Official Luthiers Forum!
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Butternut twins
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=54625		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Andy Bounsall [ Wed Dec 15, 2021 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Butternut twins
For those who missed the beginning of the these builds, or may have forgotten, the goal for these guitars was to create a pair of very lightweight and responsive guitars. Intended primarily for finger style playing, they use what’s referred to as ‘live’ backs, a design paradigm where the guitar is built lightly so that the back vibrates in sympathy with the top.

Those goals factored in to everything from the design through material selection (butternut being one of the lightest weight hardwoods available) and construction. I believe I’ve achieved those goals. The finished guitars weigh in at 1.55 kg (single hole) and 1.64 kg (multi hole). For comparison, a mahogany 00 that I built earlier this year, which several people commented on as being very light, weighs 1.74 kg. A Martin 000-18 apparently weighs about 1.98 kg. The Engelmann spruce tops provide just the right attack and responsiveness for finger style use but with sufficient headroom to also easily accommodate light strumming. And yes, when you play sitting down, you actually can feel the guitar vibrate in response to your input.

The guitars themselves are 12 fretters with a body size and shape similar to a Martin OM. This combination pushes the bridge farther down towards the widest part of the lower bout (the sweet spot) and helps promote responsiveness and projection. Both guitars sport a cutaway providing improved access to the upper frets, and both feature a side sound port on the upper bout to help direct sound towards the player.

The twins were purposely built to be similar. Wood for the backs, sides, and necks was resawed from the same boards. Spruce tops were provided by the same supplier. The obvious difference is the number and placement of sound holes. Less obvious is the bracing used on the tops. The single sound hole model uses a more traditional X bracing layout while the multi sound hole guitar makes use of an offset, asymmetrical X bracing layout.

A short video of the butternut twins in action can be found at https://youtu.be/f5iV-QYbjfM. Please excuse my mediocre, at best, playing. The idea is to focus on listening to how the two guitars sound. Similar but with some obvious, and subtle, differences.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed. Enjoy!
Author:  Chris Pile [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Outstanding job, Andy! Very nice pair.

Finally listened to the video. They are possessed of a nice open sound, balanced and rich. I'd be very pleased with them, if I were you.
Author:  J De Rocher [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Great looking guitars. They both sound good to me even with the limitations of computer speakers. The one with the standard sound hole sounds a bit brighter to me. I think I prefer the sound of the multi sound hole one a little more. It would be fun to hear them in person. Cool project.
Author:  jfmckenna [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Neato! I love to see guitars that are built 'outside of the box.' The Butternut is quite beautiful too.
Author:  Dave m2 [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Fantastic execution. They look great.

Interesting that they do sound quite different. Is the total soundhole area of the multi hole the same as the single? Was there some rationale around that?

The multi hole to my ears has a bit of unevenness in the trebles - is that open second string coming over a bit louder...? This persists in the piece you play higher up the fretboard.

To my ears the single hole is better balanced, slightly louder and has a pleasanter sound.

Please take this as friendly comment. They are clearly both very good, responsive guitars and without the direct comparison I doubt these effects would be picked up.

Well done for the effort of doing this, not many of us would take all that trouble.

Cheers Dave
Author:  Robbie_McD [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Exceptional!
What a beautiful pair...
Listened to the clip - the multi-hole version is my fave, but I really like them both
Author:  SteveSmith [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
A very nice set of guitars. I also like the multi-hole version's sound somewhat better, it seems to be a bit more lush, especially in the mids.
Author:  Andy Bounsall [ Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Thanks folks. I’m enjoying the feedback on how you all interpret and describe what you’re hearing in comparing the sound of the two guitars.

Dave m2 wrote:
Is the total soundhole area of the multi hole the same as the single? Was there some rationale around that?

If I did the math correctly, and that’s not a given, the total area of the multiple sound holes is a bit more than half the area of the single sound hole. Here’s my calculation...

Area of single 4” hole = 12.56 square inches.

Area of multiple holes..
1 @ 1 1/2”
2 @ 1 1/4”
1 @ 1”
3 @ 3/4”
1 @ 1/2”
1 @ 5/16”
1 @ 3/16”
Total area = 6.635 square inches.

Dave m2 wrote:
...without the direct comparison I doubt these effects would be picked up.

You are correct. In the back-to-back video you can hear some differences. However, if you sit and play one then the other, the differences are not that obvious and they sound quite similar.
Author:  Andy Bounsall [ Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Butternut twins
Happily (or sadly), the multi hole twin has found a new home. The other will stay with me for a while longer. If you’d like to hear an example of how it sounds in the hands of someone who can actually play, I posted this video of my friend Don Bray making it sound great - https://youtu.be/ZrDQesSglrU. Enjoy!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/