francis
C.O.G. 
Posts: 2,482 
My main instrument is: Whatever I'm building...
|
Post by francis on May 16, 2016 10:26:14 GMT
Should I…?
My next guitar build is quite a departure (for me) in terms of bracing, side construction and fret arrangements (i.e. moving from orthogonal to multi-scale), do I need to look more closely at how I ‘tune’ the different components?
Reading Siminoff’s book on tap tuning seems (to me) an extreme in tuning every component with a meter prior to assembly. I tend to look a stiffness/flex of components prior to construction then move to ‘taping’ to achieve a clean sound with good sustain. But should I be metering the assembled front/back plates to particular notes? I usually make backs stiffer than fronts and make their tap tone ‘different’ to the front to avoid wolff notes. Not very scientific but it seems to have worked so far.
Do others meter their parts and at what stages?
What sort of analysers do people use to monitor tap tones ?
I’m really looking for a degree of consistency across my guitars and wondering if quantifying component stiffness alone is the best approach.
Many thanks
Francis
|
|
R the F
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Posts: 1,135
My main instrument is: bandsaw
|
Post by R the F on May 16, 2016 21:45:56 GMT
As you know, francis , I know a lot less about this than you do - but that has never stopped me offering an opinion! I've read things by people who approach the subject "scientifically" and by people (many more) who claim that it is only through years of experience of tapping and listening and internalising that the skill can be learned. I must admit that the former approach makes more sense to me but I find the latter much more attractive because, after all, we all like the idea of being members of some kind of magic circle whose secrets cannot be divulged to mere mortals. The problem with the "experience" approach is, of course, that it means you have produced (and perhaps sold) a hell of a lot of crap guitars on the way to growing your long white beard producing the works of art that you now turn out. I suspect there is a "middle way" which is to hit upon a successful formula right from the start, perhaps with a slice of luck, as our own davewhite seems to have done with his very first pair of guitars: "I finished them both in 2003 after an “interesting” journey and although in looks they were “rough as a badger’s arse” they sounded really good – the beginnings of the De Faoite sound." (Read more: acousticsoundboard.co.uk/thread/2800/meet-makers-dave-white#ixzz48rAmI6Km). From reports of your guitars that I have read, francis , I would judge that you fall into this group, too. Unfortunately, I don't think I have hit upon anything yet so I thrash around reading books, following google leads and even reading "Meet the Makers"(!), thinking that somewhere I might find THE ANSWER. But I'm afraid I'm pretty sure that the answer is "42". If you can make a really good guitar, it doesn't really seem to matter what you do; you can make it out of any old wood - Here's a good example (and look at the price!) - make the soundboard as thick or thin as you like, scallop or taper your braces, bolt on your neck or slot the sides into it, double your sides or not, lacquer it or french polish it etc. etc. etc. - and, as long as you have a feel for what you are doing, it will turn out right. Not a very useful answer this. I'm a bitter man... Rob |
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by davewhite on May 17, 2016 7:35:04 GMT
Designing and making things using a "scientific method" usually involves a definition of the objective end goal that is uniquely accepted, and can be accurately measured to the extent that you know if you achieved it and if not precisely how far away you were. I have yet to see such a definition for an acoustic guitar. The "scientific theory" provides a complete understanding of how everything works and guides you along the way. With an instrument made from organic materials and played by organic beings with all of that subtlety and variation this is hardly surprising. Also you are in the world of subjectivity rather than objectivity when it comes to assessing "playability", "response" and "tone". In cases like this what tends to happen is that nuggets of "science theory" get quoted - cube rule of stiffness, strength to weight, dipole/monopole, Youngs Modulus - and measurements of things that can be measured are taken. This can become the cliche of looking for your lost car keys at night under the street light. By all means read and research all of the scientific theories of guitar making, but remember not to believe everything you read on the internet - including this  There are more people on the internet that make guitars in their heads rather than with their hands. The best way forward in my view is to try and have a clear view in your own head about what it is you want to achieve when you try different things and how you will know if you have done it. Then just make them. Trust your hands, ears and eyes rather than theories you don't really understand. I'm fortunate that I came to making as a player so I know what I'm aiming for and when I play my finished instruments how well I'm doing - I'm making for me the player. |
|
R the F
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Posts: 1,135
My main instrument is: bandsaw
|
Post by R the F on May 17, 2016 7:56:48 GMT
Designing and making things using a "scientific method" usually involves a definition of the objective end goal that is uniquely accepted, and can be accurately measured to the extent that you know if you achieved it and if not precisely how far away you were. I have yet to see such a definition for an acoustic guitar. The "scientific theory" provides a complete understanding of how everything works and guides you along the way. With an instrument made from organic materials and played by organic beings with all of that subtlety and variation this is hardly surprising. Also you are in the world of subjectivity rather than objectivity when it comes to assessing "playability", "response" and "tone". In cases like this what tends to happen is that nuggets of "science theory" get quoted - cube rule of stiffness, strength to weight, dipole/monopole, Youngs Modulus - and measurements of things that can be measured are taken. This can become the cliche of looking for your lost car keys at night under the street light. By all means read and research all of the scientific theories of guitar making, but remember not to believe everything you read on the internet - including this There are more people on the internet that make guitars in their heads rather than with their hands. The best way forward in my view is to try and have a clear view in your own head about what it is you want to achieve when you try different things and how you will know if you have done it. Then just make them. Trust your hands, ears and eyes rather than theories you don't really understand. I'm fortunate that I came to making as a player so I know what I'm aiming for and when I play my finished instruments how well I'm doing - I'm making for me the player. I think that's what I was trying to say. |
|
francis
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,482
My main instrument is: Whatever I'm building...
|
Post by francis on May 17, 2016 15:44:25 GMT
Designing and making things using a "scientific method" usually involves a definition of the objective end goal that is uniquely accepted, and can be accurately measured to the extent that you know if you achieved it and if not precisely how far away you were. I have yet to see such a definition for an acoustic guitar. The "scientific theory" provides a complete understanding of how everything works and guides you along the way. With an instrument made from organic materials and played by organic beings with all of that subtlety and variation this is hardly surprising. Also you are in the world of subjectivity rather than objectivity when it comes to assessing "playability", "response" and "tone". In cases like this what tends to happen is that nuggets of "science theory" get quoted - cube rule of stiffness, strength to weight, dipole/monopole, Youngs Modulus - and measurements of things that can be measured are taken. This can become the cliche of looking for your lost car keys at night under the street light. By all means read and research all of the scientific theories of guitar making, but remember not to believe everything you read on the internet - including this There are more people on the internet that make guitars in their heads rather than with their hands. The best way forward in my view is to try and have a clear view in your own head about what it is you want to achieve when you try different things and how you will know if you have done it. Then just make them. Trust your hands, ears and eyes rather than theories you don't really understand. I'm fortunate that I came to making as a player so I know what I'm aiming for and when I play my finished instruments how well I'm doing - I'm making for me the player. Thanks Dave / Rob, I think that sums up what I try to do at present although I wouldn't call myself anything like 'a guitarist'. My problem is I've worked in technical, research and forensic fields for pretty well my entire working life and it's very difficult to get out of that precision mind-set into a dare I say 'sensual one'. I thoroughly enjoy the changes in sound as I work timbers for my guitars, always endeavouring to get the best from a multitude of different materials available. But always having this nagging feeling as I work that things are not quite the same with this build as the last or the one before that. Hence this feeling that I need to build-in consistency using some form of measurement. Perhaps if I build completely different guitars each time so the current build is not like the last, therefore gut feeling is the only way forward... Francis |
|
There are more people on the internet that make guitars in their heads rather than with their hands.
Jo whoever he is.
