Official Luthiers Forum!

Just watched this video from David Anthony Reid about his approach to getting his tone. Sounds rather odd to me - I'd be interested to hear what Trevor Gore makes of it...

_________________
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
Pablo Picasso

https://www.facebook.com/FenskeGuitars

Wow.

Double wow.............I got about 4 mins. in and it's too much for me.
Tom

_________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!!!

A lot of novel ideas but what do his guitars sound like?

I found one recording on youtube and although it may appeal
to others, it doesn't me. However, it could be the recording,
of course.

That are some beautiful guitars he makes. What a craftsman!!!

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

Peter, iirc you're not without engineering training. What's your assessment?

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Well I understand something of structural engineering, but when it comes to acoustics, I don't have a clue! To me, the structure itself looks interesting and could be worth experimenting with - it should have a very high stiffness to weight ratio. Otoh, when he taps it it sounds way overbraced to me, but that could be the recording. The thing with tuning different parts of the top to different frequencies makes no sense to me at all. Doesn't the whole plate vibrate as one entity? Same with using different woods for different parts of the bracing. And putting it in front of a speaker while feeling the vibrations of the top is pretty hilarious!

I'm guessing the back would be highly reflective rather than a live back. It certainly looks nice and probably makes a good selling point. It's a bit like a lute.

To me it sounds like he's got a whole bunch of acoustic and engineering principles and put them all together without understanding how they work together.

Actually, now I think about it, it's quite similar to Mcpherson guitars approach...

_________________
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
Pablo Picasso

https://www.facebook.com/FenskeGuitars

exactly- and the surfaces of high fidelity speaker cones would not be designed as a uniform surface if this were not the case. the guy has latched on to gimmickrey which he may or may not believe in, in hopes that will set his guitars "apart" from the pack
i don't know anything about acoustic guitar construction but even a casual glance at that tells me there is way too much unnecessary mass attached to the soundboard. whats up with all the "heavy lift" hoist rings???????

I have a test for Bull in many different fields
If the person (as a non Physicist) starts invoking quantum mechanics then they fail
In the comments on one of his videos, he says "Going deeply into it, you are entering the realms of quantum mechanics"
I guess that's a fail......
It all seems to be about product differentiation and justifying the price by the amount of time put into it.

Peter, trust your instincts!

I put this guy in the Billy Connolly school of guitar making, along with Siminoff and others. I think he did really well relating his story and keeping a straight face for the 5 or so minutes I watched.

The trouble with this sort of stuff is that to some people it sounds plausible, and to those confused people looking for any port in a storm, it sounds inviting. Some of the things he says are obviously true, other stuff is idiotic, but unless one has appropriate training in engineering and acoustics it's difficult for the average punter to tell the good from the bad.

A simple question I asked, years ago, was "How does a guitar work"? I just got answers that were no where near plausible to my engineer's mind and started the journey to find out. Unless one has an understanding of the basic principles: the nature of vibrating strings, how strings drive soundboards, how soundboards radiate sound, how the various parts of a guitar couple together, etc. etc. etc. one is reduced to assembling components off someone's drawing where there is never any specification of material properties or even a basic functional specification regarding playability and musicality. How would that sort of thing live in the world of the ship/plane/bridge builder (for example)? An alternative is the "random walk in the park", changing things incrementally and sifting out the good stuff, but that's a long walk indeed.

So to any builder, young or old, with an inquiring mind and an ambition to make really good guitars I'd say learn the principles correctly as soon as you can and then at least you can move forward with confidence.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

I've watched this bloke for a while and undoubtably his guitars look wonderful. As for his bracing ideas vs the sound of his guitars it seems alot of work for an unimpressive result. He obviously loves what he does and gets a kick out of it all so good luck to him.
What do people think- in the search for an improved guitar sound can any more work on bracing be done? Do we need a revolution in the strings material (possibly based on a spider's web silk, for example) for a distinct change in the sound of a guitar?

_________________
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at guitars.

More than double, you left out population control, with the added bonus that the reduction is from lower inteligence levels.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

Ah, the beauty of marketing and imagination!

_________________
David Malicky

There's definitely something to be said for those who strike out on their own and make their own path. At the same time, one would be wise to consider why there's no path there already.

Interesting the way most you guys have all made up your minds without having heard or played any of David's guitars.

I have my own test for "Bull" - play the guitars and then make up your mind. I've played three of David's over the years and as you Americans would say they "Kick Ass". I don't have to buy into or believe what David outlines in terms of the "theory" - it's more important that he "believes" it as part of his passion and method and as a result makes instruments that deliver musicality in spades and are a delight to play.

There are a number of other makers out there who's "beliefs" I don't agree with that I consider produce great guitars and also a some that don't

I'm with him all the way in his invocation of Evelyn Glennie and "feeling" the musicality of the top/back as an important part of making guitars and if you have the time and interest it's worth watching Evelyn explaining as David describes:

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

No one here is making up their minds on his guitars
There is just not a lot of acceptance of his beliefs.

I think what he's saying is the beliefs don't actually matter.

Regardless of whether the systems assumptions are accurate, the design is consistent and the guitars sound and play good.

The builder has a "formula", so to speak, that produces a good result.

Whether the reality matches what's in the guy's head as to what's actually going on is irrelevant, it's entirely possible that he's doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

Or maybe he's on to something.

The clips I heard sound good to me.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

You can have any beliefs you like
When you publish them in a book or a youtube video you have to expect that they will be subject to peer review and acceptance or rejection.

Todd,

That's perfectly fine but, firstly it wasn't David that posted the video here and the comments questions weren't directed at him for him to respond to and defend. Secondly I hope that :



isn't the standard form of comment and critique when peer reviews are being made.

Thirdly having watched his video again it's hard to make the point that David lacks a "conscious process" - the criticism seems to be more about his use of "scientific" terms in some of his explanations that doesn't fit technically with Science as we currently know it Jim.

Fourthly if we are going to rigourously go down the academic route for understanding/explaining and making guitars then lets have a proper peer review process from the top/acknowledged academic experts in acoustic science for ALL of the guitar making "textbooks" currently doing the rounds - that would be interesting indeed.

Lastly we can always go down the wormhole again of just how much the engineering principles knocking around truly help make great acoustic instruments versus all the other methods - including Mojo and the Tone Faeries. At the very least it helps pass the time in an entertaining way.

I'm just off to Youtube - now that I've been made aware that it's an Academic Mecca and debating ground like "Nature" and "The New Scientist" - to check if the physics equations still break down when you get to the centre of Black Holes. Toodle Pip.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010