Official Luthiers Forum!

Another project started last year and put aside after loosing interest. Did I mention my A.D.D character?

Anyways this was my first classical build and I finished this weekend. I guess I now know I dont know anything about classical building.

The setup was quite different for me compared to steel string and I made the action too low and ended up remaking a new nut and saddle. Of course then I read the book after I was done and discovered the neck angle is not the same as a steel string.

I am very pleased with the look of this guitar but the sound and volume is less than I had expected. Tomorrow plan to go down to Guitar Center to play some classicals and see if I have totally failed or if I just dont know what a classical should sound like.

Of course I dont know classical music and when I play Steven Stills Treetop Flyer it just doesnt do the guitar justice.

Some details - used lacewood for back and sides and sitka bear claw for soundboard - perhaps that is contributing to my low volume and sound??   Think I took the top down to around .11 which is probably too thick.

The light strings dont seem to have any ring to them - not muted but just seem to be dead and the base strings seem to have good sustain but the guitar just lacks punch.

I sure hope by the time I get to retirement age I have this nailed.

Pictures Rich, Pictures!! Sheesh!

Yup...show us some pics!!

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

I'm just a beginner in the world of luthery, but these are my observations :

Most high end classical uses Cedar or Spruce tops with rosewood(Indian or Brazilian or Madagascar) or maple back and sides.

When comparing flamenco guitars, cypress back and sides (bianca) really have less projection and volume than rosewood back and sides (negra). I don't know anything about SS guitars woods though.

Also, Spruce tops on classicals are usually around 2mm (0.078") and cedar is a bit thicker... around 3mm (0.118").

I'd also try a high tension string set and see how it goes.

Best regards,

Rich,

Yeah, it sounds like you just overbuilt it. I think if you slap on some hard (high) tension strings it'll sound better right away, and the wood itself will start to respond better as time goes on. All is not lost.

rich, judging from some of the post before mine i'd say we really don't care how it sounds... Does it look good?? thats all!! is she purdy?? No seriously rich, I'd say from the info I have seen you have built it heavy.. Heres a really crazy and possibly stupid idea, which you probably will think I am toasted. But,,, well why not remove the neck and bridge and plane,scrape and sand about .030" off that top. A nice RA sander, especially a festool set to rotex mode will eat that off in 10 minutes. Hey, stop throwing things at me,, it might be better then living with a guitar you don't like.. And by the way,, where are those pics already..
Mike

Yes Rich, we want pics pretty please!

[QUOTE=rich altieri]

The setup was quite different for me compared to steel string and I made the action too low and ended up remaking a new nut and saddle. Of course then I read the book after I was done and discovered the neck angle is not the same as a steel string. [/QUOTE]

Heh, only a new nut and saddle? You lucked out. I have the frets off my first classical right now and am planing a taper into the fingerboard so I can get another mm of action at the 12th fret at the same time as I'm dropping the saddle height by 2mm. Planing an already slotted ebony fingerboard is a pita.


[QUOTE=rich altieri]

I sure hope by the time I get to retirement age I have this nailed. [/QUOTE]

Me too, me too

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

Hey Rich,

I feel your pain. I just finished my first classical and 13-fret 00. I was able to quickly judge the tone of the 00 (I am extremely pleased) but was clueless as to the "correctness" of the classical. Sergei de Jonge said it sounded like a concert classical to him. I'll bring it to a couple of players I know to get their thoughts... maybe you could do the same since I don't think there's anything remotely like a high-end classical at the GC except for the odd Jose Ramirez.

Oh, for the rest of the group here are the specs:

Redwood top (travesty!)
Ziricote back/sides
Lattice bracing pattern (blasphemy!)
Dovetail neck joint w/bolt (scandalous!)
645 mm scale length
49.6 mm nut
3.8 mm bass / 2.7 mm treble action

Cheers,
Warren

Sitka is not normally used for classicals. I built with it once. Once.

The only maker I can think of who regularly builds with Sitka is John Gilbert. David Schramm claims he gets a good sound from it, but I notice that none of the guitars he has built in the last several years uses it.

The top may be too thick, but I advise ignoring "overbuild" statements. Some of the best builders in the world, such as Fleta, Hauser, Giussani, etc., build even thicker than your measurements. They build at around 3mm in European spruce, which is 0.12". I've been building Hauser style guitars, so I have always done thick tops. A few times when I was very dissatisfied with tone and volume I've removed the bridge and thinned the top. You don't really get an improvement. Sure, go ahead and try it with your guitar, but don't expect much. When you go to the guitar center, notice how much compliance there is in the top by pushing down on the bridge with your thumb. Then try it on your guitar. That'll give you a ball park feeling.

I would suggest the following. Do another build, but use the best European Spruce you can get your hands on, and Indian Rosewood for the B&S. Build like Torress, not like the advise you get on here for zero tension building. I.e. plane the bottom of your fan braces completely flat and straight, and spring them in using your go bar deck. Use hide glue (you don't want those sprung braces creeping over time). Think of the top as a drum head. Put a lot of attention into the bridge. In fact, use your blah sitka topped guitar as a test mule. Make an overly thick bridge, put it on the guitar, see how it sounds. Now thin down the arms. Try again. Yes, eventually you'll damamge the top. But there is no substitute for experimentation. It won't tell you everything, of course, as you really want to know how to shape the bridge on a perfectly made European Spruce top, but it'll show you the effect of modification of what is the largest, stiffest brace on a classical guitar.

There are a lot of subtlties to building classicals. For example, take a Hauser guitar. Hauser actually glued in his fan braces dead flat, put a large arch in the bridge, and then smooshed them together, causing an arch only near the bridge. Furthermore, his lower harmonic bar (the cross strut just below the sound hole) has a negative arch, ie concave rather than convex like we normally build with. His saddle slots are very shallow compared to most guitars. Hauser II built with very large braces - 5mm x 8mm on a 3mm thick topEtc., etc. All logic and advise you read on these forums contradicts every statement and measurement above. But 100 years later, and we all still try to just emulate the Hauser sound. (well, not all, but you know what I mean).

In contrast, Fletas are big, heavily built beasts. Again, all logic says they are overbuilt, and will be quiet and lack tone. But they are some of the greatest guitars in existance (IMO). Thick tops, thick and tall braces, 9 fan braces, an extra harmonic bar, closing struts actually laminated into the end block, extremely large head blocks and tail blocks, a layer of spruce laminated onto the top in the upper bout, 2 heavy upper transverse bars, dovetailed neck, bridges with extra long tie blocks and tall arms - every last detail flies in the face of the advise you'll normally get. But the guitars? Stunning.

But before you think I'm saying building heavy is the way to go, look at Miguel Rodriguez guitars. They are built like eggshells. only 5 fans, tops that sometimes run as thin as 2mm (in cedar), etc. They also are extremely coveted.

Or look at Ruck guitars. I have not held one, so I have little concrete to say about them. But he often uses fan braces that are extremely wide and very low. Again, you'll have people disputing this technique; after all, stiffness is influenced much more by the height of a brace, so a low, thick brace is very inefficient if you compare stiffness to weight. And everyone says you need to build these things very efficiently. But look at who plays Ruck's guitars.

In short, I don't think you are going to get a great guitar by attacking it with a RO sander, though I highly encourage you to try (it'll be educational, if nothing else). I think you need to start with traditional materials, start with a successful design, and copy all the details of that design. After a couple of dozen you may start to get the feel. It only took Hauser a few decades to get it right :)






rlabbe39001.4411226852

Rich,

I find myself in agreement with most of what Rlabbe has written. For example, I myself have often wondered how a Fleta can sound as good as it does, since the man seems to have broken all the rules.

I've also examined the interiors of a couple of Bernabe classicals, and even though Bernabe uses a very minimalist bracing pattern, the fan braces themselves are very large -- somewhere around 5/16" wide by 1/2" tall, as near as I could tell -- and the bracing material seemed to be Spanish cedar. Yet these guitars were quite loud and very full sounding.

Another surprising thing I found about the Bernabe guitars was the size of their bridges. They had bridges that were considerably larger than others I've measured. Once again, one would expect that all that extra mass and top reinforcement would result in a quieter sounding instrument, but this clearly wasn't the case. I wish I knew more about soundboard acoustics, but my suspicion is that the mass of the bridge may not be all that critical -- within a reasonable set of parameters, of course -- because the bridge is located at a node (for the string, at least), where there is no amplitude.

I've built only one Hauser emulation, and it turned out quite well. I used the ex-Segovia 1937's soundboard thickness measurements and refered to a set of plans I have for a 1943 Hauser for the fan bracing pattern, and the shape of the braces. The '43's braces were parabolic shaped, and quite shallow, which made sense to me, since the top is thicker than what many steel-string builders thickness their tops to -- roughly 0.120" in the center, tapering to about 0.095" at the edges.

So anyway, it took a while for the guitar to open up. It was fairly quiet at first, but now, a year later, its volume and tone are very nice. I used Euro spruce for the top and EIR for the back/sides.

I have built only one guitar using bearclaw sitka, and it was a steel-string. The bearclaw sitka top set I used was very stiff -- unusually stiff for sitka -- and I probably should have thinned it down a bit more than I did. That guitar sounds good, but is still a bit quieter than I think it should be. If I were to use bearclaw sitka on a classical, I'd be building closer to the Torres school -- a very thin top, and probably not very prominent fan braces.

I have built one classical using straight sitka, however, and it turned out quite nice. That guitar has had plenty of volume from the word "go." But the top set was thicknessed to a more typical thickness -- 0.085" or so.

I also have a set of lacewood here that I've yet to use. The backset taps somewhat like mahogany. It's not as bright as a good set of EIR or coco, which will result in a warmer sounding guitar. That can be a good thing for steel strings, but for classicals it isn't as desirable. Classicals, lacking the abundance of highs that steel strings have, need all the brightness they can get. IMHO.

Finally, as you stated at the outset, classicals are a different animal. If you have a smaller guitar shop in your area -- one that might specialize in classicals would be best -- take your guitar into the shop, and ask if somebody there who might know how to play classical guitar would be willing to give it a go. Alternatively, ask around to see if there's a classical teacher in your area, and arrange to have him/her try it out. A-B it with other guitars while you're there, and listen with a critical ear. Pay attention to the player's feedback, as well. I do this sort of thing on a regular basis, and I've learned quite a bit in the process.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Hey Warren, congrats Man, how about a pic or 2 please?

Congrats Rich...

Classicals are like violins, they are deceptive in how complex they actually are. With our steel strings we have a ton of driving force to make the top resonate, with a classical you don't have that luxury so you have be extra careful when building the top. I've done a Ramirez clone which turned out pretty good even though it was a tad overbraced.

I had a very nice gentleman sit down with my Ramirez and play it for a while and then he stuck his hand in the soundhole and examined the bracing (my eyes went ). He told me it was overbraced but not by much, he spent a good deal of time pointing out things to me and then finally told me if I wanted to master classical building to get some Hauser plans and start building those. It was advice that I took to heart, I don't know his name but he sure knew what he was talking about....

On the workbench right now is my Hauser Classical, the top is done and if I can finish a neck without killing it (read my other post about my little accident with the first neck) then I'll be able to get this one done. I'm following the Hauser plan as close as I can, I'm using European Spruce, Cocobolo sides and back and ebony for the bridge and fingerboard. No inlay, just plain and simple....

I'd love to see some pics of your work, please share

Cheers

-Paul-

_________________
-Paul-

Patriot Guitars

[QUOTE=Serge Poirier] Hey Warren, congrats Man, how about a pic or 2 please?[/QUOTE]

Hi Serge,

I don't have the final shots of the guitars yet: I'm giving the French polish an extra week to harden before they're buffed up. I'm not sure which shots will go into the Fretboard Journal article either but I think this composite shot of the ziricote that I whipped together is safe.

The ziricote bridge (to be oiled) is being glued on with magnets. The back has a single coat of shellac on it for demonstration purposes only.



Cheers,
Warren

IMO classicals are a bit different, in the sense that the string gives us a different spectrum to work with. Steel strings becauuse of the nature of the material, have a lot more high end in the sound. Thus the problem of making a steel string guitar is getting enough bass to balance the treble. With the small amount of high-end energy in nylon strings, you can't afford to waste any, so you need to think about how to get that to work, while the bases usually seem to take care of themselves.

Your top is not too thick, as has been pointed out. The weight might cost you a little sound, but the thickness helps with the high end.   

Lacewood is a type of oak, and would tend to have higher damping than most of the rosewoods. Higher damping usually 'eats' high end sound, so that's part of your problem. The oak B&S guitar I made as part of a 'matched pair'(the other was Brazilian rosewoood) was relatively lacking in high end for the same reason.

Power is _not_ as much of an issue with nylon strings as people think. For one thing, the power in a vibrating string goes as the tension and the square of the amplitude. Nylon strings have lower tension, but usually use higher action, and that can more than make up for it. Again, a lot has to do with the spectrum: our ears are so much more sensitive to high frequencies that the steel string will tend to sound louder, even if the total power is the same or a bit lower.

[QUOTE=Alan Carruth] ...the steel string will tend to sound louder, even if the total power is the same or a bit lower. [/QUOTE]
My experience has been just the opposite, Alan. If a steel string and a classical are being played side-by-side, and both players are using bare fingers, the classical always wins the volume prize. Moreso the farther back the listener is. I've never heard a steel string that, unamplified, could front an orchestra in a concert hall and be perceived in the back row. Good nylon strings can (barely).

I understand what you're saying about high frequencies sounding louder to our ears--any electric bass player can testify to that, as his 200 watt amp struggles to keep up with the lead player's 30 watt. In practice, though, it doesn't seem to me that steel string guitars can match classicals in percieved volume, if they're both equally well-built and played in the same manner.

Opinions?

wow, lots of good advice and i am encouraged, maybe to the point i will do another and see if i can get it closer. thanks to all for taking the time to chime in. i will post some pics by the weekend.

Awesome work Warren, you sure can be proud, the FP is looking great also my friend! WOW!

Rich,

Is the top a consistent .11 everywhere or is it graduated around the edges? What if anything did you do in the way of voicing?

While there are as may approaches to building classicals are there are luthiers, in general the idea is to get the top vibrating as freely as possible since the string tension is much less than a steel string. It is not just a matter of sanding the top to a given thickness, it is also a matter of the dimensions of the braces to be taken into consideration.

What were the dimensions of the fan braces and are they tapered, scalloped, whatever? How about your harmonic bars...what size and are they shaped in some way...all of these things can influence the sound in volume, tone and sustain.

If this guitar is for yourself and is not for someone else AND you used a classical spanish style of construction in which the back was put on last, if nothing else you can rout or chisel off the back binding/purfling and remove the back. In that way you will would be able to get at the top and bracing to thin and adjust as needed.

Note that if you had hands small enough to fit in the sounds hole that alot of these kinds of adjustments can also be done with the guitar intact.

Because classical guitars are more refined in terms of the factors that can affect the sound, it is an evolutionary journey to get to the sound you are looking for... nothing is set in stone but the difference between a great guitar and a good guitar is very small...but obvious to the sound.

Speaking of Sitka Spruce, i have built a number of Flamenco guitars and a few classical with Sitka, mostly bearclaw and because of its stiffness typically will take the top down to .100 for the upper bout, tapering to .115 in the area of the bridge (not including a bridge plate that is .100 tapering to .040 at the outer edges of the bridge plate. I thickness the edges of the top from the center harmonic bar around the lower bout to about .070 for about one inch in from the edge and then taper the thickness evenly to the center of the bridge area that I mentioned is at about .115 inches.

For me the thickness of the top is directly proportional to the cross grain stiffness of the wood used for the top so in general from thickest to thinnest by species I build with would be King Billy Pine (a sequoia), then Western Red Cedar, Redwood, Englemann, Euro Spruce, Lutz Spruce, then Sitka.

Note that I build a Spanish classical guitar in the school of Torres with very small fan braces and thin top, if the top is spruce but thicker if the top is cedar. This the traditional Spanish method which is not better than others, just different.

Fleta, while he was a Spanish builder, came to guitar building late in life and his construction method is based on his background as a violin family builder. Hauser and the others mentioned also built great classical guitars but were not building in the Spanish tradition established by Pages and Torres.

Carlton M wrote:
<<My experience has been just the opposite, Alan. If a steel string and a classical are being played side-by-side, and both players are using bare fingers, the classical always wins the volume prize. >>

Did you use a dB meter to get readings on them? Remember, for a given amount of input energy the lighter top on a classical will probably move more and produce more sound. There are also all sorts of difficulties in equating 'volume', 'loudness' and 'carrying power'.

I've never heard a steel string guitar being played with an orchestra, but I bet I can think of a few that could hold their own!

[QUOTE=Alan Carruth] I've never heard a steel string guitar being played with an orchestra, but I bet I can think of a few that could hold their own![/QUOTE]

Alan, this is OT, but just last night I heard a big band playing jazz and the guitar player played an old arch top - unamplified. He only played chords but most of the time the darned thing could be heard just fine over the top of the reeds, bones and rhythm section. First time I ever experienced that live. Remarkable.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

[QUOTE=Alan Carruth] Did you use a dB meter to get readings on them? .

I've never heard a steel string guitar being played with an orchestra, but I bet I can think of a few that could hold their own![/QUOTE]
Nope, no meter, just my ears. The classical guitar always seems to carry farther and sound louder than any steel string I've ever heard, if both are played with bare fingers (or fingernails).

If someone has built a steel string that could front an orchestra, I'd be really excited to hear it (and see how it's constructed!). Perhaps it can be done. That would be a good thing!

[QUOTE=SteveCourtright] last night I heard a big band playing jazz and the guitar player played an old arch top - unamplified. He only played chords but most of the time the darned thing could be heard just fine over the top of the reeds, bones and rhythm section.[/QUOTE]
Steve, it is pretty amazing, isn't it? The difference here, though, is that the guitarist you heard was using a pick. If he were using his bare fingers, you wouldn't have been able to hear the guitar. Even with a pick, if the guitarist took a solo, unamplified, the band would have had to drop out except for the rhythm section for any single-string action to be heard at all.

Acoustic archtops (as invented by Gibson, anyway) do one thing really well--punch out chopped chords. Something in the design unexpectedly made that possible.

I was lucky enough to hear the above scenario from the original source--the Count Basie Band with Freddie Green himself! That was COOL!!!

A buddy of mine got to try Freddie's guitar at a show once. It was a big Stromberg, the low E was about a .070, and the action at the 12th fret around a quarter inch. My frind could barely fret it, but when he played a chord everybody in the ballroom jumped.