Official Luthiers Forum!

Owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Fri May 30, 2025 1:30 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 12:44 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:19 am
Posts: 592
Location: St. Charles MO
First name: Karl
Last Name: Borum
State: MO
Zip/Postal Code: 63303
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I've been digging into the "main resonance modes" for about a year now;
Why is a dreadnaught sound hole ~3.90" diameter?[/b]

The main air resonance of 6 of my dreadnaughts [ T(1,1)1 ] is so very close to 6th String Open E (82.4hz) that it dampens that note, and some of the fretted octaves of that note. With the body sizes being a MOL common factor (that is; the air volume) why is that 3.90" [edited] sound hole size become a "standard"?


Guitars I measured (sound hole with calipers, frequency with REW analyzer):
  • J-45
  • Mexican Martin
  • Yamaha Dread
  • 3 "Borum-built" dreads (of course the same hole size, specified by my plan/ drawings)

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum


Last edited by Kbore on Thu May 29, 2025 5:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 3:05 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:46 pm
Posts: 2168
First name: Freeman
Last Name: Keller
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
My 1974 D18 and 1980 D12-28 both have 4 inch sound holes which I thought was standard. There are also the various large sound hole D-28's, usually 4.25, credited to Tony Rice. There are some discussion at UMGF.

I haven't bothered to measure the main air resonance, I mostly build OM's and use 3-7/8.



These users thanked the author Freeman for the post: Kbore (Thu May 29, 2025 5:09 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 4:47 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 7508
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
4.9 seems like a pretty big sound hole, and would raise the main air frequency considerably. How confident are you in you REW measurements?



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post: Kbore (Thu May 29, 2025 5:37 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 5:04 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:46 pm
Posts: 2168
First name: Freeman
Last Name: Keller
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I guess I could take a spectrum (I have Alan Lambert's software) of the D18. Its tricky to get in a form that is easy to post someplace like this (a jpg or pdf) but I certainly mail one to Karl. I assume you are just measuring the response to a tap on the bridge



These users thanked the author Freeman for the post: Kbore (Thu May 29, 2025 5:37 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 5:36 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:19 am
Posts: 592
Location: St. Charles MO
First name: Karl
Last Name: Borum
State: MO
Zip/Postal Code: 63303
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
meddlingfool wrote:
4.9 seems like a pretty big sound hole, and would raise the main air frequency considerably. How confident are you in you REW measurements?

EDITED in OP: 3.9" - thank you for catching that, 4.9" would be a monster.
Very confident in REW measurements- I shelled out $100 for a mic with a calibration file and validated REW frequency measurement with an independent tone generator application.

I also did a repeatability test, performing 3 different acquisitions on the same guitar and overlaying the graphs. The frequency capture was virtually exactly the same, frequency wise

Freeman wrote:
I assume you are just measuring the response to a tap on the bridge

Yes, tapping on bridge, 32 samples, measuring mic distance, mindful of mic placement directed at the bridge, quiet area, striving to make all the measurement criteria equal across samplings.

Other plots builders have plotted of D-28 styles have same 83hz peaks, yet some "book" references are 96-100 ish hz. Cant wrap my head around the relatively large variation between plots online and values referenced in books (p2-16: ... [i]Volume 1: Design; Trevor Gore) et. al.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum


Last edited by Kbore on Thu May 29, 2025 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 5:43 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 7508
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
Don’t forget depth of body plays a role as well…



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post: Kbore (Thu May 29, 2025 7:49 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 6:26 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:46 pm
Posts: 2168
First name: Freeman
Last Name: Keller
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
OK, I just took a bunch of samples of my old D18 (and yes the sound hole is 4 inches. I pulled the strings off, tapped the bridge with a little "hammer" made with an eraser stuck on the end of a wire probe (its my standard). Alan's software. Guitar on its back on a towl.


Dominate peak is 176 hz (F3), othe peaks at 218 and 228. Very consistent. Did two taps on its side, one was 197 hz, the other 176.

I had always heard that dreadnaughts have an air resonance right around G3, this is a little lower but certainly lower than the OM's I build (G# or A).

Hope that helps, I could always try to save this to a file if you want to see the whole spectrum. Let me know


Last edited by Freeman on Thu May 29, 2025 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 8:16 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 7508
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
The numbers are only correct measured with the strings on and up to pitch, an ideally in playing position.



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post: Kbore (Thu May 29, 2025 8:57 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 9:58 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:19 am
Posts: 592
Location: St. Charles MO
First name: Karl
Last Name: Borum
State: MO
Zip/Postal Code: 63303
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I know the graph is rather inclusive, so to add clarity, the question is concerning the main air resonance frequency- T(1,1)1 - the first peak, and its relationship with a dreadnaught's sound hole diameter. The two things that significantly contribute to that frequency are the volume of the box, and the diameter of the sound hole. As the volume of the box is fixed, the question relates to the diameter of the soundhole, and why is 3.9" so "universal".

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2025 11:47 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 7508
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
In that graph, is your main top resonance 155.7hz, and your back at 196hz?



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post: Kbore (Fri May 30, 2025 10:10 am)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2025 9:43 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:21 am
Posts: 3710
First name: Brad
Last Name: Combs
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Just to confirm - you’re asking how the sound hole size influences the frequency, correct?

I’m going to ask a dumb question here because I only understand this stuff enough to populate the spreadsheet and thickness my tops, but….the 4” sound hole comes before anyone was tapping anything with bouncy balls on bamboo skewers.

In a parallel timeline where everyone universally loves a D shaped guitar with a 2” sound hole the formulas and target frequencies would be in an effort to recreate that config.

Right? I mean, the whole thing here is working backwards from guitars that are universally accepted as great guitars and the math is derived from them not the other way around. So 4” or 3.9” is universal not for anything to do with frequency analysis, material properties, or the formulas in Gore’s book but because of decisions made by luthiers and instrument companies.

Again, all the math is way above my pay grade and as usual I’m probably looking at it way too simply. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

_________________
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/cbcguitars/
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/cbcguitars



These users thanked the author bcombs510 for the post: Kbore (Fri May 30, 2025 10:11 am)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2025 11:27 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:19 am
Posts: 592
Location: St. Charles MO
First name: Karl
Last Name: Borum
State: MO
Zip/Postal Code: 63303
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
meddlingfool wrote:
In that graph, is your main top resonance 155.7hz, and your back at 196hz?



That is correct, 191hz back, although I had not considered the back active.
Top resonance 155.7

Side note, I probably removed too much stiffness from my braces.

Main pain is the air resonance too close to Open E 6th string
AIR Resonance 83.5
E note: 82.4

Can of worms I've opened here with that graph.... and I'm exposing my poor knowledge of brace carving and top stiffness to the group.

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2025 11:36 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:19 am
Posts: 592
Location: St. Charles MO
First name: Karl
Last Name: Borum
State: MO
Zip/Postal Code: 63303
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
bcombs510 wrote:
Just to confirm - you’re asking how the sound hole size influences the frequency, correct?

.... the whole thing here is working backwards from guitars that are universally accepted as great guitars and the math is derived from them not the other way around. So 4” or 3.9” is universal not for anything to do with frequency analysis, material properties, or the formulas in Gore’s book but because of decisions made by luthiers and instrument companies...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


My question was really just why is the dreadnaught hole 3.9" in diameter.

The question was motivated by playing the guitar up the neck and the 12 fret, 6th string, volume and sustain just died. I also notice my tuner needle wanders on the bass E string. I believe it is because the air resonance is too close to the 6th string open E. I've discovered several dreads I have do that, not just my builds.

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2025 11:37 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:45 pm
Posts: 1538
First name: Michael
Last Name: Colbert
City: Anacortes
State: WA
Focus: Build
Can of worms I've opened here with that graph.... and I'm exposing my poor knowledge of brace carving and top stiffness to the group.[/quote]

Asking questions and making mistakes is how we learn -

Thanks for asking - I’m learning something.

M



These users thanked the author Michaeldc for the post: Kbore (Fri May 30, 2025 12:17 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2025 11:52 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 7508
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
No surprise your air resonance is low compared to what it ‘should’ be in the books. Your top and back are very low too. For a dread the top ‘should’ be about 170 and the back 215. If those numbers were present, it’s likely the 96-100 would be there as well. 15hz discrepancy in the top is a lot. 20hz on the back is a lot.

I would measure your factory made guitar again, I would very very much doubt them to be in the 155 top range.

Anyway, to fix the guitar with the confused E string, punch in a sound port to raise the frequency of the air chamber to decouple it from the main top resonance.

On a side note…while the measuring apparatuses have come a long way, the fundamental understanding that the top, back, and air chamber have fundamental resonant frequencies has long been known, and it has long been known that having the top and air chamber couple is a bad thing. The size of the sound hole has been worked out by trial and error over time to accommodate most ‘averages’.



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post (total 3): Michaeldc (Fri May 30, 2025 12:39 pm) • Kbore (Fri May 30, 2025 12:17 pm) • bcombs510 (Fri May 30, 2025 11:56 am)
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phavriluk and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpBB customization services by 2by2host.com