Sure is a pretty top. Very nice rosette too. I would aat least sand the perimeter to .100 range and the rest a bit thicker. Geez I guess that's what Steve said.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Top Thickness )Pic) http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=7530 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Don Williams [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are different schools of thought here. One builder, whose work I admire tremendously, told me awhile back that he has been leaving his tops a little bit thicker these days, as he feels it really helps to support good quality tone in the mid/high ranges. Many also will selectively thin the perimeter of the lower bout to free up the plate to support both good volume and the bass response. Based on what this builder said, you are in the range you need to be in. I love that top..... |
|
| Author: | Colonial Tonwds [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hesh, When I have a really stiff top for a dreadnaught, I'll take it down to .105 and taper the edges around the body to .100". Just food for thought. |
|
| Author: | Bobc [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sure is a pretty top. Very nice rosette too. I would aat least sand the perimeter to .100 range and the rest a bit thicker. Geez I guess that's what Steve said.
|
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If it's a true dred at 15.5 I'd go ahead and take it down to .105 ish, and if your at 16" for the body then I might just leave it as is and perimeter sand.... then again once I felt the tops stiffness and weight (don't forget about the weight!) I might do something different.. |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This makes me think (as a beginner) that the stiffness should be measured and given a numeric value rather than just go by feel. I have not done this with my first 4 guitars, but I'm thinking that I should. Shouldn't we be sanding to a deflection rather than to a thickness? I have not figured out how to do this yet, but it seems that if you support the perimeter and place a weight in the middle, you could then measure the amount it moves (deflection). |
|
| Author: | Dave Rector [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I should be getting a similar top from Steve next week sometime. I was just wondering, would any of you thickness it very much differently if you were building a 12-string? |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hesh my man... Let your feel and experience guide you. Top thickness, box volume, bracing, sound hole size & location and other factors all work together to produce what you want in a guitar. I don't feel any should be taken independent of the others. You make a good guitar, I'm thinking you will get it right. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Either way you do it, by feel or by objective testing, you have to get experience; there's no way around that. If you haven't made a lot of guitars yet, and haven't had the chance to study with somebody who can teach you what it's supposed to feel like, how would you know? At least with objective tests it's possible to translate the data into some common unit, such as Young's modulus, and tap into other folks data if they're willing to share. David Hurd's 'Left Brain Lutherie' has a lot of info on deflection testing at all stages; maybe more than you want to know! It's also possible to calculate the Yuong's modulus from acoustic tests, within limits. I've finally started doing that, and am starting to develop objective data for top woods. you can't have too much information. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|