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

the effect of mass in linings & LTB
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=3025		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Barry Dudley [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:15 am ]
Post subject: 
At this point I build classicals so I guess my questions should be considered with that in mind. My questions are, 1. what is the result if you add mass to the linings and 2. What if you add mass to the lower transverse brace. The method I was thinking of was using wood that had more mass such a maple or ash. I think Michael Lazar uses laminated ash linings.
Author:  Pwoolson [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Barry, I can't think of a reason why you would intentionally add mass to a box. I think most builders do just the opposite and try to take as much mass as possible away from the box. Maybe I'm missing something...
Author:  Sprockett [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:37 am ]
Post subject: 
Barry...

The only solid linings I have seen have been basswood or mahogany on classicals, everything I have ever read about classicals says to build them light for a couple of reasons but the biggest is that Nylon strings simply don't have as much energy as steel and classicals need as much help as possible.

I'm actually working on a Steel String prototype right now that will be as light as I can make it to see how the guitar sounds, but on my classicals I try to stick with tradition because alot of the old builders where geniuses when it came to getting a good sound out of one.

Not that I don't think that new methods can bring better results (double tops for instance), but I would shy away from something like heavy bindings without doing experiments first to see what the effect on the guitars sound is.

Cheers
Author:  Tim McKnight [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Paul: try .060" - .070" back and sides
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
You know, this question sort of pokes into an area that puzzles me greatly. I build classicals primarily, and I'm mostly a member of the "lighter is better" school too. But there have been other luthiers who have violated this principle with great success. Ignacio Fleta comes to mind, as does Paulino Bernabe to a somewhat lesser extent. I have not had the pleasure to play a Fleta, although I have played a couple of Bernabe's. Fleta, in particular, however, was known for his massive construction methods. His bracing was stout, and he even laid down a laminate on the soundboard above the upper tone bar. But his guitars were known for their great and robust volume and projection. Bernabe's guitars are more minimally braced, but the bracing he uses is quite stout. None the less, his guitars also have great volume and projection. And Hermann Hauser believed in building guitars with thick tops and shallow sides, yet his guitars were also known and revered for their almost piano-like projection.

Last month I had the pleasure to hear a magnificent 7-string built by Greg Byers. It also has a laminated upper bout area, a la Fleta, plus Byers adds a very stout V brace that runs from the sides to the tailblock. And rather than using a light wood like spruce for his tone bars, he uses hard maple! Go figure!

I suspect -- and this is only a suspicion mind you -- that it isn't so much the stoutness of the material, but where it is placed. The middle of the soundboard seems to be the area where one wants to keep things as light as possible, but it seems like just about anywhere else is fair game.

Best,

Michael
Author:  Barry Dudley [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Tim, I agree. It seems that adding mass to the borders of is where these builders are getting the results. I wonder if it has something to do with defining the edges more solidly...like a speaker. On the surface it makes sense. Keeping the limited string energy from being absorbed by the non-sound producing elements.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/