Official Luthiers Forum!

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.

Ed, thanks. Yeah, the standard Gibson L-00 design, particularly represented by the Grellier design linked to in the first post.

_________________
Mike

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

To add a bit more to the discussion, I have build a very thin version of an L-00. Sort of.







And after I put some sound holes/ports in.


The guitar is not truly acoustic, as the back and sides consist of an electric guitar body that is 1.5" thick, completely hollowed out to a depth of 1.25". It has a thicknessed spruce top with two semi parallel braces spanning it's length.
It has a Fishman Powerjack endpin pre amp and a schatten sbt pickup.
Here is a soundclip of it's acoustic sound(not the pickup). This was recorded with an Oktava MK 319 LDC pointed 8" or so from the 14th fret. No editing or eq,
https://soundcloud.com/gitlvr/faux-acoustic-deme-in-g
I think it sounds pretty good and fairly balanced, and it is L O U D !
What I'm really after with this thread is how much depth can I give up without giving up the basic character of the L-00.
While the guitar above doesn't sound bad, it is way different IMHO from the standard L-00 sound I'm used to hearing.

_________________
Mike

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

Mike, you can get a feel for the difference by going by the closest music store that has an Ibanez or Fender "thin" acoustic. Now, they're
probably 1/2" thinner in the lower bout, but to guess I'd bet the neck block is in the range of taking this one down an inch.
I haven't strummed one of those in a while, but from what I recall they were quite a bit quieter and much less bass responsive.
Just a thought as I know it's sometimes easier to "hear" something than to "see" it in all things guitar related.

Eric, thanks. Yeah, I forgot about the Ibanez models. I did not know Fender did any thin acoustics.

_________________
Mike

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

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember they made both a "Strat" version and a "Tele" version in a "Thinline Acoustic".