Official Luthiers Forum!

Finally, I can get back to building. A few minor health issues, general dad duties, and then aquiring and making road worthy a 64 Volkswagen have taken me out of the loop for a few months. I back now and this is what I still have waiting for me on the bench.




The fans are the only thing glued down and they need to be finish carved. Humidity is now becoming a problem. It's about 70% right now. I believe I'm going to start cutting and shaping the pieces for a few more. Then they and this one will have to wait for assembly til spring. That should keep me busy for a while.

Glad to be back.

Welcome back Ronn. Very interesting bracing, I've not seen anything like that on the forum before.

Ron

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

Is that something like saying, She's got a great personality...?

It's a classical based loosly on the design of Robert Bouchet.

Ronn, Would you mind detailing how you make your sound hole ring?TIA

_________________
DES - Shepherd, MI

[QUOTE=Darin Spayd] Ronn, Would you mind detailing how you make your sound hole ring?TIA [/QUOTE]

Sure, no problem. I use the waste thats left after cutting out the sound board. I use two pieces joined together. Usually make a big odd shaped piece then I just cut to the desired shape and size. I sand the inner and outer edges so they fall softly to the sound board The ring is then glued down with the grain orientation 90 degrees opposed to that of the sound board.

Hey Ronn,
That is some beautiful work. Nery Nice.

In general I like it but am concerned with the amount of relief in your "Bouchet" like cross brace. When you relieve the bar by that much you have in essence taken down the structural strength of the bar to the dimension that is intact across the width.

Because the bar is relieved at several points there is very little to counteract the flexing movement of the bridge which is why you would either put in a bridge plate or a solid cross bar as Bouchet did. That relief will also undermine any arching of the top so that the effect is that the top will tend to flatten out.

Even if you put quite a bit of radius into the cross brace the thinner parts where the brace is relieved will act as hinges and will flex either to pull up on the bridge more than intended or to make the top looser as there is no solid cross brace to keep the arch of the top taut.

If the intent is to make the guitar then this bracing pattern should work well as with a flamenco top you would want it more lightly braced so that the initial attack sound would be big but because there is less bracing then the sound will decay faster which for flamenco is a good thing. Is that why you are going for 5 fan braces...as a flamenco?

If this is your bracing pattern for a flamenco then you could keep it all the same and just make the cross brace a solid brace as Bouchet did and it would have a more characteristic classical sound.

I dont mean any of this as negative but only as constructive...I like the idea and what you have done with it I just think that it seems more flamenco than classical.

Based on Shawn's comments, I thought I might add a bit to this. I built a classical last year using a lattice pattern on the soundboard. Discovered that my pattern did not have enough cross grain rigidity, so I added a cross brace directly under the saddle line, specifically to maintain the soundboard arch. It was shaped very similar to yours, with rather large cutouts for the bracing to pass under, although I did not taper it and I left it rather tall -- probably 1" or so. I countoured it in a sanding dish to establish the arch for the soundboard. The guitar was completed a year and a half ago, and so far so good regading the soundboard arch.

I'm inclined to agree with Shawn that your cross brace might not provide much stiffness due to the fact that there isn't much material left above the cut-outs for the fan braces. Be that as it may, however, I am also reminded that the great Antonio de Torres built guitars using both a five- and seven-fan pattern and it is my understanding that he did not install bridge pads -- much less cross braces. So, given that little historical tidbit, I'm thinking that, as long as the fan braces were contoured to provide an arch, the cross brace does not have to be overly rigid. I've built a few guitars using the Torres 7-fan pattern (with bridge pads, though) and they have held their soundboard arches well.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Shawn and Michael

Thnx for the comments. I agree, the brace in question will do little to hold the arch of the top across it's grain. Truth be told, even though I have radiused this brace, I never intended that it should "enforce" the arch in the top. Just as in some other designs where a bridge pad is 1 to 2mm thick, I tend to think of it as having more effect on tone (specifically balance or separation)than on structural integrity.

I do radius the fan braces and I also do the lower brace under the sound hole. I had considered that the brace under the sound hole would provide some cross grain arch across the lower end of the top. Not much but some. That and the appropriate radius sanded into the bottom of the bridge and I hope to have design that is structurally sound.I

Now, I could be completely wrong here and time will tell. If I am feel free to sound off. Whatever the case I love the comments and suggestions. I tend to really get tunnel vision when I get deep into an "experiment" and the comments help me regain perspective.

Shawn asked why five fan braces ala Bouchet. Well I have built using nine as Fleta did and I was/am absolutely thrilled with the result. I felt it was required, however, to build in different styles if I really hoped to define my own "voice". As such, the Bouchet is an experiment to that end. I hope to follow it with a seven fan pattern based on Hauser and a few more based on Fleta. Again based on, not copied from...

Thanx again guys.

Nope. I'm too naive about bracing and construction in general to mean it that way. I was just intrigued by it.


Ron

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

One of the reasons why I am more concerned about reinforcing the top via a bridge plate or bouchet bar is that today the strings are a higher tension than gut sptrings. Too many players are going with higher tension strings on their classicals in an attempt to increase volume and projection.

Classical guitars from Torres era and before did fine with no bridge plate and even with just ladder bracing because it was gut strings that were used.

I can understand and appreciate your experiments with bracing and construction. My personal opinion is that for classical builders today it is very important to understand the differences in bracing and construction between historic classical builders as they attempt to refine and develop their own sound.

I too have tried Fleta big body 9 brace as well as lighter 5 brace and they all have their place and voice. I was just curious as to whether you were also throwing flamenco versus classical into the mix as well.

My personal quest is to try to maintain a spanish sound and preferably a smaller size without sacrificing volume. Panormo managed to get a big sound out of a smaller instrument. I am still experimenting by so far the only thing I have ruled out is a Smallman type of sound or a too long scale(in my opinion) Ramirez construction.

Interesting point about the high(er) tension strings. I have recently begun using high tension strings and never gave it a second thought. Pehaps I should. See what I mean about tunnel vision.

As to flamenco. No I hadn't thought of building one or even stopped to consider what it was that caused the flamenco sound. Again, perhaps I should.

There are two schools of thought regarding flamenco guitars...one being that they are built different than classical and the other that in the past there was no distinction, just lower cost guitars from lesser woods (Cypress was a weed tree) versus concert instruments of better woods (Maple or Rosewood).

While I am sure that in the past there was not a difference in construction over than the lower transverse braces near the tail, I think that modern flamenco construction has evolved based on the needs of the player.

Traditionally Flamenco playing was more about the art of accompaniment today much of flamenco playing is about the over the top flamboyant style of the virtuoso players. As players wanted to be able to play faster the action needed to be adjusted lower and lower to maintain the speed needed at the expense of string buzz or raspiness.

In addition a lower action as Flamenco guitars became solo instruments more than just accompaniment instruments the sustain had to be altered so that note separation could be heard in rapid runs without sounding muddy.

Because Flamenco playing needed to be heard above singing and all of the percussive sounds of castanets, feet stomping and dancing, volume was imcreased by making the instruments as light as possible. One of the reasons why there are much fewer historic flamenco guitars around is that they would literally get played to destruction.

A recent trend is to blend the two forms in that a Classical will be built in a light colored wood like Cypress or Cedar or a flamenco will be built with Rosewood sides and backs, hence the Flamenco Negra.

There are some classical builders that have become so well known for their flamenco guitars that they have focused on them such as Lester DeVoe and Eugene Clark.

Shawn makes some great points here. Jose Romanillos and Richard Brune have done an excellent job of retuning everybody's hindsight by pointing out that our perceptions regarding "flamenco" guitars are based on times of new rather than times of old. Such a distinction did not exist.

It is interesting that Segovia played for much of his career on a Manuel Ramirez guitar, constructed by Santos Hernandez. Santos is well known among flamenco guitarists.

As for gut strings, I don't think they were necessarily of lesser tension than today's nylon. I do however think that deformation of the soundboard is a taboo mainly fueled by the steel string market, and carried over into the classical market from it. In the days of Torres one expected it. Many of his instruments survive, and in playable condition, at 140+ years of age. jfrench38704.9581018519

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

Josh,

Good point about soundboard deformation. I owned a Ramirez 1a 10-string for 30 years, and that guitar always exhibited a fair amount of "bridge roll." The guy who bought it from me was really worried about this "feature." I told him that I had noticed it shortly after buying the guitar (I bought in new in 1973), and that I never worried about it cuz it's stayed the same and has apparently never hurt the sound. The guitar, if anything, sounds better today than it did when I was playing it on a regular basis in the mid-70s through the early 80s.

Back on the subject of the cross brace for a moment: I have developed a radial pattern that uses an under-the-saddle cross brace, which is assymmetrically shaped, a la Bouchet. One of the characteristics that I noted about the first guitar I built using this bracing design was that it had noticeably better sustain than my previous builds. Subsequent guitars using this same pattern also share this trait. I have noticed also that 10-strings tend to have noticeably more sustain than 6-strings, and I suspect that this is due, at least in part, to their longer bridges (typically anywhere from 8.5" to 9.25" or so). I've never had the opportunity to play a Bouchet, but I would not be surprised one bit if this is also a common feature of his guitars. So, even though Ron's cross brace might not add in a significant way to reinforcing the arch of the soundboard, it may well contribute in terms of improving its sustain.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live