Official Luthiers Forum!

I have plans on the way but I was wondering if anyone here could let me know the soundhole diameter on the OLF OM. See I thought I was going to wing the size/shape/bracing pattern with this first build, but I decided to go with something more tried-and-true. I already did the rosette and cut out the soundhole, so I am hoping that mine will match up to that.
Thanks!
Christian

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Louis Hector Berlioz

Chansen / C hansen / C. Hansen / Christian Hansen - not a handle.

Christian

I could tell you for a couple of Bending forms and a mold. (Just kidding)

I also recently ordered the OLF plans and haven't received them yet, but I do have the plans from the book that I have (not sure if it's standard though), and it says the soundhole is 100mm or 3-15/16in (I guess basically 4 inches).

Someone else who's already familar with the OM could probably verify that or tell you otherwise.

Good luck with your build!

_________________
Thanks,
Blain

http://www.ullrichguitar.com

"89.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

Oops. Looks like Hesh just did...

_________________
Thanks,
Blain

http://www.ullrichguitar.com

"89.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

[QUOTE=blain1976]I could tell you for a couple of Bending forms and a mold. (Just kidding)


[/QUOTE]

Sry!

Ok, lets just hypothetically say that my soundhole ID is 3.7 or so (without the soundhole binding it would be more like 3.9) .... is this going to make a big difference in the sound/volume?? Aesthetically it looks fine... I think anyway.

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Louis Hector Berlioz

Chansen / C hansen / C. Hansen / Christian Hansen - not a handle.

Christian

Those sides look like some nice birch, Christian. A bit thick, though!

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

Nice one Pat... Well even though it's my first, I'm not afraid to think outside the box. At least they'll be stiff.

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Louis Hector Berlioz

Chansen / C hansen / C. Hansen / Christian Hansen - not a handle.

Christian

A smaller soundhole will make a difference, but whether or not you will actually notice it is questionable. There will definitely be a little less volume. Yours is so close to the 4" required that I dont think I would sweat it if it were me.

_________________
Reguards,

Ken H

I use 100mm for OMs (and just about everything else) say 4" in old fashioned measurements.

Yours at 3.7" is on the face of it only 0.3" smaller. However this is a larger proportion of the area than the 0.3 would seem at first sight, as this is taken from the outside edge so would represent the difference in area of a circle 3.7" and 4". The difference is more than 1.8sq" or nearly 20% bigger. that is not inconsiderable.

My solution would be to add a soundport in the upper bout, this is easily done and will offset any reduction in soundhole size (they add a great quality to the perceived sound anyway.)

Something like this:


Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Well said and good recommendation Colin

OK, I forget what affect soundhole changes make.
Can someone help the boy?

Generally speaking, does a larger soundhole tend to make the sound more harsh, with more highs and less bass and a smaller sound-hole add some bass and cut some of the highs?

_________________
"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." G. K. Chesterton.

[QUOTE=SteveS] OK, I forget what affect soundhole changes make.
Can someone help the boy?

Generally speaking, does a larger soundhole tend to make the sound more harsh, with more highs and less bass and a smaller sound-hole add some bass and cut some of the highs? [/QUOTE]
The general "rule of thumb" is that a smaller soundhole favors the bass, and a larger soundhole favors the treble. If you add a side port, it's likely to favor the treble in either case. Alan Carruth could tell you why.

Ok all,
Thanks for the suggestions, now I have some options to weigh before making a decision. I like the soundport idea because I already had some visions of doing this. I am not sure if I will scrap the binding yet to open it up... I think it looks purdy

I'll be moving forward soon, so I will let you all know. Thanks!!!

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Louis Hector Berlioz

Chansen / C hansen / C. Hansen / Christian Hansen - not a handle.

Christian

You can cut a soundport at any time during the construction. Some cut them before bending some, after bending when the sides have had the head and tail blocks glued in place. I do mine after the back is on but before the top.

That said I have successfully added a soundport as a retro-fit to some of my guitars, no need to take them apart.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

In my limited experience, I think a smaller soundhole leads to a tighter more focused sound. I am building OMs with 3.75" soundholes.

_________________
David White, Toronto

"All my favourite singers can't sing."