Official Luthiers Forum!

no postScott van Linge38749.6621180556

Really appreciate your responses and information. There was never any caveat that any of your experiences or results, scentific or not, needed proving. It simply isn't in the nature of this forum, neither stated nor implied.

Thanks again for all the effort and I still can't wait to sand my bridge.

Larry

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I don't need no stinking scientific theory...

<shrugs shoulders>

Your loss, bud.

[QUOTE=DennisLeahy] [QUOTE=LarryH]
... if I understand your design, won't the back of the bridge have a lot of upwards tension created from the angle back to the string attachment point? How is that area of the strings held down? It looks like the strings pass through some sort of 'hold down' area and it seems a little odd to my inexperienced eye to have any upwards tension on that area of the bridge.
Larry[/QUOTE]
Hi Larry,

Think of it as a pinless bridge. I'm thinking it will have roughly the same amount of torque force as a pinless bridge, and no shear force. In other words, if a pinless bridge can stay on (and resist the 180 pounds of shear force), then it should be easy for my bridge to stay on. The torque force does have to be dealt with, though, or it will belly like a Buddha.

Dennis[/QUOTE]

Yeah I think I get that Dennis. I wasn't so much thinking about the bridge staying on but more about actual upward force on the bridge and how that might effect tone? Elementary brain says you want the pressure to stay down to transfer energy ala saddles with stronger break angles. Like I said, elementary but have never seen a bridge design that included upwards pressure. Could be a winner and would still love to seee it in action.

Larry

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

Someone asked for pictures of my bridge after multiple sandings...here they are. I guess this is my attempt at a parabolic(kinda)bridge.

Scott, I am interested in what you see here please let me know.....anyone else have thoughts, they would be greatly appreciated as well.

Greg

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

Is there no finish on the guitar, or is that a photo illusion?

I was the one who asked, and thank you very much for posting those pics. The first thing I noticed was it looks like it's lifting in the first pic? Am I seeing things correctly?

The second thing I noticed was how COOL it looks. Really Greg that thing LOOKS like it should sound great, which you claim it does. Do you have any proof you could send us? Just kidding!!

It's really quite inspiring. The pins look a little wierd standing up so high but otherwise very cool.

Thanks for taking the time to post those

LarryLarryH38746.8621759259

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

No optical illussion, there is no finish...Yet!

The bridge is not lifting, that is Ebony dust that I missed.

Flat Fingerboard, no need to radius saddle.

This bridge is tiny now, it weighed 28 Grams when I was finished with it the first time. I imagine it must only weigh 20ish now, maybe less,I've taken a lot of wood off.

The guitar sounds super, is it better now, geez I'm not sure. My son thinks it sounds better now than ever, I'm not certain really. I've had a lot of fun experimenting with this guitar, that is why there is no finish on the top, because I've been sanding away there as well, testing, listening, learning...I hope!

Greg

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

Scott, I'm sorry that you read my post as a personal attack. It was most definitely not intended that way. Was it a challenge to you for substantive support? Yes.

And I stand by it.

In the name of hoping this discussion will continue productively, I'll bow out.

no postScott van Linge38749.6629050926

What types of guitars do you work on that had square-cut braces? All good quality guitars I've seen have been at least rounded-over(parabolic or otherwise), with most being triangulated in shape, which is indeed the highest stiffness-to-weight shape we can have in a member without making it a "I" beam.

I give up. As someone wrote me off-list, you'll keep twisting this around to no end. We started with bridges, now you're into braces.

But one last thing, and I promise to leave it be. You've been doing this for 23 years? And you still need to fight and defend it? Why don't you stop and prove us wrong, once and for all, and be done with it. Confront the naysayers with something solid. When people laughed at Garcia's hand, he proved them wrong and became a musician. When teased for being short, he stood taller. He became energy. He shut the world up by showing them.

no postScott van Linge38749.6635185185

What a great exchange, well done all. To my mind, this is exactly the point of the OLF. Without challenge, clearly described explanations of theories and ideas would be left unspoken and nothing would be unlocked for the novice.

I can understand Mario's point, that it is the mass factor at play here. His guitars are fine as they are with crisp clean straight edges marking his undoubetable skill and craftsmanship.

I can also understand Scott's claim that smooth contours are are a defining factor. I speak from a position of total unqualification. I only know what I read and what I see in life. One constant for me is that nature has few straight lines, nothing can afford such unbendable presence. Parabols appear as a completely natural form to me, curves and soft edges a thing of strength and beauty.

Who is right here? I suspect both to an extent. Who is the winner here? ME and you who have the opportunity to breath in their collective experience.

Thank you Gentlemen a most interesting thread indeed.

Kind Regards

Kim

Thanks Kim resuming it well, we are all winners here!

Serge

What a load of CRAP!! And that IS meant as a direct attack aimed at Mario, and Bob, and Scott. The load of crap has nothing to do with whether sound likes a curve or that Mario's father liked square things. The load of crap is this 'bowing out' thing!

This thread has some of the greatest theory, information, guesswork and discussion I've read in a long time. And now everyone is 'bowing out'?? - Pretending it is in the best interest of the community. It is weak, it is selfish, and we all lose if you guys don't hang in there and weather the storm which is really just a slight breeze.

So come back and make up more stuff about sound and parabolas and wonderful square corners and offer proof or not but don't go away and take your balls with you, we all want to play together.

Larry

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

[QUOTE=Mario] The view once was that the world was flat AND had a hard stop that one would fall off from. Someone thought differently

Ah, good analogy! 'Ol Christopher also had to prove it before he was taken seriously. Had he not proven it, he would not have gone down in the history books as the one who proved it, right? Right!
[/QUOTE]

The Greeks knew the world was round and it's likely the many other cultures did before that. Any sailor in Christopher's day who honestly believed that the world was flat was a superstitious idiot. But, alas, many of the history books have given Columbus credit for that and several other things he never did. Oh well.

On topic:
I'm all for scientific analysis and the scientific method, but realistically it's impossible to utilize when it comes to making guitars. There are two major problems, as I see it.

1. For conclusions to be valid and provable, you have to isolate a single variable. A finished guitar is an extremely complex object. There's no realistic way to set up a control guitar and test guitar(s) because the intricate details... intrinsic structural characterstics of the pieces of wood, finish thickness, etc....can not possibly be consistent enough to consider any two instruments exact copies. To use the same guitar twice is the best option, but the process of changing any major component likely has at least miniscule effect on other aspects of the guitar and thereby isn't perfect.

2. You can measure forces, but you can't measure tone. Working on the same guitar, measuring some force, then changing one variable and remeasuring the same force is a scientific approach. To an extent, the conclusions are useful, if you can prove that EVERYTHING else but the variable remained constant (humidity, age of the strings, etc.). But numbers don't correspond to tone, which by nature is extremely subjective. So a builder can, more or less, prove that a certain design alters a measurable force. In the case of tone, however, I just don't see how any test could ever isolate and quantify the essential elements.

And it's interesting and useful to know that the Kimsey/Proulx bridge experiment yielded similar results, but at the end of the day all you have is a correlation, not a conclusion.

Andrew Wright
Managua, Nicaragua

no postScott van Linge38749.6643287037

Yes, great thread. One point that should be addressed though is the more political side of this. While it may be OK to modify factory guitars in the manners discussed, I would be abhorred to see a fine handmade instrument modified so heavily by anyone besides its maker. At some point we have to respect the instrument, the makers style and intentions too.

You never know who will be renowned in the coming decades for their instruments, so restoration ethics should be (IMO) a conderation beforehand.

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

no postScott van Linge38749.6653356481

Geez Guys, Just read the info, if it doesn't work for you then just disregard it, doesn't seem to be a need to bash each other. I for one am interested in hearing all sides of the discussion, so thanks to all who participate with an open mind.

Greg .

_________________
Gwaltney Guitars

The X brace simply does not like much of anything butting up against it (trust me)

Ah geeze.....

there are hundreds or incredible-sounding pre-war MArtins of every shape and size out there, each one with every brace not only touching the X braces, but tightly tucked under them.

But now, according to you, this is a problem?

See folks, this is why I bowed out(and why I will again bow out <bg>). None of this is substantiated, and most of it is dreamt-up.

Science? No, there's no science there; just thousands and thousands of examples to disprove the thinking. What more do you want? When Scott said that sharp edges would rob treble, I gave a pure, 100% opposite example of well over 100 guitars that have, for the most part, as much treble as can be accepted by the human ear, and volume that stands second to none. But he keeps on chugging along, twisting words around.... He doesn't counter with a plausible explanation for why my guitars are bright when in his theory, they should be dull. He won't explain why all these pre-war guitars sound so great when in his theory, they are designed and built wrong. Nope, he'll just keep chugging along, feeding lines...

Larry, you want me to stay and fight? Heck, bud, I give solid examples of why I'm arguing at each step. What more shall I do? Scott just keeps chugging along, and will do so until the rest of us give up, and then continue to spoon feed his religion upon those who will listen, all unchecked, because the rest of us will ignor this thread from here. Y'all make your own decisions. I can't fight a religion, and this is what these claims are. If you believe in them enough, it becomes your religion, with no need to prove it because you believe. And no amount of others showing examples of where the thinking is wrong will change the believer in his faith.

[QUOTE=Mario] The X brace simply does not like much of anything butting up against it (trust me)

Ah geeze.....

there are hundreds or incredible-sounding pre-war MArtins of every shape and size out there, each one with every brace not only touching the X braces, but tightly tucked under them.

[/QUOTE]

Mario,

What I understood in Scott's statement there was that it was the height of the brace that was butting the X that was the issue - 3/16" I think he said. Tucked braces are going to be very small in height where they tuck. I hesitate to say it but I think you and Scott are sort of in agreement there.

_________________
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

You know what the very very best thing about luthiery and guitar buildings is.... Everyone AND I MEAN EVERYONE has a set of ears that are different than one another.

Scott's customer's love what he has done for them, that's proof enough that what he does is successful.

Mario's customer's love what he has done for them, that's proof enough that what he does is successful.

Do my guitars sound that same as yours? Do yours sound the same as a pre-war martin? Who really cares. The thing that realy matters is if we are perceived as being successful by those who matter, our family, friends, customers and finaly piers.

Science, faith, everyone has to believe in something and there are many theories out there about everything, and someone has written something about everything to try and persuade us all in one direction or another.

It's good to see that Scott has found his Belief about what he does as well as many others here. There is nothing wrong with shopping around for a belief as long as you pick one at some point. That doesn't mean you can't change your mind at some point. I mean, how many times have you (collective) changed the type of finish you are using because you believe that something is better than the last one you used.

The important part in all this is that we all can appreciate what we do and what others do. We don't have to agree with it, but if someone is successful, than that should be celebrated.

Thank you all for sharing your findings and belief with us. Now we can choose what we want and leave the rest by the roadside on this journey.Rod True38747.630787037

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson