| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| OM Soundhole diameter http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=12448 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Chansen [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have plans on the way but I was wondering if anyone here could let me know the soundhole diameter on the OLF OM. See I thought I was going to wing the size/shape/bracing pattern with this first build, but I decided to go with something more tried-and-true. I already did the rosette and cut out the soundhole, so I am hoping that mine will match up to that. Thanks! Christian |
|
| Author: | Blain [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I could tell you for a couple of Bending forms and a mold.  (Just kidding)
I also recently ordered the OLF plans and haven't received them yet, but I do have the plans from the book that I have (not sure if it's standard though), and it says the soundhole is 100mm or 3-15/16in (I guess basically 4 inches). Someone else who's already familar with the OM could probably verify that or tell you otherwise. Good luck with your build! |
|
| Author: | Blain [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oops. Looks like Hesh just did... |
|
| Author: | Chansen [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=blain1976]I could tell you for a couple of Bending forms and a mold. (Just kidding)
[/QUOTE] Sry! Ok, lets just hypothetically say that my soundhole ID is 3.7 or so (without the soundhole binding it would be more like 3.9) .... is this going to make a big difference in the sound/volume?? Aesthetically it looks fine... I think anyway.  |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those sides look like some nice birch, Christian. A bit thick, though!
|
|
| Author: | Chansen [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
 Nice one Pat... Well even though it's my first, I'm not afraid to think outside the box. At least they'll be stiff.
|
|
| Author: | KenH [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A smaller soundhole will make a difference, but whether or not you will actually notice it is questionable. There will definitely be a little less volume. Yours is so close to the 4" required that I dont think I would sweat it if it were me. |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use 100mm for OMs (and just about everything else) say 4" in old fashioned measurements. Yours at 3.7" is on the face of it only 0.3" smaller. However this is a larger proportion of the area than the 0.3 would seem at first sight, as this is taken from the outside edge so would represent the difference in area of a circle 3.7" and 4". The difference is more than 1.8sq" or nearly 20% bigger. that is not inconsiderable. My solution would be to add a soundport in the upper bout, this is easily done and will offset any reduction in soundhole size (they add a great quality to the perceived sound anyway.) Something like this: 
Colin |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
 Well said and good recommendation Colin
|
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, I forget what affect soundhole changes make. Can someone help the boy? Generally speaking, does a larger soundhole tend to make the sound more harsh, with more highs and less bass and a smaller sound-hole add some bass and cut some of the highs? |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=SteveS] OK, I forget what affect soundhole changes make. Can someone help the boy? Generally speaking, does a larger soundhole tend to make the sound more harsh, with more highs and less bass and a smaller sound-hole add some bass and cut some of the highs? [/QUOTE] The general "rule of thumb" is that a smaller soundhole favors the bass, and a larger soundhole favors the treble. If you add a side port, it's likely to favor the treble in either case. Alan Carruth could tell you why. |
|
| Author: | Chansen [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok all, Thanks for the suggestions, now I have some options to weigh before making a decision. I like the soundport idea because I already had some visions of doing this. I am not sure if I will scrap the binding yet to open it up... I think it looks purdy   I'll be moving forward soon, so I will let you all know. Thanks!!! |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You can cut a soundport at any time during the construction. Some cut them before bending some, after bending when the sides have had the head and tail blocks glued in place. I do mine after the back is on but before the top. That said I have successfully added a soundport as a retro-fit to some of my guitars, no need to take them apart. Colin |
|
| Author: | David R White [ Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In my limited experience, I think a smaller soundhole leads to a tighter more focused sound. I am building OMs with 3.75" soundholes. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|