Official Luthiers Forum!

I've long stood in the camp of advocates for the use of the process of maximizing the
vibration and efficiency of a top through what we call "voicing". That process is one that
takes time and numbers of guitars to not only understand, but to achieve with any real
positive result.

I found this quote interesting from another builder on that very subject. The guitars are
the true witnesses in this case and their testimony comes in the form of tone and response.
I've played enough guitars from builders that have taken the time to develop their ability to
voice their tops by varying the mass of their bracing that speak volumes in favor of the
process being used to make me want to continue to use it and grow in my ability to use it
well.
On the other hand, I've payed enough guitars from builders who not only do not use the
process, but also express some level of contempt or disbelief in it and the builders who do
to make me want to continue to use it and grow in my ability to use it well.


A well known builder....more known for his writing than for his guitars posted this at
another forum and I found it interesting not only that he doesn't use the process, but
publicly says that those of us who do are offering our customers what is "delusional
nonsense" or "outright hogwash"... or essentially lies and that we don't have a grasp
of the trade that we love so much and have worked so hard to exhibit some level of
skill in.

Here's the quote:

"You're asking the wrong guy about "tuning" braces. I've advocated for years that all this
"tuning" stuff for guitars was delusional nonsense, if not outright hogwash. I came to that
conclusion after fathoming from my apprenticeship with a guitar acoustician that the guitar
is an fantastiically complex vibrational system, far more complex than any of the bowed
instruments, certainly far more complex than all these folks talking about soundboard tuning
--appear to grasp.

When you see the tests, like I have, those that show incontrovertibly that, for example, the
headstock is the most acoustically active part of the guitar at some frequencies, and see over
what an amazingly wide spectrum of frequencies the soundboard is simply silent, it drives you
to conclude that all this preoccupation of tuning a certain brace or another to one note or
another is just not worth the trouble. "


I've played guitars from this builder so I'm able to draw my own conclusions. They're not
easy to get ahold of so many of you may never get the chance to hear their testimony in the
case of "to voice or not to voice." I had the pleasure of spending time with and befriending
Fred Dickens, an incredible acoustician who worked for Bell Labs in NJ while I lived in both
NYC and PA. Fred never offered any information until he was absolutely sure of its validity
and won a Distinguished Technical Staff Award for Sustained Achievement while at Bell Labs.
He was a strong proponent of tuning and voicing top plates through varying the mass and
placement of bracing so there are obviously experts on both sides of the fence so conlsuions
of an incontrovertible nature in either direction are a futile claim.

My question is, "How many of you at least pay attention to the effects that bracing has on
a top that you are using is respect to stiffness, mass and placement and try to shape its tone
in some way during the construction process?".....Which would all fall under the considerations
that constitute "Voicing".

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Kevin,

The answer to your question is yes I do BUT you are confusing me a little here. Your post and question are about "voicing" tops which I think I understand and relate to but the quote you use (from the great Mr W. C. I believe) is about "tuning" - trying to get individual braces tuned to "specific" notes (a la Siminoff) which is a very different thing, and not something that I do or can relate to.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

It would be even MORE interesting had you challenged this person on the forum where it was posted. The resulting discourse would have served to inform far more than it is doing at present. Any chance you could let us know on which forum this was stated?

Please don't take this too harshly, Kevin. We're all very interested in furthering our understanding. To me, your report just seems to be half of the story and only serves to whet my appetite for "the rest of the story"...as one of my favorite radio commentators always says.

The back and forth arguments during a debate rarely result in conclusive agreement, but more often serve to get more folks thinking more critically about the steps we take and the beliefs we hold. It's all good.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

If I remember right, that was from Cumpiano's website in the section where people write him questions, not a discussion forum. At least I remember reading something very similar to that there.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

JJ,
I just found the statement interesting in light of how many builders who are known for their great tone are
using voicing techniques, or did during the time that they were developing their models and designs. Martin,
Taylor, Gibson and any other large builder may not currently put time into voicing, so to speak, but they did
way back when their models were being worked out through prototypes and R&D efforts. Those brace dimensions
and patterns were arrived at after many tries and we all can benefit to a degree because of them.

It is posted in an area that is not a discussion forum, but more of a Q&A deal.

Any of us can make a claim that our methods work for us, but to further the claim with a statement that denies
the validity of the methods and discoveries of others is never necessary. It does more against the cause at hand
than it does to support it, in my opinion.


Relax, there was no harm intended, just a question of who feels differently.

Regards.


Dave,
Since it's very difficult to actually isolate the actual resonant frequency of any individual brace once it is
installed on the top that it will work together with to produce a guitar's tone, the efforts that have been made
to do so have always considered the accumulative resonant frequencies of the individual brace and the components
adjacent to it in the top assembly....which leads me to consider that "tuning" effort a portion of the overall "voicing"
process.

Any brace rings at a specific frequency and contributes, according to that frequency, to the tone and response
of the guitar it's a part of....whether or not the goal of the builder was to achieve a note for the individual brace
or to simply read the overall top's status as he worked all of the braces as a system.

The goal of the process of varying and adjusting the mass of the braces on a top, whether to achieve a
specifically targeted note or a vibrational relationship between the components that present an overall vibration
pattern that can be indicated by Chladnii patterns or just read by a discerning ear, is to coax the braced top as
close to its potential as possible.

It all really falls under the process of voicing since it is an effort to reach a desired tone for the guitar through
the typical bracing adjustments. Being familiar with your tops and how they contribute to tone in the finished
guitar just comes with time, but only if you believe it has a bearing on it and take the time to read it along the
way.

I've listened to and have read so much about the process from other builders who are creating awesome guitars
that continually "testify" to the validity of its application that it all just sits with me a being very real. Whether notes
or sustain characteristics or or any other resonant traits are being pursued by the builder, I feel that it all falls under
the voicing effort. There are those, though, who have chosen to simply duplicate the deeply established designs and
dimensions of long standing builders to achieve similar tone. Someone, once upon a time, did actually take the time
to arrive at those designs through more than just assembling parts and the modern guys who decide to reproduce
are simply reaping the benefit of that time investment.

I agree that the "goal tone" for any builder is a moving target, but also feel that it's a target that needs to continue
to be aimed and shot at nonetheless. We all just shoot different arrows with the hope of hitting the "bullseye" so to
speak, but if you never shoot...or you shoot blindfolded.....you have much less chance of hitting the target at all.


Again, these are just my opinions on the subject and come only from my experience and from my exposure to the
work and research of other builders. Feel free to disregard them.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Kevin,

I think this is the nub for me and we are probably "in violent agreement" I just see many times where the word "tuning" in "top tuning" leads to people laughing at the notion as they think about getting things "perfectly" dialled in to set notes, whereas the "voicing" process they relate to and seem to get.

My own process is not very scientific and more"touchy feely" - I tap around the braced top (not attached) everywhere I can and do "adjustments" to the bracing profile with sandpaper or chisel until I get as close as I can to clear ringing sustain everywhere on the top. I haven't used such a system to determine subtle changes to brace positioning - this is obviously harder to do as you would have to have a system of moving carved braces on the top that is easy to do and mimics the final true glued impact of the braces. Or you try and build lots of similar tops with subtly different bracing placements but then you are into all the differences of "ceteris paribus" - no two wood sets will be the same, so many variables so little time etc. etc.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

In my experience, I think it is pointless to tune specific braces to specific frequencies. Yes, there are certain frequencies at which the soundboard is silent. This has to do with how sound waves are travelling. If they're travelling in the same direction you get constructive interference and a resulting increase in amplitude (stronger response). If they're travelling in opposite directions, you get destructive interference and a decrease in amplitude (decreased or canceled response). There's more to it than that. The point is that it does occur and will always occur, no matter how you tune the plate/bracing. The thing about the guitar is there are many frequencies, wavelengths, etc. interacting simultaneously. All of these are transfered to the sound board from the strings via the bridge. The soundboard, being a different medium basically translates everything produced by the strings (saddle and bridge too) according to its elastic properties and density.

That said, bracing, in my opinion decreases the elastic properties of the soundboard material. However, it's necessary for obvious reasons. So, in order to find a optimal median between structural integrity and acoustic response, we remove mass from the braces. With all this in mind, I shape my braces to achieve the best response, balance, etc. as opposed to trying to achieve a certain frequency. There's no cookie cutter recipe to this it takes many tries, writing lots of notes (at least in my case), and a basic understanding of what exactly is happening with your plate. Then you'll be able to understand how to shape your braces to get consistently great results.

I don't think tap tuning is hogwash. There's a lot of science supporting it. However I think the luthier has to consider the soundboard (bracing and all) as one unit and tune it as a whole as opposed to producing a specific frequency from specific braces.

_________________
Don Sharp
Got Brazilian?
http://www.sharpguitars.com

As a fairly new builder I find this subject very interesting...I read everything I can get my hands on on this subject...I also find it very confusing in that there are so many conflicting opinions from builders who all have a name in the business.....I do know that when I first glue on the braces, tone bars, etc, that the sound of the soundboard when tapped has a dull sound,no ring...As I shape the the braces and fine tune the sound changes and changes until I get a pleasing ringing sound...Maybe if I just made up a set of braces glued them on and not done any fine tuning ,it would turn out the same......but I doubt it.....I tap tune....its what I believe works....Sound Is the most important part of the building process....Its my opinion......for what its worth......Larry

Ok I'll bite on this one.....

When I first heard of "tap tuning" a guitar faceplate I was deeply interested in the idea. I read and read all of the information I could find on it to gain a better understanding of what it involves and how it is done. I came up with a conclusion.... you may like what I have to say or not....doesnt matter to me.

Let me start by saying that not only did I spend decades reading information found on the Internet in places like this, but also in book and magazine form. This all started in 1978 when I was ready to buy a Martin Guitar. I wanted to know what made them tick and why they were so much better than anything else on the market at that time. Martin has actually been quite generous with sharing their history and information on the evolution of their guitars and most especially the introduction of the X brace. You can also add scalloped bracing to this as well.

My education went even further when I employed Frank Finoccio to teach me the mechanics of building guitars. A few of the things I picked up when I was there with him were absolutely essential for building great guitars. It was Frank, himself, that told me that one day down the road when I had a few guitars under my belt that I would look back on what he had taught me and say "Frank is full of crap." I have caught myself doing that several times.

The truth of the matter is that he really wasnt off in his teachings, but rather he taught the general mechanics of building guitars and he purposely has his students overbuild their guitars because he doesnt have the time to go through and individually "tune" each guitar that comes out of his school. The guitar I built while I was there with him was no exception. It is better sounding than most "store bought" guitars, but wasnt the best guitar to be had by any stretch of the immagination.

This leads me to the "tap tuning" response:

It took me several guitars to get a grasp on how to brace a guitar. Having nobody to show me the finer art of maximizing the sound of the top, I built a few that were either overbraced or underbraced and then finally figured out how to tell how to brace each guitar based on "the feel" of the top. I have developed my own sense of when to stop shaving braces based on how the top feels, and since this very same discussion came up about a year ago, I have started to give the top a good thud with my knuckles before I place it on the guitar. In most cases, it rings like a bell. If it doesnt, then I know something is wrong and more attention is needed.

If you overbrace a top, it wont ring. If you underbrace it, the same thing will happen. It takes some experience to learn this "tone" that you are looking for. Whether you get that experience from Somogy or some other "guitar god", you have to learn this none the less if you want to build great guitars. You can pay to go to a class to learn this art or you can learn it on your own. It is probably cheaper int he long run if you pay somebody to show you how to achieve this. In my case, it came from experience and the self education I gathered from reading, listening, and paying close attention to details.

What raises my ire is there are some that believe that in order to build great sounding guitars, you have to go to a class put on by _________ (fill in the blank for who ever your guitar legend is). This is NOT the case at all. Attending classes may further your understanding of the guitar, but it is not the ONLY way to learn how to brace a guitar to achieve it's fullest potential. Al Carruth has the best advice I have heard yet on building guitars when he says "Building guitars is a system....anytime you chage one thing, it affects another." I have found this to be quite true and getting a good ring out of your top alone isnt going to assure you that you will have an exceptional guitar. It takes paying attention to every detail and understanding why you are doing what you are doing; knowing that "if I change this, it will affect that." No matter how many guitars I have behind me, I dont think I will ever get to the place that I feel that "I know it all." I will learn for the rest of my life.

I believe that whomever you were quoting was trying to say the same thing. Mayby they just didnt know how to phrase their statements in order to convey their opinion.

_________________
Reguards,

Ken H

Larry: I think that if you can produce that same ringing each time, and it produces a nice sounding instrument, you'll be good to go. If it works, then do it!! The challenge will then be "How do I produce this sound" or "What happens if I change this", etc. All that can be answered through trial and error too. the important thing is to have fun and learn.

Ken: I'm with you man!

_________________
Don Sharp
Got Brazilian?
http://www.sharpguitars.com

Simply put. There is a lot of hocus pocus out there by builders, call it hype if you will, or call it sales pitch. Is there anything to it, of course there is. Do any of these discussions really prove anything, not really.

Why? Because it's all so subjective, and because we all fall into ruts. If we build a great guitar, we really are partially guessing as to why it sounds so nice. Then we get busy and may spend years getting another to sound so good. (Well it worked before, I'm just going to keep doing what I did to that one and maybe..... just maybe.... lightning will strike again.)

We might even imagine we've done it again, after stringing up a new guitar. Usually the one we are comparing to in our mind, has moved on and we don't even have access to it anymore? So, again, it all gets really subjective.

I'd say, that to say it's all hocus pocus sales hype is wrong, and like a factory striving to put out a good product, we must too, strive. There are just so many variables, the more of those you can consistently control and conform to standards you know, the better off you will be.

Probably the biggest question facing many of us today is this: Are we going to build guitars or do or taxes? I'm doing taxes.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

Cumpiano (if that's him who's quoted) referred negatively to "tap-tuning". He wrote that after "tapping" and "tuning" his plates for years he came to the conclusion that it was… delusional.
I am pretty sure he doesn't question the need of adjusting top thickness and bracing to achieve consistent results or whatever goal he has for a specific instrument though. Just a different method.
Although I've heard some builders don't adjust at all and use standard dimensions for bracing and thicknesses, like a factory would do.
After working at Pantheon Guitars for over a year and observing Dana's method of tapping plates, carving the braces and explaining it I have to admit I do not fully understand it. Obviously it works for Dana. Bourgeois guitars are great sounding and very consistent.
I've never heard or read anybody's explanation who's tapping/tuning plates that makes sense to me though.
I suspect it is a highly personal thing and whatever method one develops through the years eventually pays off, or not…
Some builders seem to rely more on a somewhat sound scientific method (deflection testing, Chaldni patterns and so on). And sometimes, quite frankly, it sounds pseudo-scientific to me.
Personally I rely on a more intuitive approach, mostly flexing the plates in all directions and adjusting the bracing to what, to me, feels right. I tap the top and the back, before and during the process, but that does not give me much information on how the guitar is going to sound. I am mostly trying to maximise vibration(s) and load-bearing for the top. The back is thicknessed and tuned depending on how flexible I want it to be, being more "reflective" (stiffer) or "resonant" (looser). Not very scientific, but it works for me and so far the results have been consistent.
Dana tries to avoid ghost or false harmonics for the plates, meaning getting clear notes at different places, and intuitively that makes a lot of sense to me.
Lately I have been slightly increasing my top thicknesses, and reducing the height of the braces (although I increased the width on larger guitars). It makes me feel more secure about the long-term stability of the top (telegraphing, belly etc.) and so far I have not noticed a change in tone. But I definitely carve my braces in a triangular section and feather them at the end, how far they start to feather out (on top and back) seems to have a huge influence on stiffness and tone, at least for me.
But I suspect that whatever the method, the builder develops a feel for the work and intuitively "knows" what to do with a specific plate to achieve a given goal. Given the wide range of discrepancies between and within tonewood species it seems difficult for me to look for a sound scientific method in order to achieve consistent results. Adjusting here and there, re-adjusting, and re-re-adjusting seems the way to go. And it's slightly different with every instrument.
That being said the guitar is indeed a highly complex and integrated system where every part has an influence. The sum of some parts influences the sum of other parts, and vice-versa. As a small example neck material (and mass/length -12F or 14F to the body etc.) has a very noticeable influence on tone, on my guitars at least.
Kevin, how did those guitars sound?

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

He states that the system is incredibly complex. That is certainly true, but that doesn't mean we can't predictably nudge the tone in different directions by altering the bracing. I may not understand complex weather patterns but I know that if I walk out into the rain I will get wet.

That's true, but do you get wetter if you walk or run? There are as many people on each side of that argument as there are on the tuning vs feeling argument. Although IMO, they are both doing the same thing, just different approaches to the same end. Thinning the edges of the top based on the feel of the wood stiffness, the carving braces to add strength where it's needed for support, and thinning them where needed to release the top for more efficient vibration. I'm not taking a side, just thinking out loud.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

You get wettest if you stand still, or if you live in the pacific northwest.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

Truly, the best point of all!

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

After reading this, and if no one posts again before I do, I am in agreement mostly with everyone so far. Even Bruce has a good point that doing your income taxes sucks......

But I want to go back to Dave's first post, which I am also completely in violent agreement with. When I read this: "When you see the tests, like I have, those that show incontrovertibly that, for example, the
headstock is the most acoustically active part of the guitar at some frequencies, and see over
what an amazingly wide spectrum of frequencies the soundboard is simply silent, it drives you
to conclude that all this preoccupation of tuning a certain brace or another to one note or
another is just not worth the trouble. "

My take is that WC is not arguing that tuning tops for an abundance of vibrational responsiveness is the delusional activity - I think that he is is arguing that tweaking specific braces for a specific response is pointless. And it may be - I don't know nor do I seek to attain specific notes/frequencies in specific places.

But I do tune my tops to be as acoustically responsive as possible. I am looking for the most ring in the most places that I can get.

Like Laurent I am not as concerned about structural issues as I am concerned about developing a top that rings well. And also like Laurent I believe that the concerns of structural issues have been considered in the bracing patterns and styles that I use - not that this is unimportant mind you.

So I am not sure if WC is in fact saying that tuning our tops to be vibrationally active is hogwash or not. I am leaning more in the direction that he is not a fan of tuning specific braces to specific notes. Again, something that I do not do and can't comment on. I can however see how taking it to this level is a natural progression for some who may wish to do so. Does it pay off - WC says no in my interpretation of his remarks. But again I do not read his statements as being against tuning a top to be vibrationally active or..... the rest of the guitar either.

Dave,

I don't think we're in as violent disagreement as you think. I've always viewed the terms "tuning"
and "voicing" as being almost interchangeable with one another. I've always thought that trying to
tune specific braces to specific notes was a bit of a stretch on the process, but do believe that the
"tuning" of specific braces to respond in correlation with the top around it in a predicted and desired
way is very possible.

My technique and method is probably very similar to yours' in that I rely on handling an tapping
and flexing the top and bracing and feeling for familiar things as I do. I listen to it and suspend it
from different points while tapping in spots that have proven themselves to activate the top most
efficiently. I'm about as old school as you can get, but have always just been interested and
intrigued enough to want to understand what my efforts are bringing about as I do things that
are so illusive or subjective.

I just like to document dimensions and weights as well as some stiffness reading that I collect by
doing my own deflection tests, but most times, now, I can achieve what I'm shooting for simply
from experience and having handled similar tops and tonal characteristics many times before.

It's a very real thing and doesn't happen by accident.

Al Carruth has a great approach an philosophy about it all. I agree that every change we make,
no matter how subtle affects everything around it. It's important that, if you're going to tune or
voice at all, you develop a system for doing it.

I'm glad to hear opinions and experiences from both sides of the issue. I'm always open to
learn how to achieve something with less work and am willing to learn from anyone.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

I'm fairly new to building so I have more of a question here.

It sounds like a number of people are saying that although you can 'voice' the soundboard before gluing it on according to your preferences the entire 'system' of the guitar has an effect on the sound.

Are there many of you that go back and voice the guitar more (altering the braces of the top and back and even thinning the plates) after the guitar is complete, doing this either through the soundhole or an access panel?

It seems this would make sense because all the variables are now in place.

Sam yes I think that some are saying that a guitar is a system. Some folks also further tune braces after the top is installed and install the back last.

Ervin Somogyi teaches a class in "voicing" where he employs the use of a fixture that the top is attached to for the voicing activity simulating a guitar body.

This makes more sense to me too even though I am yet to do it.

Kevin,

You are right - I said "violent agreement". It's a slightly ironic English expression when two people are in what looks like a heated discussion but actually are saying the same things.

Interesting stuff!! Whoo - the happy clappies are back.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

I can't believe you were the first to use them, Dave. How fitting. Hesh may never forgive you!

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Sam,
I have a method of dealing with guitars that dont suit my ear.... I burn them. Literally.

I have one in my shop right now that was an "experiment" from the last batch of guitars that doest suit my ear and I am contemplating the idea of burning it so that nobody will ever get their hands on it and associate my name with it. I have burned/ destroyed/ cut up several guitars because of this. I learned from each failure.


There are times when it is just a matter of giving the guitar a little time to "open up" that is all that is needed, and other times a change to a different kind or guage of strings will bring a guitar into it's full potential. This is one thing that we, as guitar builders can do that factories dont have the time to do.

You can certainly, but with difficulty, go back and shave braces after a guitar is complete. Sometimes this will work, sometimes not. It was C.F. Martin that said "the best sounding guitar is one that is built to the verge of self destruction." I agree with this and build accordingly. Going back into a guitar to shave a brace after being built to the point of self destruction only enhances that and will most likely give bad results.

I think that some are mis reading the term "In violent agreement" It looks like most of us are in agreement on the subject...

_________________
Reguards,

Ken H

Wouldn't it be nice if WC could just drop in and chat with us on the subject? Not that everyone who has posted hasn't added value...I have seen great value in that part of the discussion. It's just that the conjecture about what WC meant may be an exercise in futility.

In the best sense of a learning exercise, however, we may have accidentally salvaged the thread by discussing OUR thoughts and methods. So here goes mine:

5 years ago, I made my first kit guitar. The top was thicknessed and the braces were cut and scallopped at the Martin factory. After screwing up a few braces, I replaced them and scallopped, further shaped and sanded until they looked pretty. No kidding...I just wanted them to look professional. I carefully put the guitar together, finished it and strung it up within 16 months. It sounded great to everyone who played it and it still does after 5 years.

With subsequent guitars, I have been progressively more purposeful with each guitar. The tops have gotten stiffer and thinner and the braces have gotten lighter as well...primarily from my improving ability and effort to learn to hear more ringing as a result of tapping and voicing. There is a corresponding change in each guitar's sound but they all sound "good". Surprisingly to me is that they all have more volume and sustain and presence than any factory guitar I seem to pick up. And I hear that comment from almost every new guitar builder. I think it's the thing that starts this crazy addiction. It could be psycho-acoustic bias but I don't think so. Even 1st guitars sound better than the average factory guitar, IMO.

Anyway, whatever WC meant to say, it really doesn't matter because what I'm hearing on this thread is that each builder eventually finds his method. And if there's any consolation to me it's that those of us who still struggle to keep improving are not alone in the pursuit and we may not need as much validation from such an icon as we may have once thought. As long as we remain confident, objective and humble...and willing to explore new paths outside of our comfort zone to improve, I think we're on the right track.

An interesting analogy about working outside your comfort zone...Tiger Woods has been the top pro golfer for over ten years now. During that time, he completely redesigned his swing 3 times. Not an easy task since it is dependent on muscle memory determined by constant repetition and practice...not to mention having the confidence to trust it during a stressful round. With such an attitude and dedication to hard work and excellence I expect him to be the best for the next 10-15 years...and so does he! I think it applies here as well...keep tapping!

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

I already used it in another thread so there....

Dave and Kevin - two peoples separated by a common language........