Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi folks,

Some of you have built and build both steel string and classical guitars. Is building classical guitars harder than steel string or vice versa?

I find making steel string guitars more open to experimentation than classical in terms of wood combinations, scale lengths an so on. This is probably why it is more attractive for many people, but what about difficulty.

Thanks  

_________________
Andy

Italian spruce if you look for the best!!

If all you have as a knowledge base is steel string than classical is harder because you learned intuition is of little use, and I am sure it is the other way for classical builders. Having done both but for the most part steel string, only one commissioned Classical. I would say the joinery is joinery. It is the plate tuning and bracing affects that have to be learned as you do not have near as much kinetic energy being inputted into the top plate.

i don't feel that there is any difference in the physical difficulty in building one or the other. the physical skills necessary are basically the same. whilst more traditional builders of classical guitars use the spanish heel which is not commonly used on steel string guitars, there are steel string builders who do, just as there are classical builders who use dovetail mortice and tenon joints or various bolt on types. the same can be said of building on an assembly board or using a mold.

building either requires the builder to have a clear understanding of the sound he wants to achieve and how to achieve it.

the classical market's conservatism is well recognized, but the same could be said about the steel string market BT(Before Taylor). the bolt on neck which is so widely accepted today was the subject of traditionalist derision back in the days when taylor was almost forced out of business because of market resistance. now, close to 40 years later, bob taylor is acknowledged as a leading light in the industry and his design innovations are subject to the most sincere form of flattery, they are widely copied.

to a certain extent the same can be said of the classical market. technological innovation is taking place and finding acceptance, e.g., double tops, lattice bracing, etc. but it is a much smaller market, at least in this country than that for steel strings, and i think it will take longer for many alternative design elements to gain wider acceptance than it took in the steel string realm.

I'd have to say that it's more difficult to build a really first class classical than a steel string of equal relative merit. Certainly they present different problems, and you have to approach them differently.

Most of the difference IMO actually has to do with the nature of the strings: nylon has less energy, and less of what they have is in the high end. The top needs to be a light as possible, so that it's easy to drive with the limited power, and also as stiff as possible, so that you preserve the high end clarity. These are contradictory things, in some respects, and it takes some skill, and good wood, to strike the proper balance.

On steel strings the opposite seems to be the case: there's plenty of high end, and you need to bring out enough bass to balance it. This is usually accomplished through using a bigger body, although that gets one into issues of providing enough structural stiffness to hold up under the greater tension.

In the end, making great guitars consistently, with either nylon or steel strings, is not easy, but I think the nylon strings are harder.

Nicely put Alan. I don't think I could have said it any better myself.