| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Well’less http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=3053 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | LanceK [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For my first reso I'm considering building what would amount to a small bodied L1gp (similar to the Gibby L-00) without a sound well. I've read that this allows the body of the guitar to act more like an acoustic, allowing the entire box to be part of the equation and not limiting the sound producing area to the well alone. What are the pros and cons to not using a sound well, other than bucking tradition. Also, I plan to use a nice set of Cocobolo for the back and sides, and possibly an addy top, although I have to admit to considering Redwood too. My feelings are it would produce a reso with the cutting edge highs and big volume, but also a warmer, darker, rich overall tone. ???? Thanks LanceK |
|
| Author: | LouisianaGrey [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most of the modern dobro makers don't use a soundwell. I think the only difference it makes is to the tone of the guitar. I can't think of any "cons" to the soundpost construction method, which is the only one I use when building. In fact I've just modified a Regal for a customer and part of the mod was to enlarge the holes in the soundwell, which has improved the tone to my ears. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In modern resonator guitars, you want to build the sounbox to act more like a speaker cabinet than a guitar body, meaning you want the top completely rigid. It doesn't enter into the sound of the guitar at all. Quite different from acoustics! The back may be another story, but it's debated hard by different camps. So is the solid wood vs. laminated wood argument. Some sware that laminated sounds better, and others claim to prefer the sound of real wood. The top is usually very thick - like 1/4" or so. |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Really! So a top wood choice would have little effect on the final tonal outcome? |
|
| Author: | D.L.Huskey [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lance, After stiffining the top to support everything it has very little if anything to do with the sound the resonator produces. What I have found is that closed grain woods such as maple, cherry, cedar and others have a brighter more treble sound. While open grained woods such as walnut, mohagany, and others produce a mellower tone. |
|
| Author: | LouisianaGrey [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You'll get debate about tops too if you ask enough builders. However I belong in the camp that says you can pick your top wood solely on the basis of how it looks, because its effect on the sound is negligible. My tops are usually at least 6mm of solid wood with 6mm birch ply reinforcement laminated underneath the whole length and a lot of the width. I doubt very much whether they make any significant contribution to the tone. In my view if a top is too light it vibrates and robs the cone of tone and volume - it's a typical problem of far eastern import dobros. As far as back and side wood choice goes, I agree it's generally true that maple etc. = bright and mahogany etc. = warm, although there are always exceptions. |
|
| Author: | John How [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My reso top is made from 1/8" b1rch plywood with a thin 1/16" Maple top lanimated to that. The resonator sits in a sort of drum that hangs from the top and is unsupported from the back, sort of like a national steel, although I believe the nationals use a couple sound posts to add support. Mine is sturdy enough that it is not required and I doubt that it would make any difference at all to the tone if I added a post. It's very rigid. |
|
| Author: | LouisianaGrey [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For biscuit bridge I tend to use a neck stick under the soundwell like a National, but I think the posts under that are more important in a metal body than a wooden one. Wood is naturally more rigid than the thin metal they use for guitar bodies. Without the posts in a metal body the back tends to flap. |
|
| Author: | rick218 [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
On my national type wooden single cones I use a very thin sound well made of sheet metal ,this in turn is attached to the neck stick with small screws. I think this gives the guitar a bit more volume than a wooden sound well. This is just my opinion. I agree about the wood for the top and not using the posts I also think they are only needed metal bodies. |
|
| Author: | hoosierukes [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tell me more about the sheet metal sound well. What guage? Does it have contact with the back? The cone sits on the lip of the metal cylinder? Geoff |
|
| Author: | Ron Shriver [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My square neck was 1/8" solid walnut top, sides, and back. Soundring is 1/4" plywood with a lip of 1/4" plywood and posts to the back braces. Epoxy pore fill and KTM. |
|
| Author: | rick218 [ Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Regarding the sheet metal sound well for national type guitar; the metal thickness is a little over 1mm the well is 25mm deep with a 15mm ledge for the cone to sit on. A 9 1/2"national cone sits in the well with a little bit of play ,the ledge at the top is the same size as a National coverplate. The well it self fits in to a ledge cut flush with a router in the 4mm birch ply top. On my Walnut tricone the sound well is made of three ply maple with a brass bottom. The metal sound wells were tig welded for me about 10 years ago. When I get the hang of resizing the digitl pictures I will post some. |
|
| Author: | JD Myers [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Many also use polycarbon materials for sound wells and baffles. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|