Official Luthiers Forum!

Scott,
One thing I was warned about from a very experienced high-end builder about going full top to back with side braces:
Since the rates of expansion and contraction are different with the two grain orientations, if the brace expands longitudinaly faster than the side (unlikely, yes), or if the sides shrink faster than the braces (more likely), you will end up with tiny dimples in the top and/or back where the side brace will be exerting force on the top.
I've done two guitars with the full top to back bracing, and after this warning, I am changing things just a bit.

just my $.02

-j.

_________________
“If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting”
-jack handy

Just so there won't be any misunderstanding:

Mario wrote:
" As long as there are no lumps and bumps to impede the flow of energy, it'll be a hoss."

and I replied:
"Mario's beginning to sound like Scott there..... "

Later, Scott wrote:
"....corners, ridges, peaks all absorb energy, instead of allowing it to flow through. "

Since Mario and Scott agree so seldom, I thought it was interesting to see them both saying much the same thing; something that I, too, say often enough.

[QUOTE=j.Brown] Scott,
One thing I was warned about from a very experienced high-end builder about going full top to back with side braces:
Since the rates of expansion and contraction are different with the two grain orientations, if the brace expands longitudinaly faster than the side (unlikely, yes), or if the sides shrink faster than the braces (more likely), you will end up with tiny dimples in the top and/or back where the side brace will be exerting force on the top.
I've done two guitars with the full top to back bracing, and after this warning, I am changing things just a bit.

just my $.02

-j.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point, j. I wonder, though... as I see it, when we glue parts together, they become, for all intents and purposes, one part. Therefore, if you look at the very common practice of gluing side braces on and inletting them into the linings, which are also glued to the side braces, what has been constructed is the equivalent of a solid side brace that extends from top to back. As far as I know, this has not generally caused problems with dimpling of the top or back.

OTOH, the logic of what you're saying makes perfect sense. It would seem to me that if you use relatively tall side braces (tall in relation to the inside surface of the sides, the way we think of top or back braces as being "tall"), which would make them fairly rigid and strong as "posts" running from top to back, then this dimpling would be a problem. But if you make them equal in height to the linings, then scallop them dramatically (and use a soft wood as well), then I'd think they will have enough flex and "give" to avoid this problem. Making them that way might defeat Scott's purpose; I'm thinking of this only as an alternative way to make/install side braces (with the usual purpose of arresting future side cracks in mind), which might simply be quicker and easier than inletting them into the linings.

Just thinking out loud, here...

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

Scott;
How many guitars have you made with your ideas from the start?

Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

My guess would be that the pressure exerted onto the kerfing is dissipated throughout the lenth on the kerfing instead of only the small area of the face of the brace.
If it was only a theory, I probably would't put as much weight to the suggestion, but he had personal first-hand experience with running bracing that way and ended up with those bumps over time.
He believes that its the same reason he sees many older spanish guitars with the back braces starting to poke through the sides.
-j.

_________________
“If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting”
-jack handy

It would seem to me That if you had two apposing diaphragms working in a single air chamber, this would cause collision of two moving air masses somewhere in the middle of the chamber and there by reducing the max air flow and sound out put.

Now after I have said that I have to admit that my "back" star bracing on my SJ's, if tapered to 0 from about 1 3/8 from the linings produces an somewhat active but not overly active back. This has worried me some but I have experienced no noticeable loss in volume or encountered any dead or wolf notes any where on the scale.MichaelP39029.7305208333

That's right Michael P.
Because you have full support of the back up & close to the lining!
This allows the ridgid back to only move a bit at the edges.
Your thoughts about opposing diaphragms is very good!

Mike Collins

_________________
Mike Collins

    This has been a good thread and leads me to again say....Read,
understand and document the subtle differences that small variations in
structure make in tone. If something brings improvement, use it as a
springboard to your next innovation.

    Learn and be willing to change and try new things from your own
research and model development. Don't just use techniques, dimensions
or methods because your favorite builder or the guy who's getting the
most dollars for his guitars says it works.

    I'e done it on almost 500 acoustic guitars and many more electrics. It's
been interesting and challenging and keeps me listening closely.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Since Mario and Scott agree so seldom, I thought it was interesting to see them both saying much the same thing;

Hate to burst the happy bubble, Alan, but I was being sarcastic <bg>

Spend some time inside some of the greatest pre war Martins and even Gibsons, and we see ridges, peaks, and rough edges all over the place. We find saw marks(some are at least half as deep as the wood itself) on the backs, sides, even the braces. Dried glue squeeze-out a every brace(minimal, but still, visible). Outside, we find bridges that do NOT have their edges sanded smooth, but rather, they exhibit crisp, detailed lines(though time and wear will likely have rounded a few of the surfaces).

They break all the "rules", except one. Sound.

As Kevin has said, many today just use dimensions while not understanding the "why" behind them, then they change things, often combining something 'cool' from one maker and adding it to their own build, not considering what the advantages or disadvantages may be.

I was an engineer in a previous life not too long ago, and I've combined that line of thinking with the study of the old instruments, and again, as Kevin states, the old boys didn't toss stuff together willy-nilly, and they did experiment a LOT more than most everyone thinks. I've handled and measured(partially) 3 1934 Martin dreads(2 D-18 and one 28) and all three were braced quite differently, from each other, and from what a '35 would have been. They were still tryin' "stuff". The standards they set were based on solid foundations, and they tried varying the recipes plenty, the end results being what -became- the standards. These incredible instruments were built in factories by men and women who understood what counted, and what didn't. They didn't spend hours sanding a curve into a finger brace(FINGER brace, not side brace, fercryinoutloud: side braces are glued to -sides-). They became the standard instrument of choice for professional musicians right away, in a day and age when amplification was crude, if not completely non existent in many cases, still. A loud, strong, responsive instrument was the only way to be heard! 70 years later, we're still in awe of the power and tone of these critters, which time has only made better. What better teacher to have but the greatest examples of what we seek to achieve! These teachers don't ask us to believe in catchy terms, or far-fetched schemes. Nope, the best teachers teach us to learn, in tis case, by studying what worked.

Study the past, blend-in the now(new materials can open up new avenues which weren't available IE: double tops, carbon fiber, truss rods, even), but do so with the knowledge that the basic needs won't change. We all wanted to believe in magic at some point in our lives, and good instruments are magical, even mystical, in how they can speak to our souls, but there's no magic to making them do that. The only magic needed is careful study, combined with a good dose of common sense. A bit of solid engineering doesn't hurt

I've received some pretty nasty private messages by some rather seasoned forum members in the past few days. I don't need that s&^%. To all of you, I hope you all find what you're looking for as I leave, but don't be surprised to find the wizard to be nothing more than a man behind a curtain pulling ropes. There is no magic, there are no shortcuts.

good luck to all.

Mario, I always click on your posts because I know I'll pick
something up. This stinks.

Cr@p!

Mario:

I too look for your posts, and I always learn something. I've played your guitars, and they are freakin amazing! I for one appreciate your opinionated candor. It has caused me to constantly re-evaluate the way I do things, and to look for the simple and logical in the construction of my own instruments.

I hope you reconsider - I'd hate for the OLF to lose such a valuable resource. But if not, maybe we'll get to meet at Kaufman's camp one day. I certainly hope so...

Regards,

-Mark

_________________
Pullman, WA

The more I know, the more I know I don't know.

trippguitars.com
OR
Find me on Facebook

Mario, please reconsider bud, you were my first inspiration and i continued learning from you here, if you leave, it's a tragedy my friend.

I know i'm naive to think that we can all get along but i love my naivety, i like to think of myself as a big kid and all that but to me, building guitars is like candy and Mario was the supplier of fine sweets, your leaving the OLF will leave bitter sweet taste, i hope you realize that you did more good here than bad.

Sometimes, it's not what we said that hurt people, it's rather how we say things.

I truly hope you'd just let the dust come down and make a full come back, OLF needs you, i know i do. It would be too sad to see you leave this way.

SergeSerge Poirier39030.3961689815

[QUOTE=James Orr] Mario, I always click on your posts because I know I'll pick
something up. This stinks.[/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly, James. To me it seems quite unnecessary to take Mario's razzin' so seriously, and very unfortunate that people have done so, because the content of his contributions is consistently among the very most valuable on this forum. I think that the generosity he shows in sharing his knowledge, experience, and insights is a much truer reflection of his heart than the gruff and sarcastic (indeed, often very funny, if you just lighten up and take him with a chuckle) manner on the surface.

Sad day.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

WHEW! What a thread!

To me the nitpicking here and occasionally in other threads almost always comes down to our passion for our craft.
I do think that some people have a harder time expressing themselves than others, (my self included), and its easy to take people the wrong way because of that.

In the end, we really need to keep in mind that we are ALL HERE for the same reasons, to talk about building acoustic guitars period!
I don't need to tell everyone that there are a millions ways to do one thing, and that no ONE way is the best way. -- There I just did --

If we use the OLF the -right- way, we will all benefit, regardless of wither or not you agree or disagree with someone.

-------------------SO-----------------------

Mario, glue up a top or sumptin, and belly back up to your desk, and continue on, we need your "tell it like it is" experience.

Scott, thanks so much for your theories and insight on how you personally do things, its very enlightening.

Mike, your voice of wisdom is very important to us here, thanks..

Alan, what can I say, you pour out your knowledge continually here and elsewhere. Thanks!

Kevin, you are a steady hand (even with just one hand )in these hotly debated threads, thanks for your added prospective.

And everyone else

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Wow Mario I have read nothing in the post that was contentious, rather just varying perceptions. I don't know and don't want to know what was said in PMs. but those were individuals not the voice of the community

Please keep in mind that 99.999% of us here think of you as a mentor. Loosing you would be regrettable. The wonderful thing about a forum like this is you can take what you want from it and ignore the rest. Please let the bad water roll off your back. Remember what you provided to this forum is priceless and can only be provided by you.

The lack of tolerance for pointing out the falacies of suspect opinions/approaches is a weakness of the OLF in my opinion. Without that ability, a forum just becomes a big, meaningless hug-fest. Obviously, that appeals to some, but not to all.

Barry, do you think that pointing out a defect in ones argument can be done with out malice?

I DO - it is also a_must_that inaccurate or flawed processes be pointed out. But there is a nice way and a mean way to do that.

Here, I prefer we leave our attitudes at the door, and proceed with kindness first.

Sarcasm, malice and just plain mean intent, wither its correcting a flawed suggestion or not, has NO place at the OLF.

If I am describing a "Hug Fest" I plead guilty as charged.


Thanks
Lance

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Personally pointing out fallacies or suspect opinions is not the intent or interest of this forum. This forum is here to share ideas. Not all will be based in perfect reason or fact. It is your Job to assimilate those that help and those that hinder. If we allow this forum to be come a place where a persons opinion is ridiculed because it does not fit in someones knowledge base then we will loose what has made this forum different than the others. We are free to question a post or info in a post but we must not ridiculed the person for their opinion. This is what has driven many of us away from other forums to this one. If maintaining decorum the way we express our differences is having a hug-fest then bring on the hug-fest.

Be real, be civil, and be friendly, be a part of the community!!!!!!!!!

Pointing out defects can be done without malice, but unfortunately, people very often take offence when none was intended. That's the conundrum.

Berry This is true. Equal responsibility fall on the shoulders of the one pointing out the error, by the way they phrase their reply and but the one reading the reply, by not reading into the reply something that was not written.

In my opinion the most critical part of this scenario is the the response or reply to a post or an error in a post. Most of us are very good about keeping our responses form taking on a personal intent. This does not mean we must divorce our personalities in our responses, rather that we take the responsibility to moderate our emotions in them.

Enough said on this.MichaelP39030.5066087963

Very well expressed Michael, thanks!

Mario wrote:
"Hate to burst the happy bubble, Alan, but I was being sarcastic <bg> "

So all's back to normal, I guess..... :)

"Spend some time inside some of the greatest pre war Martins and even Gibsons, and we see ridges, peaks, and rough edges all over the place. <snip>

They break all the "rules", except one. Sound. >>

Well, there are lumps and there are lumps.... A feature that is much shorter than the wave length at the frequency of interest doesn't have much effect at all. One trick is to figure out what constitutes a 'lump' for the frequency you're interested in, right after you figure out what that frequency might be.

Barry Daniels wrote:
"Pointing out defects can be done without malice, but unfortunately, people very often take offence when none was intended. That's the conundrum. "

Yes; a failing of the internet in general. 'Smilies' just don't do enough sometimes, when not backed up by tone of voice and so on.

Although I don't always agree with him, I'm sorry to see Mario leave. Let's hope it's only temporary.

I have enjoyed all the posts on these voicing threads. I am use to and enjoy Mario's sense of humor and matter of fact approach. Scott's info was most excellent and not that I have jumped off a cliff or anything, it certainly gives one alot to think about. I thought the excange between two of the masters was pretty good. I think Scott knows Mario and he held is own on the issue and it progressed with old Mr. Grumpy . I feel we should be respectful towards each other in all that we do and say.

Mario, your opinions are valued here by many and I refuse to believe that some criticism (even if you did get a little nasty) from a few folks is going to cause you to leave

Mike

I'm not sure what has happened here, but I know I'm not happy about it. Starting from the time when I first started building and was getting information on the MIMF and later on the OLF, I have gotten more from Mario than almost anyone else, with the possible exception of Alan; and the two of them argue all the time without anyone getting bent out of shape.
I have no problem at all with posts that I disagree with.    But I think everyone is better off when opinions are stated with a bit of humility, and not as recieved truth from on high. There is a big difference between saying you have had good results doing someting a certain way, and saying this is the way it must be done to have a good sounding guitar. And, I would never, ever talk up one of my guitars by denegrating another makers guitar, as happened in this thread(maybe George Lowden should read this thread so he would quit making such lousy guitars).
If you looked inside my guitars, you wouldn't think they look anything like Mario's, but I learned lot about guitar making from him. Thanks, Mario.

                        Peace, Paul