Official Luthiers Forum!

I just bought the best sounding classical guitar I've ever played, and it comes in just slightly over 7 lbs. It's a lattice braced guitar built in the style of the best Australian builders (aka Smallman) which means many laminations and a very thin top. As you can see from the pic, the back is arched like a cello helping with volume and projection. One of the coolest features is an adjustable allen screw at the 17th fret which allows adjustmnet of the neck angle. I've been playing with it all day and think it's one of the greatest innovations for classical guitar. I'll post more pics and sound clips when I get a chance.

Cheers!

John

John-
Looking forward to more pics and details!
Is that a padauk bridge?
And is the armrest let into the body, or suspended above it?

Thanks for the look!

Cheers
John

Who built it?

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

7lbs?

I don't care how it sounded, I'd never play it... same reason I never took up banjo <bg>

7lbs? Oy!

I'll second Jim's question, also. Who?

Redgate John? Smallman uses padauk bridges. I must admit when I played a Smallman the weight did get too much for me, but I suppose it's only a matter of getting used to it.

Anyway, I love to see more detail and especially hear a sounclip.

Colin

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

Looks beautiful...with all the "innovations" on it...does it have a spanish heel? I assume NOT since you said there was an adjustment screw at the 17th fret. Just wondering because I have been told over and over that classical players are mostly "purists" when it comes to their guitars and therefore would never consider a bolt on neck. I am currently building three classicals with bolt ons and wondering if it is going to come back to bite me. At any rate what do you attribute all the weight to if the top is very thin? I assume the back must have been rather thick at one point in order to get all that recurve into it.

WOW 7lbs + are you sure it's not a Les Paul?

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

I know of at least one renown classical luthier who glues on the neck with a splice, but when it is done, you cannot tell the difference in appearance between that and a one-piece Spanish style heel. Does that make any diffenece to anyone?

Very interesting.  That looks an awful lot like the Australian Guitar that Dave Schramm was building, last, in his on-line building project.  Similar arm rest, etc.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

[QUOTE=Bill Bergman] I know of at least one renown classical luthier who glues on the neck with a splice, but when it is done, you cannot tell the difference in appearance between that and a one-piece Spanish style heel. Does that make any difference to anyone?[/QUOTE]
I noticed in my copy of Courtnall that the Fleta example had a dovetail joint in a small neck block, so he seemed to get away without using the 'Spanish' heel.

John

John,

In an earlier thread I commented on the Smallman I heard Xuefei Yang played in a recent concert in Fort Worth (review). I was sitting on front row directly in front of the guitar, admittedly I had nothing to compare to and Xuefei could probably make anything sound good, but in my opinion it was an impressive sounding guitar and not just loud.
Interesting thread in MIMF forum, Schramm shows some of his construction mimf thread.

The plywood frame inside, the laminated sides, and the thick carved back all contribute to the weight.  At least its not hanging from a shoulder strap!

This adjustable neck is essentially a re-orientation of what Stauffer was doing back in the 1800's.  They've moved the adjustment screw from the heel to the fingerboard, and have adjusted the construction to make it look more like the traditional Spanish heel.  Stauffer used an elevated fingerboard to allow for the movement, the Australian school use a slot under the fingerboard.  I believe that Smallman, and others, would all acknowledge this design lineage.

Apparently, a lot of guitarists think that using an elevated fingerboard on a contemporary classical guitar is very cutting edge.  Go figure...

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

I should have mentioned, yes, it is a guitar built by David Schramm. I sent back a Jim Redgate and David Daily guitar before I received the Schramm which I knew was a keeper as soon as I played it. The link Marc posted above shows a look at the inside and why they are so heavy. Basically, the back and sides are as sturdy as possible so the thin top is providing all the sound. Sitting on the lap in normal classical position is very comfortable and the weight is not an issue at all. As a matter of fact, it feels more comfortable and sturdy than a lighter guitar when sitting properly.

Dave--as far as the bolt on neck, there are many excellent classical builders who are using it. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to buy one. Those who do are the snobs that aren't playing for the sound but maybe for their ego.

I'll get more pics and soundclips up later after I get home from work. I actually have two of David's guitars here, one with and one without the adjustable neck. I'll comment on the sound differences later when I post clips.    

It has a Paduak bridge, BRW laminated back/sides, cedar top, cedar bracing. Thanks for looking.

John

[QUOTE=douglas ingram] Apparently, a lot of guitarists think that using an elevated fingerboard on a contemporary classical guitar is very cutting edge.  Go figure...
[/QUOTE]

What you mention above with the adjustable fingerboard isn't actually what is considered an 'elevated' fingerboard by todays standard. Look at a Humphrey guitar to see what is meant by a true true elevated fingerboard (pic below), but you are correct about the lineage of the adjustable fretboard.

Cheers!

John

I think the term should be "splined" neck, not "spliced". And that's how Brune builds.   

I think it would be a good policy to make a point of crediting builders with their techniques and/or innovations when we talk about instruments and designs. There's no need to be coy about it, and we luthiers deserve credit where credit is due, not anonymous mentions. I would have preferred to see David Schramm's name right there in the first sentence of the first post here.   This isn't a game of guess the builder, or is it?

[QUOTE=Rick Turner]
I think it would be a good policy to make a point of crediting builders with their techniques and/or innovations when we talk about instruments and designs. There's no need to be coy about it, and we luthiers deserve credit where credit is due, not anonymous mentions.
[/QUOTE]
Good point, especially when it's the builder of a guitar in a picture- assuming the builder's name is known.
However, unless some 'ultimate arbiter' (candidates, anybody?) steps up with a list, how on earth is one to know who to credit for....(add to the list, please...)
CF braces
Adjustable neck
X-bracing
Any contouring of the guitar edge aka 'armrest'
etc etc
There are many examples of patents being issued in the US for ideas that have been in the public domain for years.....
I don't feel like doing a 'literature search' every time I pick up a chisel (or a chunk of CF), so what am I to do?

Anyway, back to the guitar in question....

John

Yes, I was refering to Brune with the spline neck. The reason I usually do not give the name of someone from whom I learned something many years ago is that they may have changed/improved their methods and maybe prefer that current credit go to current methods, about which I may not have knowledge. Also, I could mix up names, which I did recently on another item, unfortunately. I believe that Brune had an article in American Lutherie on a special sanding jig that he made to help with this, but that was many years ago and I did not want to go through all of the old journals to confirm that before I mentioned it.

When the builder is known or when it is fairly clear that we know to whom the attribution should go, then let the person be known.   If there is prior art, then let that come into the light as well.   There are numerous cases of one person doing the work and another or several others getting the credit.   Let's try to straighten that out here. I have always tried to be scrupulous about the historical accuracy of innovations in lutherie that I write about and to give credit where appropriate. There is a tendency for those with the loudest mouths or the most photo posts on the Internet to get the credit. I don't think that's appropriate here...not that I see it as very much of a problem, but still a casual reader even here might not understand the context of some things that they see.

Just as a for instance here.   I may have been the first in these parts to do the straight triangulated flying buttresses; for me that would have been in 1989 and 1990.   In so doing, I stood on the shoulders of Steve Klein who was doing a curved flying brace to the headblock and then, of course there was the Fender acoustic of the 1960s with the pipe from head to tail which itself owes everything to Tilton's Improvement of the 1890s.   

Adjustable necks?   Back at least to Stauffer and his direct disciples like C.F. Martin, Schertzer, and Zimmerman, then on to Howe Orme, KayKraft, August Larson, and now on to Babicz, Steinberger, Doolin, and myself.

CF laminated bracing? In the LMI catalog for decades now.

CF topped bracing? I don't know, but it's pretty logical, and I know I started with it in 2001. Happy to know if someone else did that earlier.

CF topped lattice bracing? I think we have to give Smallman his due though others did lattices. But not Smallman on the arched back for a flat top guitar...that's early 20th Century Gibson, and then Guild among others. Smallman maybe for doing it with nylon strings.

Elevated fingerboard? Boy, did Humphrey get on my case about that; how dare I, and all that. Of course he had no idea that it had been done in the 1820s (though he should have) and that I was basing my design on Howe Ormes of the 1890s.

Arm rest? Well for an add on, just look at banjos. Then there was John Pearse. But as far as I know, it's Grit Laskin who deserves credit for the contoured edge on an acoustic...and doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Wedge body?   I think that's a Manzer innovation.

Fanned frets? Too bad Ralph Novak wasted his money on an unenforceable patent. He was about 400 years late on that one.

"X" bracing? Marc Silber has an "X" braced guitar that pre-dates Martin's use of that design.

Of course with many of these and other innovations, there can be several people coming up with similar things at nearly the same time. Patent court fights are made of that. But where we can, I think we owe it to our fellows to attribute things properly as appropriate.

Working with the Museum of Making Music has made me all the more acutely aware of wanting to put designs and innovations in their correct context and to keep things accurate.

Well, maybe this belongs in its own thread, but here it all is...or a beginning, anyway.

Thanks for the list, Rick!

You're right; it does deserve its own place/thread- hopefully so we can refer to it whenever we need it.

I appreciate it when folks (like you) with the 'cultural memories' put them down in writing.

I have trouble most days remembering where I put my sneakers, let alone stuff like this!

I think imitating or repeating a building feature (deliberate copying or re-invention) is pretty innocent stuff (especially away from large-scale commercial production), and folks who get all upset that they are not constantly being asked for 'permission' and given credit are a bit insecure. However, that's a different matter from claiming that you've invented something you didn't.

Thanks again, Rick.

Cheers
John

[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie]

I think imitating or repeating a building feature (deliberate copying or re-invention) is pretty innocent stuff (especially away from large-scale commercial production), and folks who get all upset that they are not constantly being asked for 'permission' and given credit are a bit insecure.

[/QUOTE]

I agree 100% I specifically try to avoid name-dropping because I think it's ridiculous and not relevant to the point at hand when discussing a design. Too many people dismiss or minimize idea based on where they come from and not on the merits of the design. This is especially true when discussing innovations in classical guitar.

Cheers!

John

Boy, I don't think crediting a luthier when you show a picture of his work is name dropping in the least. I've known David for a good fifteen years, and I know how hard he's worked to be as good as he is. I think he deserves to be credited when one of his guitars is shown, and I think it's disrespectful not to credit him. You wouldn't have that wonderful guitar if David Schramm hadn't built it.

I think the carved back is where it is at. My somewhat limited personal theory is that it is stiffer and results in less loss of energy than a traditional back which probably vibrates more (and as a result steals energy from the top). I don't have all the experience that some of you guys have and am very interested to hear what some of you more experienced folks think of this theory..

I made a walnut guitar like this (with a solid unbraced carved/arched back)...this was one of my first acoustics...and I think it sounded way better than it should have.

I'm making a mahogany one right now...If this sounds as good as the walnut then I'll be very happy!    

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

Rick just made a post in the CF thread about stiff backs and more projection vs. thin backs and ...... Nevermind, here.

Rick Turner:
"While I understand the whole bit about "tuning the back", what I'm
going for here...and getting...is more of the Smallman style projection
that you get with a very stiff and reflective back. I've heard my
guitars played in jams with others' guitars from 30 to 60 feet away,
and mine carry and project as I want them to as more of the energy is
going forward.   Loose backs tend to radiate as di-poles, and a lot of
energy goes back to the player. With these particular guitars I'm
looking for a more cardioid response."

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

[QUOTE=Rick Turner] Boy, I don't think crediting a luthier when you show a picture of his work is name dropping in the least. I've known David for a good fifteen years, and I know how hard he's worked to be as good as he is. I think he deserves to be credited when one of his guitars is shown, and I think it's disrespectful not to credit him. You wouldn't have that wonderful guitar if David Schramm hadn't built it. [/QUOTE]

Of course he deserves the credit, that's why I put it in the post--if you do a search, you will see I have given him more credit and props than anybody on this website (this isn't the first guitar I've bought from him). I would like to hear opinions on the laminated arched back, adjustable neck, and lattice top without biasing the results with the name. Of course I would have posted his name with the sound files I'm recording. If you doubt the ability to get honest feedback without posting the name, head on over to the group rec.music.classical.guitar and look at the banter between some of the folks, specifically Michael Th***s and then try and tell me it's not biased. I can't even read that site anymore because of all the egos.

[QUOTE=WaddyT] Rick just made a post in the CF thread about stiff backs and more projection vs. thin backs and ...... Nevermind, here.Rick Turner:"While I understand the whole bit about "tuning the back", what I'm
going for here...and getting...is more of the Smallman style projection
that you get with a very stiff and reflective back. I've heard my
guitars played in jams with others' guitars from 30 to 60 feet away,
and mine carry and project as I want them to as more of the energy is
going forward.   Loose backs tend to radiate as di-poles, and a lot of
energy goes back to the player. With these particular guitars I'm
looking for a more cardioid response."
[/QUOTE]
Waddy - thanks for posting that as I have not been following that thread!

Rick, I'm interested in learning a bit more of your theories regarding the function of the back if you are willing to share them.. My gut tells me that the best way for an acoustic guitar to function is for the top to transform all of that vibrational energy from the strings directly into the "pumping action" of the top. It would seem that the top is the part of the guitar that is most responsible for turning energy from the strings directly into amplified sound, and this is my reason for thinking this way. My gut does not tell me that the back is actually "reflecting" sound (I think it is mainly serving as a container for the air a la Helmholtz resonance)...similarly, my intuition also does not lead me to believe that the back (even a flimsy one) would reflect sound back towards the player. I would think that concentrating the vibration in one effective part (the top) would minimize damping of the sound as well as assist in the volume of the instrument. It just seems that the more stuff you get moving, the less efficient the guitar will become.

As I mentioned earlier in another thread, I greatly appreciate hearing your (and others) thoughts on this. I completely acknowledge that my relatively inexperienced gut could be mistaken! Thanks in advance for any comments/clarification you may be able to share on this.

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

Rick Turner wrote: - "CF topped bracing? I don't know, but it's pretty logical, and I know I started with it in 2001. Happy to know if someone else did that earlier."

Rick I it did on my first guitar back in 94', but guy's like you and Ribbecke certainly deserve the credit for paving the way. As an engineer working in the R&D group for a major materials manufacturer at the time, I just couldn't help myself.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com