building:
http://www.facebook.com/akusticne.gitare.jurisin
https://twitter.com/jurisinguitars
Email:
aleksandar@jurisinguitars.info

Nick, thanks for the link. Aleksandar, thanks for sharing your experiences.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Thank you. I do have a little spreadsheet of all of the dimensions of the different 00 permutations that I could send to you - PM me an e-mail addy. Also, I started a build thread on a different forum but it kind of petered out - might give you some inspiration however.

http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Acoust ... p/35542693

Mike,

I have built a L-00 using those plans. I didn't decrease the body depth, but I shrunk the body dimensions. I used a 14" lower bout, 9 1/2" upper bout and an 18" body length. I know it is apples to oranges compared to what you are trying to do, but the guitar has a great sound\volume and is very comfortable to play. Since I haven't built a full size one, I can't compare, but I'll be building more with this size. It is a fine sounding guitar even with the loss of internal air volume.

Good luck,

John

Freeman, that's a beautiful guitar and great work. You should finish that thread, regardless of the response you get.
John, thanks. I know it's not the same, but it's still good to know.
Several people have mentioned that they changed the design in one way or another and still liked the results. That gives me hope, at least.
Also, I'll have to do the math, but I'm pretty sure that if I choose to go with a flatter back radius I can make the depth at the neck heel a bit thicker, which may not influence tone, but it might look a bit better.
Filippo, I think so, too. I have played dreads most of my life, and never considered anything else until my body made the decision for me. I really like the L-00 shape and feel, now I just need to mess with it a bit and find out if I can make it work better for me.
If I achieve nothing else, I'll hopefully at least gain the experience in building an acoustic. If I find that I don't like what the changes do, I can always build another. It's not like I won't be doing that anyway, lol.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Mike,
To answer your original question, I would GUESS you would lose bass.
You will still have the same size sound board so the trebles and mid should be fine, but it won't have the same boom.

I think of what happens when I change the depth of an OM. No matter how deep I make it, it never sounds like a Dread. But the thinner it is, the better the trebles sound and the more people on the other side of the room comment on how well they hear it.

Stick with a smaller profiled bridge too. You will get more focus to the tone.

I can't recommend following the Grellier plan religiously for the bracing. The Gibson it was based on was probably over braced in the first place. Leave the height of the upper X and UTB. Cut down the braces around the sound hole to something less cartoonish. Taper the tone bars and lower X legs down. Tuck the X, feather the fingers and tone bars. If that is the plan with the monster finger braces, ignore that too. 3/8" high max on those.

Dave, thanks. Filippo, that's a really cool offer. I appreciate it!

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Another suggestion would be to build a Martin size 1 style guitar. The narrower body (12 3/4 inches) is more comfortable for some people. They use the 24.9 inch scale. They are not overly deep so I would hesitate making them any shallower.

I'd say decreasing the depth will favor the treble side of the range. I've done this on a couple ukuleles when I had to cheat a bit on the side depth to use stock I had. They come out brighter or trebley sounding than usual. Not a huge difference, just brighter.
I never did one THAT much shallower....you're talking around 25% reduction in body volume. I maybe did 10% on my ukes.
Maybe a smaller sound hole would move the body response more bassy to compensate?? Just guessing based on what I've heard from people doing larger than usual sound holes.

Clay,thanks for the suggestion. I've looked at a couple of size 1 plans, and all of them are not very different in depth (4.25" lower bout)than any other acoustic plan I've seen. Maybe somewhere around that depth is just what works out to be right. Don't know, but being that's the case, I'd rather have the L-00 size and thin it a bit than an even smaller body every where else.
I may play with keeping the shape but narrowing the lower bout a bit as well. I'm also considering reducing depth by 1/2" instead of 1". But if I don't go far enough to make a difference there's really no sense in doing it at all.
But that's what this thread is about. I've spent the last year or so going over every angle of construction I could possibly think of(and still doing it). I will chew this angle to death until I figure out exactly what I want to do, and then start drawing up plans.
Quine, thanks for sharing your experiences. The smaller sound hole sounds like it might be a good idea. Thanks.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

Alan Carruth has addressed this type of question on the OLF, but, as often happens, I can't get the search function to work for me. Here's a related post from Alan on another forum: http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/foru ... 50593.html

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

To be straight - we are talking L-00 not 00, right? Here is a reference point for you.

The Nick Lucas Specials were up to 5" thick, and some did not taper over the length of the body. This is about 5/8-3/4" deeper than standard. They have a little more bass and little more volume, but since the bridge is in the center of the lower bout, it is hard to attribute these two changes to depth alone.

I would guess that you won't hurt the sound much, and has been said, it may be a bit stronger on the treble side and have a little less volume.