Could it be, and this is just a guess, that the angle of the back in relationship to the lower bout might actually do a better job of reflecting the sound out the sound hole?
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| New Guitar: Reverse Wedge http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=968 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Check out my latest prototype design: the reverse wedge. See it at: http:// www.wellsguitars.com/Gallery/Wedge/Wedge.html/ |
|
| Author: | Tim McKnight [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very cool looking guitar Sylvan. I am surprised that it is as loud as you say it is. I would have thought the reverse design might hinder the volume. I assume it's the same size sound hole? What tool do you use the cut the binding ledge on your headstocks? Just curoius? TIA... |
|
| Author: | Darin Spayd [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Could it be, and this is just a guess, that the angle of the back in relationship to the lower bout might actually do a better job of reflecting the sound out the sound hole?
|
|
| Author: | Don A [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Glad to hear that this design works Sylvan. And like always, the guitar looks great. Maybe this is the next big innovation for dreads since many folks don't like them due to the body depth of the lower bout. It would also be interesting to see if an OM or Parlor constructed like this would provide the same results. Thanks for sharing with us. |
|
| Author: | Dickey [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great looking guitar, very interesting design. Road Trip? Or is it sold? Thanks for sharing. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I never have thought large guitars were uncomfortable, but I can see where someone small might like this. Very interesting that is for sure! |
|
| Author: | SonicAgamemnon [ Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps the volume issue would be a bigger factor in a smaller and/or shorter scale guitar? In the classical guitar world, I've read that the soundhole area is nearly a dead zone, and the upper bout plays a much smaller role in projection/volume compared to the critical mid-to-lower bout region. A change in body design could lower volume, but if the guitar's scale is increased (or some other factor adjusted), that could make up for any loss in body size, etc. There are so many variables! I had a similar goal last year: maintain great projection and increase playing comfort using a smaller/lighter guitar design. As a classical player, a few years ago I tried performing with a huge and very long Ramirez (664mm scale) that really projected well. However, the guitar was simply too large for me, causing premature hand weakness and poor technique, etc. I came to the conclusion that I needed a smaller classical with a Wagner double-top soundboard design (Nomex). The end result was a very light 650mm scale guitar that was easy to play, and it matched the projection of the much longer and bigger Ramirez... |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tim - All headstock binding is cut with a Porter Cable 310 and LMI bearings to give me the right size. Nothing fancy but it works. |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The soundhole is oversized at 4 1/8" diameter. |
|
| Author: | Jeff Doty [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sylvan, Wow, that is a beauty! Cool design, did you modify the bracing dimensions/layout on the back at all? Jeff |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jeff - There were no changes to the bracing patterns for the top and back at all. The top used my standard "X" bracing and the back is a standard spaced 4 brace ladder bracing. |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sylvan, That's pretty wild! What made you think of doing that? I have built with a wedge back from bottom to top ( helps fit my big belly) but never thought of the "reverse" as you have done. Did a customer commission this guitar? Well done as always! 
|
|
| Author: | russ [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sylvan, As always, great workmanship!!! And a kewl idea too! :) |
|
| Author: | Mario [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How does it 'feel'? The way I hold a guitar, either seated or standing, my belly would land right at the thickest part of this guitar, making it feel huge, I would think. On the other hand, someone who plays seated in the classical position with a foot rest, would use it to best advantage. |
|
| Author: | stan thomison [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sylvan really cool guitar. I like the idea of the larger soundhole. I know may sound dumb, but I haven't kept up much on differing frets things can in time here or an article explain shpere and semispher or hemisprical fretting (it was more than a minute since i read description for forgot the term you used) |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mario - The guitar feels like a much smaller guitar seated. I put it on my right leg (right handed) and it feels smaller. My belly is not anywhere near it! |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I simply wanted to approach the problem of the uncomfortable "D" size in a different way. It seemed to me that if the volume of the box stayed relatively the same and the bridge was over the deepest portion the guitar ought to sound about the same as done conventionally. To find out I had to build it. Now I know it works and can make use of the design in future instruments. Another "arrow in the quiver"! |
|
| Author: | John Kinnaird [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great looking instrument. I saw a similar design in the first guitar book I ever read. It was written by Art Overholtzer. He experimented with the design, thought the reverse wedge made a good sounding classical guitar but stopped with one model because it was not well recieved by the classical players. Too radical for their conservative taste. Perhaps with the more adventursome steel string crowd it could catch on. John |
|
| Author: | Sylvan [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
John - I don't think there is anything really very "new" in the guitar design department so it does not suprise me that someone had tried this design before. I don't really think that players are going to go for such a radical change in the basic instrument; rather those few that are adventuresome and willing to try something different. As I said on the web site it is just "another arrow in the quiver". It also raises other questions for me that, hopefully, will make my instruments better. |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SCHWEET!
Very nice Sylvan! |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now that is thinking outside the box! Very cool Sylvan.... Hey, that neck looks awfully small on that soundbox....! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|