Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=18503 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Low ET [ Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design |
Hello. This is my first post to the forum. I have built one acoustic guitar (Martin 000 style) and I am currently building two dreadnaughts. I am new to guitar building and even newer to playing. I am planning my next project - an archtop jazz guitar. I went down to my local guitar store and looked at (and inside) several models. They couldn't be more different. *One kind has a body made from a solid piece of wood with routed pockets under the f-holes. *One has a solid block of wood running from the neck to the tailblock (under the bridge and pickups). *One has a thin carved back and sides with a solid block just under the bridge glued to both the top and back. *One has a thin carved back and top like the one in the Robert Benedetto's book (which I bought for the project). Now I am confused. I don't understand the differences in all four construction methods. I guess I don't even know if they are all considered "archtop" guitars. Any help would be greatly appreciated. One other question: Why are the top and back of archtop gutars carved instead of bent and braced like a typical acoustic guitar? Thanks, Low ET |
Author: | Dave Stewart [ Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design |
Hi Low(!??) Welcome to the forum. Only the last is built to be an acoustic archtop, although it may have pickup(s). The others are basically built to be electric guitars. Archtop can mean a variety of things to people. The third (and fourth for that matter) may be laminated tops & backs - many factory guitars are. (This is the alternative to carving - you couldn't successfully bend a solid wood plate to the arching required) I started with Benedetto's book & enjoyed it. For your first, build as he suggests & you'll be happy. |
Author: | Alan Carruth [ Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design |
Why? Because! Originally arched top and back guitars were made in imitation of the 'perfection' of the violin family. People didn't know why Strad's fiddles were so good (and we still don't), but if arching worked for them it ought to work on guitars, too. Which just goes to show how you can take an analogy too far. Flat top guitars have a couple of weaknesses related to the way the strings work with the bridge. The basic function of the bridge is to tell the strings how long they are, so you have to have a way of stopping them at the saddle. The usual way is to 'break' the strings over the saddle at some angle, but that means either that the bridge has to be very high, so that you can get enough angle without them hitting the top, or that they have to tie into the top somehow. Flat top instruments usually do the latter, but this puts a lot of tension and compression in plane on the top from the string tension. In addition, since the strings have to be above the plane of the top there is a fairly large twisting force pulling the top of the bridge toward the neck. All of these forces on the top mean that you have to reinforce it somehow, and that tends to work against the production of sound; you'd really like to have the top be as light as possible, with only enough stiffness to discipline the vibration, in a sense. It's especially a problem in that the bending loads introduced by the bridge torque are precisely the sort of thing that wood does not resist well over the long term. All in all these problems tend to limit the size and longevity of flat top guitars. With an arched top you can convert all of the loads into compression; the string is attached to a tailpiece hinging (somehow) off the tail block, so the neck and tailpiece compress the top along its length. The bridge also presses downward on the arch, which can resist this sort of force well over the long term so long as it is carefully designed and not too thin or under braced. The obvious down sides of the arched top acoustically are that it is necessarily quite stiff at the bridge, so that it can resist the downbearing load, and that makes it harder to drive into vibration; it has an inherently high 'impedance'. It is also not possible for the top to respond as much to the twice-per-cycle tension changes of the string, which can at least effect the timbre of a flat top guitar, although we're not sure yet whether that's a _good_ thing. A less obvious acoustic effect of arching is that it changes the effective 'damping factor' of the wood. Basically, carving an arched plate out of, say, a piece of maple, 'fools' it into acting like a piece of rosewood, at least at low frequencies. It will tend to respond well over a more narrow frequency range than a flat top, which tends to give a 'sharper' and more 'forward', if not 'harsh' tone. This may be one reason why rosewood archtops are not very common: too much of a good thing! Another down side of carved arched plates is just the amount of work they take to make. You start with a thick slab of (expensive) wood, and throw 3/4 to 7/8 of it away. And not just _any_ 3/4 to 7/8. It appears that the exact shape and thickness distribution of the arches is critical to getting the best sound, and these things must be very carefully controlled. There are ways, ranging from a 'Lancelot' to the drill press planer to CNC, to reduce the dog work some, but in the end, in order to take the wood itself into account, there is still a lot of plain hand work involved with planes and scrapers. At least you don't need to worry about back bracing on archtops: there is none. The top does need to be braced, more or less just to make up for the soundhole(s), and fitting those is another part of the 'fun' of making archtops. All in all you should allot about three times as many hours to your first archtop as you do to a flat top instrument. There will be plenty of challenges; things that might not occur to you now. How, for example, will you cut the binding and purfling rabbets? In the end there's no guitar quite so 'sexy' as a well designed and built archtop, though. Whether you make it simple and show off the nice lines and beautiful wood grain, or elect to make it an Art Deco tour-de-force of inlay with a great shaded 'burst finish, it can be as elegant and sophisticated as you can manage. A good one can even sound pretty nice! |
Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design |
Less technically and more historically, the archtop guitar became popular in the 1920's in jazz bands as a replacement for the four-string banjo, in the role of a combination chord and rhythm instrument. To fill that rhythm role and be heard above the rest of the band, it needed a trebly balance and a very quick, percussive response. An arch top, F-hole guitar tends to give that. |
Author: | Shawn [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Beginner Question: Archtop Guitar Design |
Alan's description is right on target and Howard's is where its characteristic sound is found. An Archtop acoustic guitar in swing era and earlier records is the chop, chop rhythm that accompanies the band just as the thump of a dreadnaut underpins bluegrass and country and the attack of a F style mandolin changed the mandolin from the bowl back designs of earlier mandos. Spanish classical guitars were modified to players needs which resulted in the "Flamenco" built guitar. The music defines the need for the sound for that genre of music and the instruments were modified and designed to give that sound. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |