Official Luthiers Forum!

I've read a lot of posts about making guitars that last a long time, 50 more years, that sound like a Martin or Gibson. Then in this same posts I've seen arguments as to why that approach was right or wrong, even though the original poster was simply expanding on the basic designs of the manufacturer they were studying( i.e. tone Vs. warranty ). But, I'm curious about ideas beyond those boundaries.

What if there were one instrument you could make, and it were played one time and it sounded the best it could, given that "best" fits within the standard definition of western music.

What would the instrument be? And what would be the basic construction?(i.e. flat top, 6 string tuned E -E , fan bracing with steel stings...) Forget about 50 years from now, we're all dead, you cant hear it anyway s, what about now?

Look at any of the instruments people show on here. Everyone's trying to do that on every guitar they build...

_________________
"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

I'm not looking to be contrary, but you sound like you are really asking what is the best way to construct a guitar for the best sound and defining absolutely nothing.
(I'll take it you are talking SS, not classicals)
For a start, "best" is subjective. e.g. Martin/Gibson/Taylor/Lowden etc (just some "big" names, use Olson/Somogyi/Kragenbrink if you prefer)
Sound? - to play what type of music? Fingerstyle/Blues/rockabilly/Jazz/Celtic.
Best - Responsive? - see Gore/Somogyi books (possibly)
Instrument - parlour/dread/OM/archtop, etc?
Played one time? - no break in time? - - Kind of rules out spruce for a top.
Played one time -then it collapses? - Really, no-one tries for this (as far as I know)
I've sometimes heard that the "best sounding" of any type of guitar is built on the point of collapse. Doesn't mean it's the "best" guitar.
Get my drift?
BTW - also see above post.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

The best guitars I've built were built very light. I keep going in that direction pushing the limits. I highly doubt they will last 50 years without at least a neck reset but who cares? Maybe some people do but then they won't be playing one of my guitars. Having done repairs for 20 years has been a great help in seeing how old guitars were built and what they turned out to be. An old guitar can still be non responsive, the age has little to do with it if it's over built in the first place.

Yep... The real devil is... What's optimum?

Then - if you poke around, you will find that there are infinite variations on bracing schemes.. Some are wild, some are just slight modifications of standard well understood patterns... and yet - the guitars always sound like guitars.... There are certainly differences within the guitar sounds... but they don't sound like Pianos or Trumpets....

THEN - if you want to play amplified - you don't want your instrument feeding back all the time... so you would like it designed for such.... and there are trade off's there too.... One of the beauties of normal, super duper overbuilt Factory guitars is that they are generally well behaved on stage....

I guess - what's YOUR optimum?

One definition of 'optimum' is: "the greatest degree attained under implied or specified conditions". You have not, as others have pointed out, specified very much, so it's hard to guess what the 'optimum' might be.

What makes you think that it has not been reached? After all, generations of makers have been trying for it. To think that they may not have achieved something close to 'optimum' design implies, as David Pye said, that they were all fools. All bets are, of course, off, if you introduce a new material, such as carbon fiber composite; then a new, better 'optimum' might be said to exist, and you
ll move toward that.

But note that 'optimum' is not the same thing as 'perfect'. The latter implies that there is some level of performance or state of being that cannot be improved upon, whether or not is has been, or can be, realized. 'Optimum' is simply 'as good as anybody's been able to do under the circumstances'.

It would seem to me that the way to go about this is to first look at the existing designs that use technology you're comfortable with. Decide for yourself how those depart from 'optimum' as you see it: perhaps, as you imply, they are over built, since in your world longevity (and the reliability that goes with it) are not as important. This will lead you to design changes that might 'improve' the function as you see it, without incurring unacceptable costs. Be aware that these things are systems: often it happens that things work in ways that are hard to predict, and changes that might seem innocuous could jump up and bite you.

The important thing to see is that existing designs are probably nearly 'optimum' in some circumstances. What you need to do is define the differences in circumstances that interest you, and figure out how to change the designs in response to achieve a similar degree of optimization in the new conditions.

One aspect of systems engineering that is counterintuitive is that optimizing all the parts of a system does NOT necessarily produce an optimum system. That plus the difficulty of defining what the optimum system is makes this a retorical discussion.

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

It seems to me many are making instruments to last generations, with some maintenance. But yes they also go for a particular sound they have in mind.

Ray

Well, yeah, sorry...I should have said acoustic, not electric. I wouldn't rule out nylon strings since it allows for a lighter guitar. Really any acoustic instrument is ok, and I do recognize they are different. Best mandolin is just as valid as best guitar, possibly better. Some instruments would seem pointless to consider for this, like my banjo which will be here long after I'm gone. And it sounds the way it does because it is so solid. Rings like a bell because it's just as heavy.

But I do see your point. I'm not really asking what's the best way to construct, but rather what things might be done if longevity of the instrument wasn't a concern. For example the brace pattern may not need to be such that it prevents distortion of the soundboard under continued tension. In fact in some cases no braces at all would work.

Thanks for the response because you do point out some things I didn't really consider, like break in time.

Ray

Well said. You strike me as a longevity builder from what I've seen of your work.


Ray

That's what I'm doing now, building as light as I dare, then going a little further. It seems to be working for now, probably since I started out overbuilding so much.

Yes I'm playing around with different bracing patterns. I've been using an x based on plans and also discussion on this forum regarding longevity. But I like the idea of a fan and lighter strings.

Ray

Yes, I my post is vague. I think the responders, including yourself, have all provided useful information though. And thanks. I think more information in my post would have been leading the conversation, which I did not want to do.

And, I've been studying various instrument designs from plans I've been acquiring. I've built some.

Ray

Good point.

Ray

This may interest you http://www.brunner-guitars.com/?page_id=387

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Yes! Thanks Colin, I had not seen this. That's an interesting approach. I like the idea of laminated, or even shallow carved tops.

Ray

So... You realize you asked "What's the best animal".... And then when we asked "What's Best?".... You said... "Ok... Best Mammal...."

On the subject of building "Light"... Let's assume you are talking about the soundboard... and not just trying to randomly make stuff light for light... like say using Balsa neck and tail blocks....

"Light as you dare"... is usually a whole lot heavier than "So light that it sounds funny"... and that's still even heavier than "So light it fails".....

For example... I built a D-size steel string guitar with a top that ended up somewhere around 0.080" in reasonably light Lutz... Bracing was pretty light too - maybe starting off at 1/2" tall x 1/4" wide... No danger of implosion... but I really had to spend some time on the bridge so it wouldn't sound crazy.... Even then - the main air was down around D.... Once it broke in - It was a monster tuned down to D... but was kinda wooshy in standard tuning....

The real issue has nothing to do with implosion (Unless your bracing is poorly thought out and executed).. as much as it has to do with sounding "Normal" at standard tunings... Too lightly built and you are stuck looking for alternate tunings to deal with main air and top resonances a couple notes below "Normal"..... This is especially relevant with larger body guitars... as "Too light" will basically leave you with something you may be able to use as a baritone guitar....

Now... on the other hand. going SUPER DUPER light can be really great with small body guitars.... as they are already skewed towards really bright/lacking bass....

Unfortunately, there's always trade off's... Do the sort of thing I am talking about and you are ALWAYS going to get braces telegraphing... Always going to see a belly.. and sometimes, it's going to go south once things "Break in" after hours and hours of playing...

but if that sort of thing doesn't bother you - then have at it....

Actually I believe I said "best reptile". But I do understand how that could be missed. i wouldn't have asked what's the best mammal since it is obviously the liger.

I left off defining best because it seemed the many of the responses seemed to be saying "seek happiness within." I'm good with that so chose to move on.

Really the question is directed at the design trade offs you mention. By best I mean sounds as good as it can to you. So, anyway thanks and your response is much appreciated.

If you're REALLY interested in design considerations for acoustic guitars, the Gore/Gilet book is most excellent.

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