Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
Top bracing materials? http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=14523 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | KenH [ Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:32 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Just out of curosity.... I know the standard for top bracing materials is spruce. I have used several types of spruce and I know each one has it's own pro's and con's as it pertains to the tone and volume of the guitar. I am building an experimental guitar right now, and have tried a few things different just to see what happens. One of the changes is the use of WRC for bracing my top. I am anxious to hear what difference this makes. I have also seen hints of other materials being used for brace stock, but I dont know of any builder who has offered any advice on how these bracing schemes work out. Anybody want to elaborate on using bracing materials other than spruce? |
Author: | grumpy [ Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:23 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I've used WRC and Doug Fir, and every known species of spruce on tops.... For back braces, I've used pretty well anything i could get my hands on, my favorites being WRC or Doug fir, depending on the use.... |
Author: | tippie53 [ Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:34 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I have seen Mahogany used and fit. I used may types of spruce. The weight to strength ratio is most important. You will find that is why spruce is so effective as a bracing wood. It is one of the strongest woods by weight john hall blues creek guitars |
Author: | jeffreyyong [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:21 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hi Ken, I have been using a local wood known as Agathis for bracing all my guitars and even for tops and the sound is no worst than those using spruce. There are some many types of wood available here ( where i lived ) and until now I've not faced any of my guitars giving problems like the dooming of the top behind the bridge area or cracking somewhere. As long as we understand the application of strenght and mass I think you can use many other alternatives its just because they are not discovered yet. Jeffreyyong |
Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:02 am ] |
Post subject: | |
My Grandfather left me a bunch of his lineman tools. Among these were 9 75 year old line pole shovels with 15' long 4" dia. handles. No longer used by the electric companies for setting poles. Well after some checking as collectible it turns out they are pretty much worthless. The handles are made of WRC and are quarter sawn. A couple of years ago I cut one up and squared it to the quarter. Checked the weight and did some deflection tests. All looked pretty good so I built a couple OM using it as the brace stock. It work just fine. I have not used any more of it but have it setting to be used again some day. |
Author: | KenH [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:22 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Thanks for the info! I have a couple of other guitars on the bench and decided to use mahogany for the back bracing on these. It really looks nice and is VERY stiff. Since I prefer my backs to be stiff anyway, this is working out fine so far. The one guitar mentioned above that I have used WRC for the top bracing is now closed up and awaiting binding. If at all possible, I'll update this thread when I get the guitar finished. |
Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:30 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Ken, one word of caution if I might: You said this was an experimental guitar with "a few things different". The only problem with having a number of different things going on is that you are introducing that many different variables, with the resultant problem that you might not know just which one (ones) were contributing to the change in sound. If you could isolate one change--say the WRC bracing alone--I think you'd come closer to proving something to yourself. Steve |
Author: | James W B [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:44 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I think Steve has a very valid point.I myself have experimented a little with different bracing ideas,but I don`t think doing a lot of different things I`m not used to doing on one particular guitar would be a good idea for me.Although you may have the expertise to handle it. James |
Author: | KenH [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:01 am ] |
Post subject: | |
point well taken and already done. I have several guitars I am working on, and only one change to each one. I'll know which one I like soon. |
Author: | joelThompson [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:59 am ] |
Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=jeffreyyong] Hi Ken, I have been using a local wood known as Agathis for bracing all my
Jeffreyyong [/QUOTE]Agathis do you mean kauri. this is actualy a soft wood and the fresh wood (not the aincient kauri) is said to be a prime candidate for tops. in fact lauri williams uses kauri for some of his fine guitars to graet effect. i would be interested to see the results of a cedar or spruce top braced with kauri. Allthough it is ileagle to log kauri tree,s as they are the biggest and oldest trees on earth (second to redwood?) and were hugely over loged by the setlers of new zealand for boat building and making homes etc. so when a kauri tree reaches maturaty these days they rarely hit the world market. but i would still be interested. also there is aincent kauri but i dont think it would be stiff enough or stable enough. but still it might be worth doing some deflection testing on it. ken please let us know how the cedar build goes, joel. |
Author: | Tim McKnight [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I use Sitka, Cedar and Adi on each top ;) |
Author: | Howard Klepper [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:33 am ] |
Post subject: | |
IMO it is so hard (like impossible) to build two guitars that are alike except as to a single variable that one might as well accept the impossibility (especially for someone without an automated factory like Taylor's) of running a controlled single variable experiment on guitars, and just try out a bunch of things at once. Besides, if you have a bunch of ideas (and don't have an automated factory like Taylor's), you won't live long enough to try out every combination of them, so you may as well let intuition be your guide and go for it. No, you won't learn quantifiable information about a single input. The one thing you might learn is that a particular combination of factors can (not will) produce a guitar with certain characteristics. Not much hard knowledge, but fun in the process. Most WRC splits much more easily than most spruce. The weight savings as a brace wood IMO is negligible compared with the increased risk of failure. It's important to distinguish between stiffness to weight and strength to weight (strength being how much force it takes to (1) exceed the limit of elasticity; and (2) cause failure. You need both stiffness and strength in good proportion to weight, and spruce is where it comes together. I brace steel string tops with Sitka (which I don't favor as a top wood, but it has the toughness and elasticity that make for great brace wood) or Adirondack red. |
Author: | KenH [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:22 am ] |
Post subject: | |
This guitar started out as an experiment, and I wasnt going to waste alot of time on it because I just wanted to see hwo things would work out with these changes. First, it was a "Prima" cutaway, which is a new style for me. It has the general shape similar to a Martin OM, but with a slightly wider lower bout. I made it out of maple and thinned the maple down to scary thinness. All was going well with the build, and I also topped it with a sitka spruce top that has some pretty extreme color bands in it. Actually, I like the look. This wedge of sitka I bought was actually meant for brace stock, but it was large enough to cut a couple of sets of tops out of it, so I am trying it. I also used WRC for the tone bars, and the main braces are still Englemann spruce. When I first routed the channel for the binding, this is when the problems started. The first route was thin in some spots and thick in others. This is when I decided to go ahead and buy a purpose built binding machine. My second attempt to route the binding was with a laminate trimmer I havent used before and had bought used. The stewmac bit slipped in the collet, and completely routed off the back of the guitar. I ended up having to make another back for it and makes the sides of the guitar about 1/4" shorter than I had planned. Got the new back on it, and then discovered that there were still spots where the channel was too deep and the binding wouldnt cover the gap. I havent decided what I am going to do with this problem yet, but I am determined to make some use of the guitar. I love the shape and size and I am anxious to hear what it sounds like. I'll figure a way to get it all sealed up somehow. I've never had this many problems with a guitar before. At least this is all happening to a prototype guitar and not a comissioned guitar. |
Author: | douglas ingram [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
OOOOhhhh. I HATE it when the bit slips in the collet! |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |