Official Luthiers Forum!

My apologies in advance for this as it is partly “musing” on a quiet day, but I’m also interested in OLF’ers views and opinions. I am fascinated by the extensive use of “set plans” in guitar making – i.e. buying someone else’s plans and building to these. So much so that in some cases unless they can find a set of plans, some people won’t undertake building a certain sort of instrument. It makes me wonder if by sticking to set plans, builders can miss an “education” in terms of “what and why” in their building. Having seen some questions about 12 v 14 fret clear designs and bridge placing makes me think this even more.

When I decided to make my own instruments I was equally interested in what principles are important as well as seeing if I could make something that sounded and looked good. So I decided not to use a kit, and not to buy a set of plans but to design my own. From “ploughing this furrow” there are certain “principia guitarrica” that I have learned and use and I thought I’d “float” some of the main ones in terms of shape and top bracing for comments:

•Scale length is where it all begins. This can be chosen for a number of reasons – player comfort, player style and tunings etc, tradition. It gets more complex of course if you decide on variable scale length – fan frets.

•Having chosen a scale length, the nut and saddle positions are determined. If you are using X braces then you need to decide the angle of the X brace (determined by the design/sound you are after, cross-grain stiffness of the wood you are using etc) and where the X brace arms cross the bridge in relation to the saddle. This places where the X intersection is on the centre-line.

•Then comes string spacing ath the nut and saddle based on player style. This determines where the saddle needs to be for correct intonation and how wide, and also the fretboard taper.

•Next comes the body shape that you want for the guitar sound. This determines where the body joins the neck (how many frets clear), where you want the bridge to sit in relation to the waist/lower bout area, what degree of “curviness” you want in terms of the waist and size of upper bout and lower bout width.

•Then you can work out where and how big the sound hole will be based again on the guitar sound you want.

•Next you can work out how the upper bout bracing and neck-block should be, based on how you the neck/fingerboard and body are going to interrelate – glued fingerboard, free-floating etc.

•You can also then work out what you are going to do about soundhole re-enforcement.

•Then it’s back to the lower-bout. The bridge-plate will be determined by the bridge and X brace positioning, and the rest of the bracing by the balance of sound and structural stability you are looking for.

If the end design doesn’t quite work then I go round the loop again adjusting where necessary. Other things also come into play such as degree of top arching in different locations, top thickness and profile etc. etc.

Using this framework I can tackle the design of almost any instrument.

I am interested in how others here approach all of this and views on “set plans” versus “own design”

Thanks for reading.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Dave, I'm a original kind of guitar builder too, for the most part on my steel strings anyway. I do it like your method above. On my classical guitars I've used Roy Cortnals Fleta plan as a "guide".
I would imagine that a kit is a good way for people to get the bug though.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Do you consider the golden ratio in your designs at all?

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

The magic of 1.618033989 (phi) should always be considered, not only can't much look right without it, most simply cannot be.

Cheers

Kim

Though I have never used plans to build my guitars I do like to look at them as a point of reference. Especially when I first started building. Now I sketch up your own drawings, which could not be called plans by any stretch of the imagination.

I had a friend build with me last year and I was glad for a set of plans, again as a point of reference. There are a lot of hidden secrets in guitar building and plans help to demystify especially for new builders.

I think it has a lot to do with how each of us takes in information and a big part with having the confidence to begin. I’ve had years of wood working experience with opportunity to make and learn from my mistakes. Not on guitars. For my friend she had very little and at times it was a real struggle to even use a chisel for fear of making a mistake. Everything had to be double checked and checked again.

Good news is she has started 2 more and slow but sure she will finish them with a little help.

I guess what I’m saying is experience breeds confidence and one way to get experience is through someone else’s plans, books etc.
   

_________________
Michael Lloyd

“I was born to ignorance, yes, and lesser poverties ...
I was born to privilege that I did not see ... I didn’t know it, but my way was paved” – John Gorka

Dave, I am probably as interested in the design process as the actual building, but I think you have skipped the most important part of it; the concept part. Body style sketches on paper, a few inspirational pieces of wood, your new exposed hardware / adjustable neck joint, whatever; there has to be an idea that you focus your design around first. What you describe is the layout part which is important when you draft you plans, but this has to be based on something else, or it will be much harder to tie the design element together. I find this process has a lot in common with my normal work as an architect (which I don't think necessarily makes me a better designer of guitars).

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

[QUOTE=Dave White]

If the end design doesn’t quite work then I go round the loop again adjusting where necessary. Other things also come into play such as degree of top arching in different locations, top thickness and profile etc. etc.

Using this framework I can tackle the design of almost any instrument.

I am interested in how others here approach all of this and views on “set plans” versus “own design”

Thanks for reading.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting Dave, great topic. Not much to say from my end but very much yo learn.

Cheers

Kim

My first was sort of a copy of my Takamine. I used the Cumpiano book and pretty much went from there. (25.4 scale length)

I decided that I'd try drawing up my own design for no.2. I figured that flaring out the bouts and tightening the waste would alter the sound a bit, but not the over-all look (relation of soundhole to waste and postition of bridge... etc... etc...)

I came to the conclusion (for my simple mind) that there is only one set of very important measurements that I would adhere to and that was the scale length and fret positions.

All the rest is basically estethics and personal tastes. Now of course the shape, depth, bracing and all that fun stuff will alter the sound in their own way... but basically, a guitar will have a upper bout in the 10-13 inch range and lower bout in the 14.5 to 16.5 inch range and it will be about 19 to 21 inches long.

Sometimes you can be in for a surprise... Because I 'wing it' a lot, when building, I was caught with my pants down when I made my third, a florentine cutaway. I realized that I would have to angle the upper face brace because of the severe cutaway I had going! Ha!

My latest project is a Baritone. I made many drawings before finding one that I found both appealing to the eye and 'worked' (fits in regular case, is not too long, yada yada yada).   After the drawing was done, I then figured out where and how I wanted the X to cross the bridge. (angle and distance from soundhole). All the rest is just a result of these inital criteria.

So to make a long answer short (ahem...), I'm firmly in the 'design your own' camp and scale lenght will pretty much dictate where you're going.

_________________
I'd like to be able to prove, just for once, that money wouldn't make me happy...

Dave,

Nice job of explaining the process.

I've drawn up my own designs for a couple of guitars because, well, the world is not begging me for another dreadnought. However, I've spent a couple of decades looking at how guitars are designed, inside and out (not that I know everything, 'cause I've learned a lot right here in the past few months!), and I've seen how builders have improved, or at least not ruined, the instrument's sound by going their own way.

I can understand how someone who has not had the time to do this would want to go with a "tried-and-true" method. After gaining some experience, though, I'd sure want to do something unique.

For anyone considering this, I'd suggest getting some large paper, a pencil and a big eraser. Then open Cumpiano's book to the layout section and get started. Remember, though, you WILL NOT revolutionize the guitar, so don't stray too far, at first, from what has been known to work. With a few tweaks here-and-there, you just might evolutionize the instrument, and that's a good thing!

I feel that for me (since I'm still working on my first guitar), it's nice to have a set of plans to follow for something that you know works. It seems that there is a lot to building guitars and without a set of plans to follow (for at least the first one or two), it leaves a lot of room for mistakes (As if there weren't enough room for mistakes already).

I would love to build my own original designs in the future, but I think it's a great starting point to build something that you know works first and to get the feel for why things are as they are. Then I can look at using some of that knowledge to incorporate things into an original design.

Just my opinion on what I think works for me.

_________________
Thanks,
Blain

http://www.ullrichguitar.com

"89.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

I use the general measurments (body length, widths at waist/shoulder/belly) for guitars I'm aiming for the general 'tonal family' of, and go from there; body shape tends to come first, then scale length, which affects bridge location and bracing, etc.

I don't consider the golden ratio, or any other properly measured out stuff; I just sketch, scribble, adjust, redesign until the whole thing looks right. The fact there are very few guitar designs that look right to me, in terms of guitars that feel like my own creation, also helps. Designing the guitars on paper, from shape, to inlay, to headstock, neck profile, taper, wood selection, rosette, that's a big part of the attraction of building. I've got three body shapes designed, and I'll build several of each, different woods, different bracing, different depths, different features, see where they take me.

My steel strings are exactly as you describe, built from first principle. My first was a Stew Mac kit, and was OK but lacked 'soul' in the building. Since then the conception hjas been the most enjoyable part.

Lately however I have been more and more interested in the historical side of our craft and my lutes have been built closely following museum examples, and I'm now working on Torres instruments. Later when I have learned the 'first principles' of Spanish instruments I may develop them but I want to see what makes them sound the way they do first.

But no never bought a plan for a steel string.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I am certainly not an expert with anything to do with building. As was said earlier, scale length, with proper fretting and bridge placement would be paramount on any instrument. After that I would think you could have many variations with all being different but still sounding like a guitar. Last year I saw some instruments that someone was finishing for the family of a builder who passed away suddenly. Some had uneven sides, some had strange angles and one looked like a pear. The ones that were finished still sounded just fine but looked a bit strange.

As far as plans go I think they are good. Plans give you a starting point to work from. Maybe even more important they give you the ability to repeat what you did correct and forgo what you did wrong. So you can design all you want but you need a record to consistently be a better builder.

Philip

_________________
aka konacat

If you think my playing is bad you should hear me sing!
Practice breeds confidence and confidence breeds competence. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in practice.

Great thread you guys. I'm in the all ears camp as I have so much to learn.

Thanks

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

Yes, great thread.

I so much love the OM/000 shape that I'd planned to build more of those to plan, perhaps with a few variations in wood selection or bracing, in the hope that I'd gain a feel for how those changes affect the final outcome.

But then I re-discovered the L-00 after seeing Hesh's and other small bodies like John How's, so now I'm on the fence. I do hope to build some L-00s along the original lines, mahogany, very light. If I'm feeling really brave, maybe one with a three-piece top of crummy wood with tall thin braces carved with a butter knife?   

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

[QUOTE=ToddStock] So...who's the designer? The guy with the space-age double cutaway that is traditionally braced and built, or the luthier turning out OMs with highly modified bracing, double-wall linings, carbon fiber neck reinforcement, etc.?[/QUOTE]
Both! Each offering something of his own.

[QUOTE=Mattia Valente] I use the general measurments (body length, widths at waist/shoulder/belly) for guitars I'm aiming for the general 'tonal family' of, and go from there; body shape tends to come first, then scale length, which affects bridge location and bracing, etc.

I don't consider the golden ratio, or any other properly measured out stuff; I just sketch, scribble, adjust, redesign until the whole thing looks right.

Designing the guitars on paper, from shape, to inlay, to headstock, neck profile, taper, wood selection, rosette, that's a big part of the attraction of building.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna have to start wearing an aluminum foil hat, 'cause you're reading my mind, Mattia! You've pretty much described the way I've been approaching it.

[QUOTE=burbank] If I'm feeling really brave, maybe one with a three-piece top of crummy wood with tall thin braces carved with a butter knife?    [/QUOTE]
And two waists!!! The Burbank Special!

I firmly believe in having a point of reference. What is the point of reference when designing something from the ground up, and what are the chances of it being a improvement over a traditional design that has been made to work well by ones own "refinements" by comparison?

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

[QUOTE=jfrench] I firmly believe in having a point of reference. What is the point of reference when designing something from the ground up, and what are the chances of it being a improvement over a traditional design that has been made to work well by ones own "refinements" by comparison?[/QUOTE]
I think you're absolutely correct. One has to start somewhere, and if it's going to sound like a guitar it has to fit certain design parameters. I'm advocating evolution rather than revolution. Some people are very good at refining standard designs--one of the best-sounding guitars I've played is a slope-shouldered dreadnought built by Dana Bourgeois. It seems, though, that a lot of people don't realize that it's okay to change something in a design, or that they can proceed without a plan if they just look at how others have done it. It's not rocket surgery!

I'm just sayin'....

jfrench: agreed. That's why I'm not straying all too far from accepted dimensions, mostly 'just' redefining the curves between what I think are the critical points, so it looks more like something I designed and made.

Thanks for all of the responses.

My original post wasn't implying that traditional shapes and designs are "bad" and designing your own is looking for radical different solutions. What I was trying to say is that it is as important to understand the priciples as to follow the plan as you are more empowered should you want to stray slightly from the path.

Brock,

No I don't use phi directly but am very much aware of it's influence in nature. I like curvy guitar shapes so am not radically moving away. My wife who is a textile artist uses phi and fibonnachi a lot in her work.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

would you care to elaborate on your assertion that string spacing determines where the nut and saddle need to be for correct intonation?

I think he meant player style?

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

[QUOTE=crazymanmichael] would you care to elaborate on your assertion that string spacing determines where the nut and saddle need to be for correct intonation?[/QUOTE]
Michael,

I surely will - although in my post I didn't say anything about the nut, just the saddle.

I draw a line from nut to saddle and beyond for each string. I know from the scale length, string gauges and likely tunings I will be using what length in addition to the pure scale length I need the string to be at the saddle break point (based on trial error and experementing). I mark this point on each string and join these up. I then decide if I will need one saddle or a split saddle, and the correct angle to route the saddle slot on the bridge an also on how long the slot(s) will be after the saddle goes past the outer strings the desired distance.

Given I make a range of instruments from guitar-bouzouki, guitar-cittern, guitars, baritones, Weisenborns (which don't need any exrea for intonation) this comes out differently and I have jigs made for cutting the various saddle slot angles.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010