Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm using the title of the thread to tweak Hesh, simply cause I can

But a good point was raised in his "best practices" thread.

One thing we can learn from factory-built instruments is not to overbuild.

But what is overbuilding?

I've got an interview in the new issue of American Lutherie with Sergei de Jonge, and he's quite explicit that structural integrity is at the top of his list for a great guitar. And if it takes a number of years to "open up", so be it.

On the other hand, Ervin Somogyi has little problem with some bellying behind the bridge and braces telegraphing through the top.

I'm not suggesting that structural integrity doesn't matter to Ervin, but if there's a continuum, I'd suggest that Sergei is at one end and Ervin at the other.

2 great builders. 2 entirely different directions.

I welcome any thoughts and opinions that may be out there.

And thanks and apologies to Hesh

Steve

A turning point in getting the whole package I was shooting for was building a little tighter. Early on I tended to over voice.

My friend Hanns Brentrup calls calls guitars voiced close to the edge out of the gate "instant gratification" instruments.

I am striving for a guitar that sounds good out of the gate but continues to mature while hopefully holding together for a long time. Given the tortoise-like progress in evaluating tweaks building 6-7/year and my age they'll probably put "still striving" on my tombstone.

I am in the camp of building a little tighter and expecting a nice maturing over the years. Most of my "tighter" to date centers around top deflection and brace voicing. I still use smaller bridge plates, non tucked brace ends, and thinning the edges of the lower bout.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I would define it as excessive soundboard stiffness, excessive soundboard mass, or both. Large guitars are prone to the mass type, small guitars are prone to the stiffness type.

My current theory is that small guitars should have minimal overall stiffness but a little extra mass to help lower the resonant frequencies and damp the harsh highs. And large guitars should have a thin soundboard to get the mass down, but overall stiffness a little higher than strictly necessary to raise the resonant frequencies, unless you actually need the low frequency response like for a baritone or harp guitar. Medium size you can do anything you want and it will probably sound good.

I'd really like to flex and tap and weigh some soundboards from Hesh, Somogyi, DeJonge, Brentrup, Greven, Gore, and other builders to get an idea of exactly how much variation there really is, as opposed to variation in the builder's own perception of what they're doing. Check the bridge rotation under string tension too, and see how close it is to the Gore/Gilet 2 degree standard.


What size of guitar do you typically build? I'm curious if it matches my theory above...

Mostly OM-000 stuff with a smattering of size 2's, dreds, and Archtops.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

That's part of the Internet bummer. All pictures, text, and audio through little speakers. Oh well.

Well I haven't seen the other guys listed above posting here but Hesh. Are they on this forum? It would be great to hear what builders are doing, even if anecdotally.

Hesh would you share a little on the current steel strings you are building and what you're doing with the tops these days, with thickness and bracing? Are you constant thickness or thinning toward middle or perimeter? What do your clients say, and does that influence how you set up your tops?

Terence what did you mean by "over-voice"? Could you say a bit more about that?

Thanks ... super to have such folks sharing their latest experiences!

Andy

For me overvoicing was thinner tops wider braces and deeper scalloping of the braces.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

And the result? Now did you go wider on your bracing from earlier guitars or something you saw?

Steve my friend no apologies needed here this is EXACTLY what I had hoped someone would do with the information mined in the other thread about best/worst practices. Good going!

Bluntly stated, I think that overbuilding is a term that was made up by or adopted by those with a superiority complex. If you want to make a jangly room-filling acoustic guitar I'm sure you will find your market if other aspects like fit and finish are acceptable. if that guitar fails in a certain amount of time, so be it. Why does an instrument have to last forever anyway. In this case the marketing text would be something similar to, my instruments are built to fill an auditorium with sound. And it could be well known in those in the know, that these instruments only last 15 years. Why is this not fine. The buyer can decide.

On the other hand many recordings were made with heavily build instruments and those sounds are what is desired. So musicians are looking for that sound whatever has caused it.
Either way seems fine to me. Maybe even building a super resonant room filling instrument that lasts much longer. No one is going to know Until years and years down the road probably most of us will be dead

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

Sorry I meant narrower, my bad.

One thing that altered my thinking was looking over a Goodall guitar that a highly regarded pro player in Minneapolis loved. It sounded great. I was surprised, looking inside, to see that it was fairly robust. That got me thinking about trying a little different path and for me it has been a good one based on player response. As always there are a million paths to a good outcome in lutherie.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

The expectations of the buyer and the ego of the builder hoping to leave behind an artistic treasure -- at least a family heirloom. We are not making "fireworks" -- these are musical tools.

I for one do not want to be associated with the "disposal goods" mentality.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Amen!

I'll be the contrarian here: Why can't an instrument be built to last nearly... forever with decent care AND be crafted to sound fantastic in less than three decades.....

It's been done before!

I'd be happy for them to at least last beyond the life of the owner and me so I'm not bothered with pesky call backs.

No one seems to be taking in the player style here. IMHO that is HUGE. A heavy handed flat picker playing with medium or heavy strings, their needs will be quite different from the light touch, no picks, finger stylist.

I'm pretty sure that a lightly built guitar can easily be over driven by the former of the players. And there in lyes the importance of spending some time with a customer while he is playing BEFORE building for him.

And...... good thread Steve!

The dichotomy between longevity and sound quality I believe is overblown. My guess is most great sounding old instruments sounded pretty dam good from the get-go.
The notion that an, "overbuilt" instrument will improve dramatically over time is too often clung to by buyers soothing themselves about money they have spent, or want to spend. And sellers/builders that are happy to collude with the notion that it might not sound great now, but in a few years (and after the check has cleared), it will be great.

I think there is a lot of room on the durable/servicable side of building for instruments that sound excellent straight away.

Perhaps now more than ever with the availability of the torifaction process. Of course the jury is still out and likely will be for several decades regarding this process but it is promising....

Completely agree David!

Notice I did state either way is fine.

I follow the players forums also. I think the most respected and busy makers fall into two separate categories. First are those that follow tradition Solely. Second are those that emphasize good craftsmanship. Possibly a third category could be those that innovate but I don't think it's very popular.

Ken, I get the heirloom thing. I think it's great I love seeing those kind of instruments. I would never discourage somebody from doing that if that was what they were called to do.

There is a true calling and market for instruments that are well-known to wear out. Or at least purchased with that possibility in mind. And those might just be the best for those buyers.

There's a lot of room for discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

Ken, could you please expand on breaking builders into two camps? Because I don't see that they are in any way mutually exclusive. But I may be misunderstanding your point.

And in reference to another point, if you follow the AGF, you'll have seen the high regard shown for Somogyi's apprentices. If they actually follow their mentor, they make extremely lightly-built guitars. I've never played one of them, but I've played one of Ervin's, and it was like the heavens opening and the angels singing

Overbuilding is like obscenity, you know it when you hear it

I've done a lot of reading on these tops, but you know how that Internet Lore thing works. I thought I might find something on how one can "torify" one's tops, but no luck thus far. Hesh have you built with any torrified tops? Can you shed some light on how they're different out of the gate? Any others have experience with them? I'd find it insightful to hear!

Thanks all! What a great forum - so thankful to see so many people sharing their experience on these topics! Most appreciated!

Andy

I think overbuilding is building the top or back in such a way that they don't work at their full potential. To that extent, I'm sure we can under-build as well, but we don't see it nearly as much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am a member of the AGF although I do not participate. I am mostly an electric guitar maker although I still make acoustic guitars and violin instruments. I am also a member over at maestro net The form for violin enthusiasts. I remember discussing this very subject years ago. It seems there is a clear consensus on the subject of overbuilding. That is that players who purchase instruments generally perceived that there is a certain playing in of an instrument that makes it better. There are very exclusive dealers however that disagree. These dealers having been in the position of watching professional musicians choose an instrument for solo or orchestra use know that and easily responsive instrument is not always desirable. Some musicians like the struggle or the headroom or whatever you want to call it. And these dealers seem to ignore the playing in aspect all together. It's more like purchasing a sports car.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

There is a smattering of wheat in the chaff. Much more information surfacing in the last half year. Doubt the mystique will last too much longer, can see it just be seen as another (affordable) option.

Built one guitar with it. Do not have a non-baked version to compare with but the change in the pre to post treated raw wood is definitely noticeable. Don't think I will bake every piece of wood but I can see doing a fair bit of it. Sure if you search this forum, and a few others, you might find the information you are looking for.

It really depends on what instrument you're talking about. Classical guitars do have a specific purpose for lack of a better word. Steel string guitar's are variable. As are electric.

I think you are a classical guitar builder correct? This is an instrument with a definite purpose or use. There is a standard repertoire with a general concert hall size in mind. Of course we all know this is variable but that is common. If you keep the discussion Limited to categories like this you're not racing a Formula One with the NASCAR.

And I will try to answer your question directly in the next post




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

"The dichotomy between longevity and sound quality I believe is overblown. My guess is most great sounding old instruments sounded pretty dam good from the get-go."

I agree with this statement. One reason old instruments survive is that the players liked them enough to take care of them.

"For me overvoicing was thinner tops wider braces and deeper scalloping of the braces."

Maybe this could be called "underbuilding" , as well. Sometimes when learning a craft we take things a little too far. I think it's part of the learning curve. When I started brewing beer, I made brews that were progressively more hoppy, until finally I made one that was medicinal tasting and completely undrinkable. I made a couple of instruments that were underbuilt. They were loud but harsh sounding, and self destructed in a few months time. I now prefer to leave my tops a little thicker, but not so thick as to sound dead when new.
As Danny V mentioned I think it is important to know what kind of instrument you are building and what type of music it will be used for. Putting heavy weight strings on an instrument designed for silk and steel is asking for trouble. What would be "overbuilt" for one style of music might be "underbuilt" for another.