Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm building a few acoustics at the moment. I decided to make my own kerfing. I made reverse kerfed linings out of basswood. I feel like they may be too wide. It didn't occur to me at the time but lately I've been doing a lot of reading/research on voicing and living in the minutia of it all.

What I'm wondering is if my linings are too wide. Meaning... If they extend too far out from the sides and into that area of the top that is tough to make springy. I noticed the pre-fab ones on the market live in the 7/32" - 1/4" range. Mine are 3/8". I wonder if this is going to be prohibitive to the response of the guitar(s). I'm at a point now where I have the option of replacing them with more narrow ones but I don't know if it's worth the trouble.

Thanks,
-Aaron

_________________
"I'm not going to say that perfection has never been achieved. However, if it has, it probably went unnoticed due to it's lack of character."

Or.... you could with a file and before gluing on the top bevel the "kerfed linings" back to around 1/4" of gluing surface. You will get the benefit of stiffening the rim greatly but the top is still only restricted as if you used 1/4" kerfed linings.

Be sure that the kerfs are frequent enough and deep enough too so that the linings do all the bends well. Maybe do a dry run too first.

It seems like in the not too distant past there was some discussion about using over size linings to -improve- the sound of the guitar. For most designs 3/8 linings shouldn't make much difference. If you find the linings a little to stiff to bend around the sides you can sand the "web" a little thinner to give them more flexibility. When I make them with multiple blades and spacers on the table saw I leave the web thicker to give strength while cutting, then sand it thinner to give it flexibility.

You see... That's why I love this place. What a great idea. Thanks!

But my suspicion and mode of thinking is not completely off base though, right?

_________________
"I'm not going to say that perfection has never been achieved. However, if it has, it probably went unnoticed due to it's lack of character."

Right and good thinking on your part by the way. That extra 1/8" of lining multiplied by the entire length of the linings front and back is the amount of real estate, top and back, that won't be free to vibrate as freely. I would liken it to possibly an OOO sized guitar with the plates that are free to vibrate of an OO 1/2 guitar....

While we are here Taylor and others use a rabbit on the underside of the top thinning the top around the lower bout perimeter to also free up the top not unlike a bit of a hinge to vibrate more freely. This in conjunction with beveling the linings to a more conventional size and you will be doing a lot to free up the top. Just don't over brace as all of us do on early instruments.

I wanted to add that some very good builders use laminated sides or they like to call them double sides to greatly stiffen the rim. I think that this is a good practice too although I've never done it but I have played double sided instruments and was pleased with the response.

Your extra thick linings so long as they are not attached to the top in additional areas has a rim stiffening affect as well which is likely a good thing.

Hmm... I'm interested to see how this goes. Who knows? Maybe I've just stumbled upon a new part of my bracing system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"I'm not going to say that perfection has never been achieved. However, if it has, it probably went unnoticed due to it's lack of character."

Maybe just bevel from the sound hole back to the tail block?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"I'm not going to say that perfection has never been achieved. However, if it has, it probably went unnoticed due to it's lack of character."

Aaron that sounds like a good idea to me too AND while we are at it there is also the issue of "tucking" brace ends.

Lots of builders have their preferences when it comes to tucking into the linings the brace ends or beveling than away to nothing. What I do and have success with is to tuck the upper transverse brace and the upper X legs only.

I've never believed that the upper bout contributes all that much to the sound and tone of a guitar but I can't prove it and admittedly it's speculation on my part.

Anyway if you leave your linings full thickness from the sound hole forward (toward the neck) you will have lots of linings to tuck the upper transverse brace and upper X legs into. Obviously enough is enough and more is not necessarily better but getting things tucked away nicely when that's your intent does not hurt.

I also think that the thicker linings "may....." contribute to a stiffer upper bout. A stiffer upper bout "might...." belay the need for a neck reset a bit longer too since neck resets become required because of upper bout body distortion resulting from constant string tension over time and the structural deficiencies of the traditional acoustic guitar design.

Are you onto something? Perhaps! One way to find out, build it and wait 40 years and see and when you do if you want to dig me up and let me know that would be appreciated!

Will do.

I usually tuck my lower x-brace legs as well. That way there is less chance of the top skating around when I'm messing with go bars and glue. I've also heard others say that it helps to distribute the vibrations to the sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"I'm not going to say that perfection has never been achieved. However, if it has, it probably went unnoticed due to it's lack of character."

The idea of untucked braces in the lower bout is to ensure they do not distribute vibrations to the sides, thus robbing the top of some amount of resonance.

Builders who build with double sides make the sides (once doubled) to about 0.120" instead of 0.080" plus their 0.25" liners, thus making the side and lining thickness 0.380". Now if your sides are 0.080" plus your 0.375" lining you're not adding much to the edge as far as stiffening up the top goes.

What size guitar are you making? If it's smaller than an OM or OOO I'd likely make different liners at 0.25", but if the guitar is Dred size or larger I wouldn't worry about it much. You can also make sure the top braces are thinned at the perimeter to adjust for the wider liners.

But really I don't think the wider liners will make too much of a difference...


Oh, and have you glued the liners to the rims yet? If not you can shave them down so that they are 0.25" or narrower.... Running them through a thickness sander would work.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Seems to me I tried this. I think I ended up with tentalones or whatever those single pieces of lining people glue on.

1/4" is as wide as I like to go with linings. I also do reverse kerf and make them about 3/4" tall and with the hinge part thick enough that I have to bend it in a bender. That way I don't end up with unsightly breaks and it is the next best thing to a solid lining. It makes for a very stiff side and I hear that's good.

FWIW. I've only done one guitar where I tucked the lower braces and I didn't like the outcome. Good flat picker to hammer away on though.

Cheers,
Danny

Ya I guess so..... but what about running them through at an angle.....don't know if that would work.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson