Don't get me wrong, I love my Larrivee's (I have 4). They sound brilliant, feel comfortable and play great. But, compared to my other guitars (Taylor 510, McIlroy A25c, Lowden O10c, Lowden S7), they're very quiet and lack the same dynamic range. That's not a criticism (and it helps them to record brilliantly), but I was wondering if anyone else had found the same thing. For a moment, I was having crazy thoughts about getting braces shaved (dare I suggest that they might be a tad overbuilt?), but I was also concerned about destroying that balance and subtle tone that works so well for recording. Great live too, when plugged in, but oh so quiet... I wouldn't want to compete in a jam with any of my Larry's. Am I alone here? Should I do anything about it?
(To be fair, the action on all my guitars is low, I play DADGAD and lower tuning wise, have a delicate touch, play modern fingerstyle on Newtone 12-56 or 13-56... but the Larrivees are quieter than the similarly equipped and setup other guitars)
Cheers,
Dan
If you're plugged in what difference does it make?
And you're not competing for volume if you're competing at all.
There's no "do over" on shaving braces.
I wouldn't risk that with my guitars. I'd get another guitar. Find yourself a Martin M (Jumbo), a Masterbilt J or a Gibson J.
I'm only plugged in for gigs, but one a few occasions when playing to others unamplified, I have found my Larrivee's pretty quiet. It's not actually a criticism, especially for my use of them, more just an observation. I doubt I'll go the shaving braces route, but was intrigued to see if anyone had and whether this makes a difference.
(Sorry - "compete" was a poor choice of word! a jam should never be a competition! I just meant that my Larry's would struggle if you needed to dig in or for single line work... or even just generally ... in terms of volume in a jam.... )
I'm surprised your Taylor is louder, even if it is a dread. I'm not surprised the others are. I don't find my LV03r a quiet guitar particularly. The humid weather here for the last two weeks hasn't helped it though :whistling:.
I wouldn't think a Larrivee is the guitar to get if you have a delicate playing style and use light strings. It'd be hard to get the Larry going if you've adjusted to the Mcilroy or the Lowdens, and then went to grab it.
uh huh, I "hear" ya, mrrinse. But I think that you will be heard in a group setting even if you aren't plugged in. And you are likely right that you may not have the loudest guitar in the group, but they'll hear you.
Remember that they are listening to you to a far greater degree than they are to your guitar.
Dynamic range is in the hands of the player as is tone, vibrato,finesse, everything.
Quote from: mrrinse on July 02, 2009, 07:06:05 PM
For a moment, I was having crazy thoughts about getting braces shaved (dare I suggest that they might be a tad overbuilt?), but I was also concerned about destroying that balance and subtle tone that works so well for recording.
They are overbuilt, that's why they weigh so much. But I wouldn't shave the braces if you like the tone. Most likely it will change the balance and voice rather than simply make it louder. You should at least except the possibility that you won't like the result.
Like you I am a soft player.I rarely play in a jam session because I am usually unable to even properly hear what I'm playing.The real problem is that many people play music in a group setting not properly listening to the other players.Why bother.Save your strings for something a little more satisfying. As regards shaving the insides of your guitars my advice is only by an experienced Luthier.If you mess up you only have some expensive kindling wood to get the fire going.
Loud, loud. loud. It comes up so often. If you want LOUD go electric. Acoustic guitars are more about tonal subtlety, resonance, clarity etc. Larrivees have those qualities in truckloads as well as having perfectly adequate volume and bite. And then there's that alchemy to which Queequeg refers, between the hands and the instrument - that's where you achieve the sound that you want. Besides, your guitar is louder than you think. Play a note (or chord) then quickly lift your guitar and rotate it so that the soundboard is near your face. What you'll hear will amaze you. :bgrin: :bgrin:
If some of your other guitars are loud, whats wrong with just using one of them in setting where you need to be loud acoustically?
With 8 guitars I'd hope I'd have 1 for every need. My 2 Larrivees aren't that quiet and if I dig in, they respond, particularly the L-10. If I'm going to a jam where there's a bunch of instruments or people just don't know how to play well with others, I'll take my Gallagher which is really loud.
There were a couple posts awhile back from people who'd played with shaving braces, and they seemed pleased with the results. I had thought it an interesting thing to try if I could find an inexpensive OM or L, but when I had the strings off of one of mine I tried to fit my hand into it and imagine the effort necessary to do the job. Realized that I don't small enough hands for it -
Its been reported that the SDs are cannons, as well as the Jumbos - have you ever tried one of those?
Tad
Hmm?Well I have two superb dreads.One a very likeable Larri D-O3R,and the other a fantastic Bourgeois DB Signature(alot more money :ohmy:).
Yes,the Bourgeois is louder,has more sustain and chime,and can blow down a wall,but in all honesty I still just love the D-O3R.It's different,lower in dynamics,and that is just fine with me.I like for it's own vibe....
No complaints whatsoever,and I am content to keep it just as it is. :winkin:
Every shaving removed from a guitar's bracing alters its characteristics and voice for ever, and can't be put back. By this I don't advocate or condemn re-voicing, but do find it a most fascinating topic though.
Th following quote is extracted from Scott Van Linge's web-site. His business is to re-voice guitars, and I think at least worth a look or a visit. He specifically mentions Larrivee as a good candidate for "brace works"
"The fee is now $1200, US, for parabolic re-voicing. The increase reflects what I have learned in just the last few years, and the amount of additional time I now spend on each instrument."
"It is a lot of money to spend, but there is no one else, anywhere, who can perform the miracles I do. If you want to start from scratch, my recommendation is to buy a Larrivee you like. They are good starting materials (as are most factory guitars) because they are well built and are not scalloped. Characteristically, the low E and D strings are louder than the rest on Larrivees, but I can balance that, as with balance differences on any guitar. Add my fee to the cost, and you will have an instrument unlikely to be touched by anything out there, no matter what the cost."
http://www.vanlingeguitars.com/parabolicbraceworks/index.html
We've already had a similar thread to this. I always felt my Larrivée Parlor wasn't giving enough, so last year my luthier friend shaved the lower half of the X-bracing (not the half nearest the sound hole) and I think it improved things slightly. He made a special tool involving sandpaper, as he didn't want to use a blade in such a restricted space and risk cutting something he didn't want to. The sandpaper arrangement offered more control. However he did find it difficult getting his hand into the soundhole and doing the work.
As the Larris are sturdily built (and especially the Parlors), they take noticeably longer to play in/open up.
Do other people say they have trouble hearing you, or does the guitar just sound too quiet to you? If it's just you, you may want to see if someone could install a soundport in one of your L's. Of course you'd want a skilled luthier with experience to do it for you, just like you would for the brace shaving. Don't know what the cost comparison would be. It would not have a significant effect on the guitar voicing, though - you'd just be able to hear it better.
mrrinse:
I say do some more research on it, and then if you're comfortable with the idea, go for it! You could create a one-of-a-kind jewel that would be very special and personalized by you. That would be great. It's just a guitar for gosh sakes - of course you may not want to choose your favorite guitar for this the first time trying it, but I think it's fascinating and exciting what could be created. Like has been mentioned, it has been done before with apparently very satisfactory results, so we know it can be done. I'd love to hear how it turns out for you when/if you do it.
The problem with doing it yourself is that most people have no idea what they are doing.
I say do not shave!!! But if you must please for the Love of the guitar have a Luthier do it. That's not to say that you are not a capable individual as I'm sure you are, but at least if the Luthier messes it up you can blame him instead of your self and possibly work out a deal if they were to mess it up. Just my .02
As someone who has shaved the braces on four Larrivees, I wanted to contribute to this thread, and I've been thinking about what I want to say.
You know, it wasn't all that long ago that you would have never seen a side sound port cut into a guitar. People would have thought that you were some kind of experimental nut case. Why mess with something that's worked for over 100 years. Why - even Mr. Larrivee doesn't do this to his guitars! It would have been viewed as though you'd taken a belt sander to a Stradivarius (sorry, unclrob). Now, all of the boutique builders are building this in almost as a standard feature. My point is that it is not crazy to work toward improving what is generally seen as a good instrument.
A friend of mine has an Oscar Graff that has a stunning sound, but he really wanted a sound port (his buddy has a Laskin with a sound port and it was making him nuts). He asked me to help him cut the sp into the upper bout on his Graff, and he still thanks me every time he sees me. After 7 years of owning this guitar, he feels that this is the icing on the cake.
Another buddy has an SD 50 and a Larry parlor, and not only did he cut sound ports into these guitars, he shaved the braces as well. These guitars sound great, and no one can tell you that he has done anything to harm the tone, volume, responsiveness, sustain, or whatever. They just sound like great guitars.
As for my Larrivees, I took probably about 10% off the two braces that cross the lower bout. When you think of the small profile on these braces, 10% is a very small amount and is not likely to destroy the integrity of the guitar. And the bottom edge of the brace is still bound to the top with the same amount of surface to surface contact, and nothing has impacted on the glued surface. You just take "a little off the top" with a very small plane (yep - it's hard to get your hand in there), and maybe taper that flat top ridge just a little. It just allows the top to move a little more freely.
I guess that I'm lucky enough to have built my own custom guitar under the guidance of a luthier, and after having crafted my own braces and glued them to the back and sides, it's not such an exotic thing any more. You get a certain level of comfort in working on all aspects of the instrument. Here is a link to an earlier post with pictures of my custom project:
http://www.larriveeforum.com/smf/index.php?topic=22379.msg196497#msg196497
In my opinion, whatever tonal qualities the guitar has that appealed to the owner is enhanced as you play it in over the next couple of months. Anyone who thinks that the sound has been irrevocably changed or that you may be destroying the integrity of the sound forever is over reaching here. Let's break the paradigm, people. Do not fear. The only thing to fear is fear itself. :humour:
It's commonly expressed here that JCL, like most prominent luthiers, over builds his guitars just a touch, so that they can take some banging around without having 50% of them coming back for warranty repairs. It's not a slight on the quality of the instrument, but it does leave some room for improvement, IMHO.
Like an earlier poster has said, "it's just a guitar for gosh sakes". I agree that if you're interested in doing this, it's probably good to take it to a respected luthier as most players aren't going to be comfortable doing this, but if you're thinking about shaving a brace or two, then go ahead. Your world will not be condemned by the Guitar Gods, and you'll still be enjoying that git 10 years from now. Probably more so...
Sorry to ramble on like this, so I'm outta' here!
jimmy
Disclaimer: I own 4 Larrivee guitars. I believe they are wonderful instruments. I do not GAS for any other brand of guitar. Thank you Jean, for the wonderful instruments, particularly my JCL 40th Anniversary Reissue, which has now been shaved and is thanking me for putting on a new set of Gotohs 21:1. :thumb
I took this from Scott VanLinge's site, and cleaned it up a bit in P'shp.. it's his approach to re-voiceing Larrivee's... if/when Scott shows up here, i'm sure he will talk about his work far better than i ever could, but it would seem to go a fair bit beyond shaving the height of the X brace, and although i have talked to him a bit about this, i have not felt the desire to touch my OM19 ;-)
(http://www.voguehost.com/ims/u/dermot/more%20guitars/braces.jpg)
d.
Quote from: jimmy buffett on July 03, 2009, 09:56:42 PM
As for my Larrivees, I took probably about 10% off the two braces that cross the lower bout. When you think of the small profile on these braces, 10% is a very small amount and is not likely to destroy the integrity of the guitar.
Why did you remove material from there of all places? If you removed 10% of the brace height I think you lost about 20% of the stiffness of that brace. I don't know if those figures are exact but you definitely decreased the stiffness to weight ratio of the top. Those are the only two top braces with a somewhat triangular profile which provides the best stiffness to weight ratio. Have you experimented with with removing material from other braces?
Quote from: dermot on July 03, 2009, 10:18:33 PM
I took this from Scott VanLinge's site, and cleaned it up a bit in P'shp.. it's his approach to re-voiceing Larrivee's... if/when Scott shows up here, i'm sure he will talk about his work far better than i ever could, but it would seem to go a fair bit beyond shaving the height of the X brace, and although i have talked to him a bit about this, i have not felt the desire to touch my OM19 ;-)
(http://www.voguehost.com/ims/u/dermot/more%20guitars/braces.jpg)
d.
This is what I'm talking about, the 'after' shape has a better stiffness to weight ratio.
"In comparison with a rectangular brace of the same width and height, a triangular cross-section brace would need to be either three times as wide or ~ 1.44 times as high to obtain the same stiffness" David C. Hurd Ph.D.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 03, 2009, 10:25:00 PM
Why did you remove material from there of all places? If you removed 10% of the brace height I think you lost about 20% of the stiffness of that brace. I don't know if those figures are exact but you definitely decreased the stiffness to weight ratio of the top. Those are the only two top braces with a somewhat triangular profile which provides the best stiffness to weight ratio. Have you experimented with with removing material from other braces?
To the best of my knowledge, it's the two braces that cross the lower bout that have the most impact, given that they brace the largest area of the top. That's where the sound comes from. Anything in the upper bout or around the sound hole would have less of an impact on the sound because the lower bout is where the sound comes from. It's like a set of drums, where the oomph comes from the bass drum, or the drum with the largest skin.
Also, it's pretty hard to move your hand around in that small space, so the longer brace is where you have the best access.
I think that diagram above shows what I'm getting at pretty well. I don't think that I was able to make this kind of impact, but this is a good example of what I'm shooting for. When you look at it, the "after" brace isn't so much lighter that it should negatively impact the guitar.
jimmy
Jimmy, you say that you have shaved the braces of your four Larris. Can you describe the differences you noticed after you'd worked them to your satisfaction? Changes of tone, balance, sustain, volume etc? And was it a significant change ie really noticeable? With thanks, Lee. :donut :donut BTW I replaced all the broken top braces in a bowl backed mandolin in which the soundhole was about the size of a duck's egg. I had to drop a mirror in there and an LED light and work with a mirror and purpose-made tools - man do I have respect for dentists now. :bgrin: :bgrin:
Are you talking about the X brace or the lower tone bars? The X is the longest brace and supports the top the most. The tone bars are already pretty triangular from what I remember so I don't see how you could do much other than lower the height.
OK, I can't help myself...you need to buy a Bourgeois, Collings, SCGC, (insert other fancy guitar here). A Larrivee is built like a tank (OK, much overstated!). They will last forever, the top won't hardly move with time (be around in 100+ years with care) and they can sound a bit subdued compared to one of the aforementioned hotrods. But they are great guitars for what you pay. I love mine. Especially the OM-03MT! They can be exceptional guitars when you match yourself to the right one. Please, unless you just can't control yourself, don't shave the braces on your Larrivee. No offense to those that have....the world needs tinkerers. Just sell it to someone who will love it for what it is and save your lunch money for something that will do the job. FWIW, my .02
Justin
If you want to mod I'd say what the heck, go for it. I prefer the word Sturdy though. Overbuilt and built like a tank overstate the case. I really don't want to get into this debate again, but those ways of describing Larrivees have negative connotations that don't really apply to the lively guitars they are. Just this morning I was enjoying how much pop there was to the harmonics, with also a lovely floaty bloom to the sound....
You can certainly go from excellent to more excellent, of course.
A few years I read a post (here or at AGF) that Leo Kottke used to whittle the braces of his Taylor 12-strings when he got them. If true, I'm sure he knew where and how much to remove.
Agreed with the comment to leave them alone. Once shaved, its too late to go back. Maybe some medium strings will drive the top more to one's liking.
Quote from: leerichards on July 03, 2009, 11:57:42 PM
Jimmy, you say that you have shaved the braces of your four Larris. Can you describe the differences you noticed after you'd worked them to your satisfaction? Changes of tone, balance, sustain, volume etc? And was it a significant change ie really noticeable? With thanks, Lee. :donut :donut
I would say that the changes are mostly to volume and sustain, but like so many questions about the sound of a guitar (i.e. different tone woods, scale length, body style), it can be very subjective. I don't know if I'm up to the task :(
My primary comment is that whatever sound your guitar was producing before, it will be enhanced after this minor mod. Look at the illustration of the two braces, and ask yourself which one would allow the top to move more freely. In my experience, most custom made guitars have a profile more similar to the taperred brace, while the standard Larrivee seems to have a wide flat surface at the top edge.
Hope this helps...
jb
Hmm!I have a Collings and a Bourgeois,but I "must" say that I happen to love the sonic presentation of my Larri D-O3R.
Sheesh,it has it's "own" sound,and if I did not really like it,I'd not have bought the thing! :smile:
Soul search as to whether you like it,or not.That's about it really....but...
Best of luck to you
My take on this kind of stuff is, if its yours and you feel you are comfortable in doing the mods, then do them. Just about anything can be "improved" if a person takes the time to learn what they are supposed to be doing. Some folks are just more curious and adventurous than others. Some folks like to learn about new things and then to try new things out. Some folks are really handy and enjoy customizing just about anything. Other folks prefer to buy things, keep them pristine, and never alter anything from stock. To each his own.
Quote from: GA-ME on July 04, 2009, 05:22:40 PM
My take on this kind of stuff is, if its yours and you feel you are comfortable in doing the mods, then do them. Just about anything can be "improved" if a person takes the time to learn what they are supposed to be doing. Some folks are just more curious and adventurous than others. Some folks like to learn about new things and then to try new things out. Some folks are really handy and enjoy customizing just about anything. Other folks prefer to buy things, keep them pristine, and never alter anything from stock. To each his own.
Yeah, what GA-ME said.
I can't speak for others but the Forum III is the loudest Larrivee out of the eight I have owned. And that includes a D-09 and LV-03R. Because of the 12 fret design and bridge placement it is very loud, if you want it to be. I have the Mahogany with the Italian Spruce top. I just noticed today that the F-III is actually louder than my Martin OM-21.
Of course the OM-21 is 14 fret and RW/Spruce, but it used to be louder than all of my Larrivees. And of course the OM-21 has very light bracing. So imagine what the F-III would be like if it was shaved. But I won't do it to mine.
I agree with Mark early on in the thread, if you want to be the loudest git at a Jam, just buy a big ole J-200 or a Jumbo Guild. Personally I'm even picking up my classical more lately. I like the subtle tones much more than "driving'' jangles of sound. Unless they are brief punches that match the mood or lyrics. Otherwise I look for my earplugs.
Thanks, Jimmy. The fact that you modified all four guitars shows that you felt you were onto a winner. Brave man getting into the first one though - unless you are a luthier, I'll bet you took quite a few deep breaths before taking off that very first shaving. Did you use violin makers' thumb/finger planes? I'd be interested to know more about the process but I don't suppose the forum is the place for that. If you have the time (and inclination) to email me, I'd like to find out more. Not sure I'd touch my Larri- she's my no.1, but experimenting with instrument modification is something I like to do myself - I converted a broken down old Harmony flattop into a resonator which is at present strung as a 6 string bass/baritone. Thanks again. :thumbsup
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 03, 2009, 10:35:27 PM
This is what I'm talking about, the 'after' shape has a better stiffness to weight ratio.
"In comparison with a rectangular brace of the same width and height, a triangular cross-section brace would need to be either three times as wide or ~ 1.44 times as high to obtain the same stiffness" David C. Hurd Ph.D.
Jeremy,
I don't know where you got the rectangular cross section, since I don't believe it's on my website, or this quote about a triangular cross section which seems irrelevant. The parabolic cross section is the shape I use for all braces I reshape, as it seems to best
deliver the energy from the strings into the soundboard from the X brace. Or to resonate with the soundboard, as with the other braces.
It's not as strong as a rectangular cross section, but lots stronger than a triangular one, all of the same height. And both of those shapes have corners, which, IMHO, absorb energy, dampening both the volume and sustain. A parabolic cross section also has the greatest strength-to-weight ratio of various possible cross sections. I think. It's been over 45 years since I took physics...
But I do remember from mechanical engineering 101 that a parabolic spanning beam (in length) is just as strong as a rectangular one of the same height and width (same height as in the middle of the parabola).
The "before and after" cross sections you show could be from many guitars I've worked on. Some companies cut their braces from billets that are shaped lengthwise, but as wide as 6 or more braces. The billets are then cut up into individual braces. Sometimes they are just glued in with the rectangular cross section (Taylor) and sometimes they are rounded or semi-triangulated with some sander or router.
For a company to shape braces in the careful fashion I do, graduating their height to match the string tension on them at any point would necessitate a CNC router/computer program for each brace. Not quite mass production standards. But it is only when I accomplish that balance that the entire surface to which the brace (all braces) is glued is able to vibrate with the rest of the soundboard. And that adds up to a lot of dead, very expensive real estate on, yes, even your Larrivees.
The re-voicing I do does not change the basic tone of any guitar. That is determined by the woods and shape and size. Minus, of course, all of the sound that braces either absorb or do not transmit.
10% off the top? You've got a long way to go, but go slowly... And don't forget that the back can add a lot of reinforcement, if allowed to.
Scott
Quote from: leerichards on July 05, 2009, 03:30:26 AM
Thanks, Jimmy. The fact that you modified all four guitars shows that you felt you were onto a winner. Brave man getting into the first one though - unless you are a luthier,
I should have been more clear about this. When I said that I've shaved four of my Larrivees, I should have been specific in saying that I had my friend, Tony Karol, do the planing. Tony is superb at wood working (did I mention that he's a luthier?) Tony's experience at working with those little thumb planes and his precision makes it a lot easier to get this done. I did some final sanding on the braces just to smooth and shape the end result. Besides, it always makes a nice excused to spend time in Tony's shop.
Some of you might have seen his display at the Montreal Guitar Show:
http://www.karol-guitars.com/
When my friend asked me to help him cut a sound port into his Oscar Graff, I took him to Tony's and while we did the settting up together, I told him I wanted to do the routering. It was worth it to see Darcy turn blue when I hit the power switch, but I wasn't able to see him stop breathing as he had to leave the room. Much like an expectant father in the delivery room.
And I found the post by Scott van Linge to be a good read. He did a great job of detailing what the objective is, and why going to a parabolic shape makes so much sense. Isn't this what all of the master builders do when they build braces? He did a nice job explaining the impact that the shape of a brace has on "delivering the energy". The parabolic beam is just as strong, but eliminates the corners that have a dampening effect on volume and sustain.
As Scott points out, at only 10% you have a long ways to go. I can honestly say that I don't know the precise amount that we removed, but was only trying to show that it's not like anyone is advocating running the belt sander along the brace until it's hard to find. Thanks for your input here, Scott. I learned something from your observations, which is largely why we belong to a Forum like this.
You can see the bracing that I built on my custom project if you follow the link on my earlier post.
jb
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 05, 2009, 09:17:13 AM
Jeremy,
I don't know where you got the rectangular cross section, since I don't believe it's on my website, or this quote about a triangular cross section which seems irrelevant. The parabolic cross section is the shape I use for all braces I reshape, as it seems to best deliver the energy from the strings into the soundboard from the X brace. Or to resonate with the soundboard, as with the other braces.
I got the picture of the rectangular cross section from the post above mine. The quote is totally relevant as it explains the stiffness to weight ratio of triangular braces to rectangular ones and is from the author of 'Left Brain Luthrie'. I don't know of any one that uses a true triangle or parabola, you don't want the sharp point of the triangle as it could tend to get damaged easily and parabolas are conic sections and rarely do brace sections form true parabolas, especially lengthwise.
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 05, 2009, 09:17:13 AM
A parabolic cross section also has the greatest strength-to-weight ratio of various possible cross sections. I think. It's been over 45 years since I took physics...
Strength to weight ratio isn't that important especially considering the distance the brace spans cross wise. More important is stiffness to weight ratio and many parabolas would do poor as a brace cross section.
For instance this parabola would have a poor stiffness to weight ratio as a cross sectional shape of a brace.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Parabola.jpg)
The reason is increasing the height of the brace is the most effective way to improve the stiffness. If you double the width of the brace then you double the stiffness but if you double the height you get eight times the stiffness. So to get the best stiffness to weight ratio you want tall skinny braces whether they resemble tall triangles, tall parabolas or whatever you want to call them.
If anyone is interested in trying some slight modifications to the bracing, there is an easy way to dip your feet in the water. Just take some 100 grit, or thereabouts, sand paper and simply wrap it around the braces and just sand off the hard right angles of the braces left by the chiseling. Make it so everything is smooth and has even transitions. Don't try to substantially reshape the brace profile, so much as just even the hard angles out to smooth surfaces.You are removing very little material and I think most folks would be surprised by the increase in sustain, volume, and presence of the guitar following this simple, minor modification.
Quote from: GA-ME on July 05, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
If anyone is interested in trying some slight modifications to the bracing, there is an easy way to dip your feet in the water. Just take some 100 grit, or thereabouts, sand paper and simply wrap it around the braces and just sand off the hard right angles of the braces left by the chiseling. Make it so everything is smooth and has even transitions. Don't try to substantially reshape the brace profile, so much as just even the hard angles out to smooth surfaces.You are removing very little material and I think most folks would be surprised by the increase in sustain, volume, and presence of the guitar following this simple, minor modification.
You mean the 90 degree angle of the main X Brace? Just the X Brace, and all the way to the sides the guitar. So you are suggesting just evenly shave off the hard edge all the way along.
Did you do this to one of your Larrivees, and what was the result? If I end up with any humps in the frequency response or increased bass as overhang or wolf tones it will be a problem.
This is tempting. I can do this. I like the guitar as it is, but if I can make the same flavor more intense........hmmmmmm
Jeremy,
You're right about the triangular quote being relevant. Thanks! It's such a burden to be right all the time...
In a way, a parabolic cross section is somewhere between a rectangle and a triangle, and I think, the best shape. The wide parabola you show is not a good one for stiffness, true. My work re-voicing limits me to what is there, and a wide parabola is better than not. Such as the back braces. But I agree that narrow taller parabolic cross sections are better. In fact, when I build one, I make the lower tone bar narrower than the upper one. After all, it's farther from the high string tension area below the bridge and doesn't need to be as strong. Of course, it can have a longer span, as they do in Larrivees, but I build with the traditional diagonal angle to the tone bars. Although not as strong as the Larrivee double A frame, the tone bars pass through the rings (from my Sound is Round model) obliquely, and do not impact any one ring as much as do the A frame ones. Which is why it has been my experience that the tone bars dampen the G and A strings, since they are tangent to and/or just inside these rings.
Scott
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 05, 2009, 07:44:10 PM
Jeremy,
You're right about the triangular quote being relevant. Thanks! It's such a burden to be right all the time...
I'm not really interested in this type of discussion. I'm glad to talk about bracing but without the insults. If someone says something I say is irrelevant I'll probably try to explain myself; that is the typical reaction and I don't see how that warrents your offensive response.
Quote from: GA-ME on July 05, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
If anyone is interested in trying some slight modifications to the bracing, there is an easy way to dip your feet in the water. Just take some 100 grit, or thereabouts, sand paper and simply wrap it around the braces and just sand off the hard right angles of the braces left by the chiseling. Make it so everything is smooth and has even transitions. Don't try to substantially reshape the brace profile, so much as just even the hard angles out to smooth surfaces.You are removing very little material and I think most folks would be surprised by the increase in sustain, volume, and presence of the guitar following this simple, minor modification.
Well said :+1:
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 05, 2009, 09:04:49 PM
I'm not really interested in this type of discussion. I'm glad to talk about bracing but without the insults. If someone says something I say is irrelevant I'll probably try to explain myself; that is the typical reaction and I don't see how that warrents your offensive response.
Jeremy3220, I don't think that comment was meant to be offensive at all. I think he was joking about himself being "right all the time." I read it as rather friendly acknowledgement to your statement about triangular braces having relevance that he didn't see before.
Quote from: bearsville0 on July 05, 2009, 10:19:22 PM
Jeremy3220, I don't think that comment was meant to be offensive at all. I think he was joking about himself being "right all the time." I read it as rather friendly acknowledgement to your statement about triangular braces haven't relevance that he didn't see before.
Maybe you're right because I couldn't understand where he was coming from if he was be sarcastic and referring to me.
Jeremy,
i also took Scott's words as nothing more than a joke, i thought he opened up an interesting discussion, and seemed to be talking to you as a peer..
a few years a go i talked to him about re-voicing a Larrivee, and thought him to be funny, confident in his skills and very careful about his promises... in short a real person. I for one would love to sit on the sidelines of this discussion and listen / learn!
In the end i went with a Luither built guitar (my Webber), and am very pleased, but it was a close call...
d.
Scott was agreeing, modifying his original stance. I don't read anything else.
Anyway,
Who Here has actually modded their Larrivee then (Scott has I know). All I'm hearing is theory. Tell me a before and after with very specific descriptions. I ask because I'm thinking I could tackle this. I need proof though from experienced players. I'm afraid I'll wreck a guitar doing something that hasn't even been tried by people recommending it.
Quote from: hadden on July 05, 2009, 11:19:52 PM
Who Here has actually modded their Larrivee then (Scott has I know). All I'm hearing is theory. Tell me a before and after with very specific descriptions. I ask because I'm thinking I could tackle this. I need proof though from experienced players. I'm afraid I'll wreck a guitar doing something that hasn't even been tried by people recommending it.
I had my walnut 03 shaved (essentially just took the sharp edges off the braces in what became a parabolic shape). I thought it brought out the bass a little more which was the intention to begin with. The luthier who did it builds classical guitars and is well respected so I trusted him to modify it for me. As Scott said in his post, it did not change the basic tone of the guitar, but IMO allowed more sounds to come through.
I got the impression it was a routine thing to do on mass produced guitars.
Quote from: bearsville0 on July 05, 2009, 11:32:48 PM
I had my walnut 03 shaved (essentially just took the sharp edges off the braces in what became a parabolic shape). I thought it brought out the bass a little more which was the intention to begin with. The luthier who did it builds classical guitars and is well respected so I trusted him to modify it for me. As Scott said in his post, it did not change the basic tone of the guitar, but IMO allowed more sounds to come through.
You mean more of everything but most noticable in the bass? Dosn't sound promising for my Rosewood which has a little too much of that to start.
Jimmy Buffett wasn't really specific about changes in sound from the lower brace shaves
Hey Jeremy,
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between self-deprecating humor and sarcasm. No offense intended in any way. Why is it you're the only one who saw my comment this way?
I've modified over 12 Larrivees and one Thompson. I don't recommend anyone working on one without knowing what they're doing. And I do sincerely believe I'm the only one who does. I would never trust one to someone else. That is because there is no one else who understands my Sound is Round theory enough to apply it to fixing any particular problem, and it is the only model that can identify precisely where on which brace or braces further modification is needed.
If you mess yours up, maybe I can fix it. Be aware that you can create problems that weren't there to begin with--I have--and then you really have to know what to do.
Scott
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 12:49:07 AM
Hey Jeremy,
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between self-deprecating humor and sarcasm. No offense intended in any way. Why is it you're the only one who saw my comment this way?
I've modified over 12 Larrivees and one Thompson. I don't recommend anyone working on one without knowing what they're doing. And I do sincerely believe I'm the only one who does. I would never trust one to someone else. That is because there is no one else who understands my Sound is Round theory enough to apply it to fixing any particular problem, and it is the only model that can identify precisely where on which brace or braces further modification is needed.
If you mess yours up, maybe I can fix it. Be aware that you can create problems that weren't there to begin with--I have--and then you really have to know what to do.
Scott
So You don't recommend me just shaving off the hard edges of the X brace? I thought that would be doable as was suggested.
Hadden, I thought the changes were subtle after simply rounding the corners on the braces. It didn't make the kind of differences Scott is referring too with a revoicing of the instrument, but Scott I would love to hear the effects of your work on the Larrivee L series.
The two biggest changes in sound anyway were changing the tusq saddle out for walrus bone, and hands down the biggest improvement in sound came with continuing to improve my playing skills.
Thanks bears, I worry a bit about creating structural problems. I like mediums. I suspect I'll do the mod anyway, unless someone has a horror story.
I like what GA-ME says above.
Hadden,
I don't think there is a problem with rounding the corners of the X brace and the two tone bars, and it will probably produce the slight improvements mentioned. The problem is that, IMO, the X brace doesn't like any braces butting up against it, as such a joint creates a rigid tee joint (angled, of course). These joints (there are four where each of the two tone bar ends are glued to the X brace at full height) prevent energy from being released from the X into the soundboard at these places. Being symmetrical in their distance from the cross point of the X, the four become two places in the sound spectrum where the energy is dampened. This occurs on the G and A strings. I've already mentioned this in regard to the tone bars being tangential to the rings for the G and A, but the butt joints are part of the problem.
Has anyone other than me noticed the quiet G and A strings? The D and low E are louder on Larrivees because their rings pass in between the tone bars (for the D) and below the lower one for the low E, and have less inhibition that the square corners of the X cause along its length where there are no butt joints.
Simply rounding all the corners can help sustain and volume, but may actually increase the G and A problem. I've found the only way to fix this is to chisel the tone bars down to zero height at their junction with the X and reshape them into parabolas again. I have tried to fix the G by only lowering the butt joint intersection of the upper tone bar and it doesn't work until I am down to zero. This is tricky work, to say the least. The butt joints of the lower tone bar are much lower, as is the X brace near its end. But they need to be reduced to zero, too, to allow the A its full power. Try reaching those! I've made a special sanding block that rests against the inside edge of the X so that I can slowly sand down the tone bar to zero. Many hours there, alone. The last one I worked on had the lower inch plus of the X ends somewhat rounded by rather sloppy hand chiseling at the factory, making my work harder to get a completely smooth profile both in cross section and length. And I have found it necessary to not just round the X's corners, as this still leaves a ridge where the rounded part meets the sides, and this ridge still absorbs energy. The sanding needs to go as close to the glue line as possible, and any even slight ridges can cause dead spots. It is literally quite unbelievable how much something--the tiniest irregularity--I can barely see or feel can cause problems, but it can.
bearsville,
I, too, wish you could hear the difference my work makes. In general, Larrivees seem to have fairly weak high end, and it takes major reshaping of the bridge to eliminate the corners and ridges on it to allow highs to sparkle. The square corners on the bridge wing ends cause a phenomenon on the high E string I've noticed on every guitar I've modified. Try playing an open E, then walking up the frets one at a time. You should notice that at some point, maybe the 3rd to 5th fret, the volume drops noticeably and stays lower for a few frets before increasing. This is because the open high E resonates with a ring that is larger than the bridge wings. With each higher note, the ring decreases slightly in diameter (diameter is inversely proportional to the frequency, which is why sub woofers have large diameters--it all fits together). At the point where the volume drops, the ring just passes through the bridge ends, and their corners absorb energy big time. I spend 6-8 hours alone on the bridge shaping.
On most guitars, the finger braces, the short ones outside of the X brace and lower than the soundhole, also cause high end problems. But Larrivees have flat, low and wide finger braces, and little can be done. Rounding their corners helps some, but not much.
Here is a true (I swear) quote from a happy Larrivee customer:
"Scott, Thanks a lot for working on my Larrivee. You brought out the good stuff hidden within it! It sounds so much [double underlined] better and is now fun and inspiring to play..."
Timothy H., Plymouth, Wisconsin
You could be the next!
Scott
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 12:49:07 AM
I've modified over 12 Larrivees and one Thompson. I don't recommend anyone working on one without knowing what they're doing. And I do sincerely believe I'm the only one who does. I would never trust one to someone else. That is because there is no one else who understands my Sound is Round theory enough to apply it to fixing any particular problem, and it is the only model that can identify precisely where on which brace or braces further modification is needed.
Scott, with all due respect to your experience, when you make statements such as this, it smells of snake oil. Essentially, what you are saying is no one else in the world can re voice an acoustic guitar because they don't understand the correct system, which just happens to be your Sound is Round theory, and you just happen to be the only authority in the world on the Sound is Round Theory. You say no one else understands this theory well enough to utilize it correctly? Perhaps, this is because you haven't quantified the theory sufficiently that your methodology is clearly delineated and others can try to replicate your results. I wonder how this unifying theory would stand up to replication by other trained luthiers who also understand the scientific method and experimental design?
To me it sounds just about the same as Edward Titchner's assertions, in the mid 1860's, that the only way to obtain knowledge, in the area of psychology, was through the use of the introspection method, and that he was the only person in the world who could define whether a particular introspection was correct or in error. Titchner asserted that his results were not replicatable, because he was the only human being on the planet earth that was capable of determining a correct introspection. Hucksters have been selling this kind of thinking since time immortal.
When you make statements, such as your above quote, you need to prove it. Prove it with a detailed description of the methodology involved in revoicing a guitar top, using this , Sound is Round Theory, whereby the process is replicatable utilizing the same procedures you use, by other folks. This is how these types of issues are dealt with. When folks declare there is only one way to do something, and that is the procedure they have developed, and they are the only authority on the correct application of said procedure, well history is rife with those follies.
I haven't played an instrument you have re voiced. The results may be spectacular. However, my bullshit meter goes off pretty quick, when folks start declaring they are the only person in the world who can accomplish some goal, utilizing some theory they have developed, which hasn't stood the rigour of the scientific method's great equalizer and answer to the validity of statements like you made: replication, using precisely the same methodology. If your theory is valid, then it is replicatable by others using the same procedures. Until then, it is merely an idea that you happen to think is pretty good.
GA-ME,
You are not the first who has called my work "snake oil", and you are more than welcome to your opinion. To be honest, I don't give a -CENSORED-, and don't feel any need to substantiate my work. WTF, Einstein couldn't prove his theories, but they have been valuable in understanding the nature of quantum physics. And, IMO, the fact that modern day scientists have found some minor corrections is irrelevant.
John Park, luthier from BC, has been using my Sound is Round model since he attended my workshop at the 2001 Guild of American Luthiers convention. He says it has helped him with a number of sound issues, although I have trouble understanding everything he says. But it works for him.
If anyone is interested in paying me for a private workshop here in New Mexico, I will teach my method.
Scott
_____________________________
"All great ideas and notions go through three phases, first they are ignored, then they are ridiculed, and then they are considered intuitively obvious to anyone who is knowledgeable" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 09:34:47 AM
GA-ME,
You are not the first who has called my work "snake oil", and you are more than welcome to your opinion. To be honest, I don't give a -CENSORED-, and don't feel any need to substantiate my work. Scott
Scott, I didn't call your work snake oil. Your re voicing work may be stellar and fantastic. I haven't played a before and after example, nor just an after example of your work so I am in no position to make a positive or negative valuation in regards to your actual work. I said statements such as yours smell of snake oil. When someone declares they are the only individual that can accomplish some goal utilizing the only correct method, which they happen to have devised, that raises red flags. If you can't understand that, well you are entitled to your opinion as well. Have a nice day!
Quote from: GA-ME on July 06, 2009, 10:05:13 AM
Scott, I didn't call your work snake oil. Your re voicing work may be stellar..... When someone declares they are the only individual that can accomplish some goal utilizing the only correct method, which they happen to have devised, that raises red flags. If you can't understand that, well you are entitled to your opinion as well. Have a nice day!
This is correct. I have been in my trade for 35 years or so and was good at it from the start.
Scott, sometimes we know that we are the best man for the job, I agree. Especially after having to correct problems left by the "Big Boys" in my field.
But, although I can do many things that I have never seen others do I don't actually believe that on this big planet there are no others that can do it. I just have not ran into them here in Austin.
You have a great talent I'm sure and not many understand these issues as well as you. But you may want to leave a little room for doubt about being the "only one".
Thanks for the information and take care. :donut
dependan,
Humility has never been my strong suit. But, I am the only one who, to my knowledge, has come up with Sound is Round and its application to fixing specific sound balance problems. It is so obvious to me that I find it difficult to understand why this is the case, so perhaps there is someone else. I go into more of this below.
I certainly know there are others who will carve on your braces, and have seen the disasterous results on half a dozen such guitars.
GA-ME,
You used the s word first, dude, or does putting "bull" in front make it okay? I do understand that my statements raise red flags. My ideas are new to the luthier community. I offer them to those willing to think outside the box, so to speak, but more accurately, inside it. They're free, and come with no guarantee, no need to take sides. But they've been worth quite a bit more than the cost to those interested in improving their luthierial skills.
You start your last post explaining your comments about snake oil. That was fine and nice. But then you have to add the insulting "if you don't understand that", and then "Have a nice day". Which you obviously don't mean. Sarcasm.
It is to my discredit that I respond to hostility with same. However, I respond to nice also with same, and have given many constructive comments to luthiers seeking my knowledge. I have entered discussions on numerous forums discussing various theories about how guitars work. I've seen diagrams showing how a soundbox is supposed to flex and "pump" out the music. I've read about nodes and anti-nodes. An old theory, and one still used by many luthiers, is that the right half (looking at the top with the neck straight up) makes the treble because the treble strings anchor on the right side of the bridge. The bass is made on the left half for the same reason.
Although these ideas may be useful to those skilled in their application, no one has ever been able to give me an answer to a simple question such as "using your theory, can you tell me which brace(s) to consider reshaping to bring up the volume of a quiet B string?". Since I can answer this question, and have many times over in my work, I feel that my ideas are at least close to right. You can't argue with success.
Achieving volume balance of all 6 strings is something few luthiers achieve. I exhibited at the 2005 Healdsburg festival, and had
the opportunity of playing and listening to guitars by all the top luthiers. I didn't find any with perfect balance. My guitars were balanced, but lacked warmth or life at the time.
My Sound is Round model sees things differently. It is based on simple physics and compares a soundboard to a speaker cone. Or a Dobro cone, which is what first brought the idea to mind. Basically, each note played finds resonance in a circular pattern, the diameter of which is inversely proportional to the input frequency. In a similar manner, a drummer's cymbal makes a specific pitch, which depends on the diameter, density of the alloy, and thickness. It is a mass-at-a-distance thing. Given uniform thickness and density, any cymbal's resonant note depends only on its diameter.
On a soundboard, higher frequencies have less energy than lower ones, and so find resonance with a smaller ring. It's as though a note needs to find a place to release its energy if it can. The center of these rings on a steel string is the cross point of the X. A note's energy travels out the X until it reaches the distance where it can resonate with the soundboard at that point (actually, 4 points, one on each arm or leg of the X the same distance out) and then is released into the soundboard. Any shape other than a parabolic cross section inhibits the release and dampens the volume. A brace butting against the X at one of those points is a big time block.
For example, I was playing a guitar I thought I'd finished re-voicing when I noticed that the volume of the high E went dead at the 11th fret. I capoed the 10th fret and played the note, feeling close to the cross point just outside the strings. The note was loud, and the area vibrated well. With a capo on the 11th fret, no vibration could be felt at all. Looking with a mirror, I could see that the short cross brace (which I often ignored back then due to its small size) just below the soundhole between the "arms" of the X was taller than usual--close to 1/4"--and butted against the X. I carefully chiseled the brace ends down to zero and shaped it parabolically in length and cross section. Viola! Problem solved, and the notes were clear from the 11th and up.
You don't have to accept these statements, but I have proven them to myself in re-voicing close to 200 guitars of all brands, including about 20 hand built ones. They are tools I use in my work and many of the subtleties are my private, intellectual property. A number of the hand built guitars had been sent back to the original builder, only to come back sounding worse. The late Richard Glick, fineguitarconsultants.com, sent me most of the hand built ones, and said I was batting 1000 for him. That I work on other hand built guitars has infuriated a number of luthiers. I feel my loyalty is to the guitar and to its owner. I hope we can avoid that discussion again here.
I have developed and continue to fine tune my model working on my own. Brace shaving became an obsession of mine after buying several guitars modified by Jon Lundberg, of Berkeley, during the 1970s. He used the same parabolic shapes used by Martin in their golden era and earlier. Jon also changed how he shaped the tone bars from scalloped to parabolic by 1975, sending me in a different direction than most builders, many of whom use the scalloped pattern, modified in various ways to achieve one sound or another.
I am now focused on my own builds. I am a relative amateur in this area, working on #17. The last one that sold was through the Luthiers' Collection this past April. Owner Michael Joyce said the sound and feel I've achieved is as good or better than anything in his $8000-10,000 range, and is on the same "top tier" of his personal Somogyi and Traugott, with differences being "a matter of taste".
Sorry to being blowing my own horn, but I consider this somewhat of an achievement. Fortunately, I continue to learn more subtleties that affect sound quality. It truly is nice not to know everything...
Scott
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 09:05:48 AM
Has anyone other than me noticed the quiet G and A strings?
Me and a few others have noticed the low E was quieter.
A lot of this bracing theory about what's best is really about what one prefers. Scott thinks having braces butted against the X causes problems but pre-war Martins didn't just butt the braces they actually inlet them into the X. Most builders butt or inlet the braces with the X.
Does making the inside smooth and rounding the corners always make the guitar sound better? Not to everyone. Have you ever seen inside a vintage Gibson? It looks like they were made with a hatchett. I know one builder(the name escapes me) who builds in the vintage Gibson style and intentionally leaves the inside rough. Here's a Gibson bracing library - http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/1364/t/Vintage-Gibson-bracing-library.html?page=1
(http://www.johnthomasguitar.com/images/SJ%20innards%20toward%20neckblock%202.jpg)
QuoteIt is my contention that each note reaches a resonance with a specific ring on the top
This I don't understand. I didn't think there was anything to contend because we can see where certain frequencies resonant and don't on a certain top using Chladni patterns. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/guitar/guitarchladni_engl.html
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
My Sound is Round model sees things differently. It is based on simple physics and compares a soundboard to a speaker cone. Or a Dobro cone, which is what first brought the idea to mind. Basically, each note played finds resonance in a circular pattern, the diameter of which is inversely proportional to the input frequency. In a similar manner, a drummer's cymbal makes a specific pitch, which depends on the diameter, density of the alloy, and thickness. It is a mass-at-a-distance thing. Given uniform thickness and density, any cymbal's resonant note depends only on its diameter.
Your last statement says a lot. It's true that with a circular plate of uniform thickness and density the resonant frequencies will form rings. Guitar tops are not circular nor are they uniform in density and thickness with braces glued on.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 06, 2009, 01:06:25 PM
Me and a few others have noticed the low E was quieter.
On my 000-60, this is the case. The low E is anemic and the A is the loudest, most present, of the open strings, followed closely by the D.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 06, 2009, 01:06:25 PM
Does making the inside smooth and rounding the corners always make the guitar sound better? Not to everyone. Have you ever seen inside a vintage Gibson? It looks like they were made with a hatchett. I know one builder(the name escapes me) who builds in the vintage Gibson style and intentionally leaves the inside rough. Here's a Gibson bracing library - http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/1364/t/Vintage-Gibson-bracing-library.html?page=1
Jeremy, are you referring to John Grevin here? He has been known to leave some messy work inside of a fantastic sounding L00 style guitar here and there.
Quote from: GA-ME on July 06, 2009, 02:44:27 PM
Jeremy, are you referring to John Grevin here? He has been known to leave some messy work inside of a fantastic sounding L00 style guitar here and there.
I was thinking it was Greven but I'm not sure.
I know a few builders who's philosphy it is to voice the top and when it sounds good they stop regardless of what it looks like. For instance if they take down a scallop and it sounds the way they want they don't bother rounding off the edges.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 06, 2009, 03:32:46 PM
I know a few builders who's philosphy it is to voice the top and when it sounds good they stop regardless of what it looks like. For instance if they take down a scallop and it sounds the way they want they don't bother rounding off the edges.
It is kind of hard to argue with some one who does it this way if they are getting the good results they are looking for. What the end result instrument sounds like is most important, after all!
Fascinating topic--altering the guitar. I asked my guitar guy Will at Spruce Tree 25 plus years ago to shave the braces on my '64 Gibson J-50 and basically he refused. Now talk about an overbuilt guitar. Anyway, I guess I wouldn't consider it with my D-03R. For one, I play in a little bluegrass group -- a banjo and another guitar -- and the Larrivee stands up fine. Plus, it sounds so good recorded that I wouldn't fool with it. However, For What It's Worth, (double entendre sort of intended) here's Steve Stills in a 1970 Guitar Player cover story talking about how he shaved the braces on his Martin D-45. We all know how great that guitar sounds:
"" I recently bought a D-45, a new Martin. Incidentally, it might be good to put in the magazine that I am searching frantically for an old D-45." (Hear that gang?) "Anyway, I bought this and shaved the braces down, which is a little trick I learned from a guitar maker in New York named Mark Silber. When Martin moved the factory, and went into a kind of production business, the braces on the inside .... it's like we do the best we can .......but now they even use a different kind of wood. Martin has a few strange practices, but they're still the best in this country.""
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 06, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
............and then "Have a nice day". Which you obviously don't mean. Sarcasm.
Scott, I actually did mean have a nice day. So, I'll try again, Have a nice day.
Real pain when you start mixing art, science, and craftsmanship together. Hard to tell where one stops and another starts, and theres never enough credit to spread around.
But it is all very informative and entertaining! Thanks to all who contribute!
Tad
:ohmy: I won't mention that name on this forum again.... :whistling: :whistling:
I might as well add my saga to this thread.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to buy a used SD-50 at a very good price. It was (and remains) the best guitar I could afford, and it was a huge step up from what I owned at the time.
During the next year-and-a-half I gigged with the box and practiced incessantly. As my skills grew, so did my dissatisfaction with the sound of the guitar. A certain amount of "jadedness" is to be expected with any axe over time, but I was in no position to think about looking for another instrument. I decided to try to mold the guitar into my dream axe.
My first complaint was the apparent volume of the guitar. Despite the assurances of my bandmates that the guitar sounded fine, I didn't feel "enveloped" in the sound, and tended to thrash it to hear myself. I carefully cut a sound port in the upper bout over the built-in reinforcement. This was a big improvement but..
..now I felt the guitar was entirely too bright. I confirmed this by recording myself - yup, too bright. I wanted the box to sound as old-timey as it looked.
I read everything I could find on guitar bracing. Lots of information out there, some of it conflicting, some just plain "iffy", but I took away two important (and fairly consistent) theories: (1) Shorten the braces and get more volume and (2) square corners are bad. Plus one big takeaway: Get stupid, and you will ruin your instrument.
Over a few months I did the following, restringing and letting the guitar settle in between steps:
1. Bone saddle. Took several tries to find a piece of bone (from Larrivee) with the right density. Result: better sustain and a little "rounder" sound. Still too bright.
2. Changed strings from phosphor bronze to 80/20. Result: a fatter tone, but not fat enough.
3. Raised the action a full eighth of an inch. Result: a major improvement in the sound all-around. Wanted more bass, though.
4. Planed and sanded the corners of all the top braces. Did not change the height at all. Result: more volume, but no substantial change in the timbre.
5. Planed an eighth off the bottom braces. This was a revelation. Brought the mids way up. I felt I was on the right track.
6. Sanded the corners off the bottom braces. Result: a bit rounder sound. Just a bit.
7. Planed an eighth off the top braces. Big jump in volume, still a bit too bright.
8. Sanded the corners off all top braces. BINGO! Following the existing contours of the braces, but taking a little meat off everything, then rounding all right-angles off, I got exactly what I wanted. The previously weak low E now growls, the highs are sweet, not tinny, and a light touch is all it takes to get good, solid music out of the guitar.
I am a tinkerer. I don't have a single instrument I haven't "tweaked" in some way. I'm also foolish enough to try anything that pops into my head, if I think it will make a positive difference.
Do I recommend anyone else try this? Heck no. Am I glad I did it? Heck yeah.
Great post OdiePikier
By top brace do you mean the main Xbrace? I'm just not sure what specifically you mean by top and bottom braces. Planed an eighth as well I'd like to know more about.
Hi Odiepiker, thanks for sharing that with us. That is exactly how I think. I just haven't tried it with my Larrivee,,, yet. I'm going to try it on my camp fire git.. I'll let you know how it goes.
:wave
Quote from: hadden on July 17, 2009, 08:22:32 AM
Great post OdiePikier
By top brace do you mean the main Xbrace? I'm just not sure what specifically you mean by top and bottom braces. Planed an eighth as well I'd like to know more about.
When I say "top" or "bottom", I'm referring to the braces on the front or back of the guitar - not just the main x-brace, but everything. I used a small plane to remove about an eighth of an inch from the top of each brace - every brace except for the big honker above the sound hole. After that process, I used the plane and some 120-grit sandpaper to round off the shoulders of the braces.
Agreed - great post OdiePiker -
Please post some pics, especially of your sound port - I don't know if you can get any shots of the interior, but it sound like you've done exactly what alot of others are thinking seriously about -
And it also needs to be noted that the -50 has the enlarged soundhole, making getting hands and tools inside possibly alot easier.
Your descriptions of the changes in sound you experienced along the way are very good too - thanks for taking the time to write it all out.
Tad
Quote from: tadol on July 17, 2009, 01:22:21 PM
Agreed - great post OdiePiker -
Please post some pics, especially of your sound port - I don't know if you can get any shots of the interior, but it sound like you've done exactly what alot of others are thinking seriously about -
And it also needs to be noted that the -50 has the enlarged soundhole, making getting hands and tools inside possibly alot easier.
Your descriptions of the changes in sound you experienced along the way are very good too - thanks for taking the time to write it all out.
Tad
Hey Tad!
You already have bone rattlin' tone and cannon coughs from your Barri hey mate? :wink:
Hey Zohn! I have to admit, I finally removed the JP Bari set last night and put on some EJ-19s just to feel the difference - and it is amazing. They're heavies, but I feel like I'm playing extra lights! Lost the bottom end, the lowest I can tune it to is C without it feeling floppy, and it sounds sweet there - but not the rumbling bass baritone sound I love. I'm gonna leave these on a while, but definitely the EXP-23s are next ( or EJ equivalents in single strings if I can get the .070 ).
I am tempted to sand the sharp edges on the braces, especially as the large sound hole on it means its the only Larrivee I can get my hand into. I'm gonna work my way through different strings and tunings first - and save that fun for some long rainy weekend in the future!
How about you - didn't you track one down recently? Don't remember seeing any pics -
Tad
Holy smokes, I just went to the link of the pics of insides of old Gibsons. A couple of them look like a cellar someone would get locked in from a horror movie.
The mess inside one makes me think there must have been a glue fight at the shop. Not pretty.
I'm too "noob" to attach pictures. Need four more posts. I'll get them up at some point.
Cutting the hole(s) was an interesting project. I opted for a paw-print (the name of my group is Three-Legged Dog (http://www.three-legged-dog.net)). I cut the pattern out of cardstock, glue-sticked (stuck?) the pattern to the guitar and traced around the pattern wiith a dry-erase marker.
I then took a Dremel with a very fine bit, starting from the inside, working toward my marks. Once I had the shapes cut to size, I used fine sandpaper to smooth the edges and lightly beveled the finish down into the holes. Next I used a curved Xacto blade to cut away the stray fabric of the reinforcing patch, and finally stained the raw edges with some red oak stain.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 06, 2009, 01:06:25 PM
Me and a few others have noticed the low E was quieter.
A lot of this bracing theory about what's best is really about what one prefers. Scott thinks having braces butted against the X causes problems but pre-war Martins didn't just butt the braces they actually inlet them into the X. Most builders butt or inlet the braces with the X.
Does making the inside smooth and rounding the corners always make the guitar sound better? Not to everyone. Have you ever seen inside a vintage Gibson? It looks like they were made with a hatchett. I know one builder(the name escapes me) who builds in the vintage Gibson style and intentionally leaves the inside rough. Here's a Gibson bracing library - http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/1364/t/Vintage-Gibson-bracing-library.html?page=1
Jeremy,
You seem to be trying to refute everything I've said here. So, to clarify, I do not say a guitar cannot sound good unless if follows the ideas I mention. What I am saying is that a guitar cannot produce its full potential of sound if it has square corners on braces or braces butting against the X brace.
Martin now doesn't butt braces, and I talked with John Calkin (#3 person at Huss and Dalton) once, who said that he changed their bracing to reflect this, based on an article I wrote, and liked the change. Several years ago, I re-voiced a Goodall, and noticed that not only were there no braces butting against the X, but also, the bridge plate had its edges beveled, so that the sides of the bridge plate didn't touch the X, either.
It's interesting to read OdiePicker's post, in which he mentions that rounding off all the corners made the improvement he was looking for. Thanks for the validation, OP. Sounds like you did this before this thread came up. Great minds at work can sometimes come up with the same great idea!
As far as my observation that the 12 Larrivees I've re-voiced all had louder low E and D strings, you say that the low E is quieter. Must have been simply random chance that I found the only 12 made that exhibited this.
GA-ME, Sorry if I misread your comment. Have a nice day, yourself.
Scott
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 19, 2009, 08:58:51 AM
Martin now doesn't butt braces
I think they do. Here's a picture of a Martin (serial# 1291860) with braces butted against the X.
Quotehttp://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk86/johnnycanso/HD-16R/Guitars116.jpg
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 19, 2009, 08:58:51 AM
Jeremy,
You seem to be trying to refute everything I've said here. So, to clarify, I do not say a guitar cannot sound good unless if follows the ideas I mention. What I am saying is that a guitar cannot produce its full potential of sound if it has square corners on braces or braces butting against the X brace.
Not really, I'm saying everyone has their preferences. It's fine if you like the sound of guitars with no braces butting against the X but a lot of builders don't care to do that.
I tend agree that rounding off the brace corners on most guitars would improve the sound but for a different reason - the stiffness to weight ratio. Of course in a typical guitar all the braces form corners where they are glued to the top anyway.
Very interesting discussion. I don't understand all of it, but I appreciate the information.
I had a D-03R, and it had a rich, deep tone that I just loved. I a/b'd it with a D-28 (both lefties!) and thought the Larrivee was everything the Martin was, but more and better.
I traded that one for an older Larrivee, a D-50 from the 90s with rosewood B&S, and thinner neck profile but wider nut, and--most relevant to this discussion, I think--an enlarged soundhole. The sound is very lively, but with lots of bass too. Each note is very pronounced and clear, strumming sound is amazing. Can't really compare sustain b/e I don't have another guitar around of its quality. But boy is it loud! It's one of the two or three loudest guitars I've ever heard. Enlarged soundholes were unheard of until Clarence White bought that beat-up D-28 with a makeshift fix. Still rare, but done on high end instruments. Would enlarging the soundhole do the same thing as shaving braced? Or the braces in the way?
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 19, 2009, 08:58:51 AM
GA-ME, Sorry if I misread your comment. Have a nice day, yourself.
Scott
Scott, no harm no foul.................I'm trying to have a nice day today!
Quote from: Scott van Linge on July 19, 2009, 08:58:51 AM
Jeremy..... As far as my observation that the 12 Larrivees I've re-voiced all had louder low E and D strings, you say that the low E is quieter. Must have been simply random chance that I found the only 12 made that exhibited this.
Scott, my 000-60 also exhibits an anemic low E string. The A is the strongest, most present, of the wound strings on the guitar, followed closely by the D string. The low E is weaker in volume, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have the attack response of the other bass strings. It seems weaker getting the fundamental out on the low E, in comparison to all other strings. In other words, notes originating on the low E don't project as well as the other strings.This follows up the entire neck on that string.
I've sanded the X brace and both rear tonebars, as far along the braces as I can reach. I didn't change the height of the braces, to any appreciable degree, just merely rounded all the 90 degree angles left from the original shaping done at the factory. I didn't touch the front transverse brace at all, and as you said, the flat side braces leave little to work with at the outset. I created a thinner, more triangular/parabolic type profile, of the same height.
The overall voice/balance didn't change, string to string. The guitar simply was noticeably louder, with the biggest noticeable improvements being in the sustain and overtone components of the instrument. It took three times sanding the braces to get it where it is now with about 1-2 months playing time/settling in between sandings. I play the guitar, on average, approximately three hours per day. At this point, I don't think I'll mess with it anymore, because I feel I'd likely only create a different set of issues going forward from here. I don't know enough of the cause and effect of removing specific points on the individual braces to effect change in very specific frequencies. At the moment the only issue for me is the anemic low E.
I was out playing in a songwriting contest a couple of weeks ago and as I was picking, warming up before the competition, a fellow came up and commented on the sound of the instrument. He said, it was a pretty good sounding guitar. As we chatted, he mentioned he really liked the mids while the rest of his assessment of the instrument perfectly mirrored my thoughts of the guitar. I was picking Deep River Blues, at the time, which really shows the anemic nature of the low E contrasted with the power of the A. As it turns out, the fellow was luthier Ron Lucca, a fairly accomplished archtop builder. He has completed 159 guitars, and he apprenticed under John D'Angelico around 1976, I believe he said. So, I guess what I'm getting at is the Larrivee sounds pretty decent, but lacks low E volume/projection, and at this point in my learning curve, I don't feel like I can improve anything without great risk of causing a different set of problems. Scott, do you have any suggestions?
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 19, 2009, 11:12:49 AM
I think they do. Here's a picture of a Martin (serial# 1291860) with braces butted against the X.
Not really, I'm saying everyone has their preferences. It's fine if you like the sound of guitars with no braces butting against the X but a lot of builders don't care to do that.
I tend agree that rounding off the brace corners on most guitars would improve the sound but for a different reason - the stiffness to weight ratio. Of course in a typical guitar all the braces form corners where they are glued to the top anyway.
Jeremy, OK, the finger braces do have a minimum height (under 1/16") where they meet the X brace on that picture. I don't consider this enough to make a big difference, although I might be able to find a few notes weaker on the B or high E strings due to it. I had a conversation over lunch with John Grevin at the 2005 Healdsburg Guitar Festival about this very subject. John said that old Martins had the finger and tonebar braces inlet to the X brace, but the ones I've seen were at about 1/8" high. This was because those braces could pop loose with a blow to the top.
And I was thinking about how Larrivee tonebars butt against the X brace at the full height of the X at that point. This makes a major angled tee joint, which is very rigid and creates what I consider dead spots.
I do not believe the corners of a brace where it is glued onto the top or back count as corners in terms of absorbing energy. However, I have found it very important to maintain the parabolic cross section down to as close as possible to the glue line.
GA-ME,
These dead spots occur where the tonebars meet the X brace, and the Larrivees I've seen placed these in the G and A string rings, making them quieter than the D and low E. However, due to geometry of specific models, the lower tonebar butt joints could be quieting the E, not the A. Variations in wood density or thickness can also change the diameter of any ring.
The low E on your OOO might be affected by the bridge, as well, considering your comment that it is weak all the way up the string. The standard Larrivee bridge, similar to Martin style but sometimes even thicker, has a ridge on either end of the main body where the curved wings begin their descent. Of course, this is also on the high E side. I have found that these ridges can absorb energy from the top and bottom strings disproportionately more than the others due to proximity. Rounding these and flowing the body into the wings can do a lot to even the response out. There is a picture of a reshaped Guild bridge ow my website.
Another way to increase the low E volume is to work on the two lower back braces by flowing the squared off ends into the rest of the brace, making the overall length a parabolic form, as were vintage Martin back braces. And sometimes, it necessary to reshape the 2nd back brace into a low parabola to allow the ring the low E resonates with to pass from one side of the lower bout to the other through the waist of the guitar.
A place to start would be to make a sanding stick to reach down to where the lower tone bar meets the X and reduce that juction as low as possible and reshape it into a new parabolic shape lengthwise. This takes me about 4 hours, which I spread out over a couple of sessions to avoid psychosis. Then, round the X brace all the way to the kerfing. That should improve the low E greatly.
Gotta go,
Scott
Larrivee's are built strong - Paul Bunyan could play his Larrivee while riding on the back of his blue ox - Babe.
If a loud Larrivee is what you want - try an SD-50....
I'll bet you a giant ax and a blue ox it will be loud enough for you !
- Larry
OdiePiker, what gauge strings go you use on your SD-50? I have one, use mediums only (EJ-17's), and it is about the best dread I've ever played or heard. Needed no "tweaking" of the braces or anything. I'm assuming you're using mediums also. My SD has been compared to a much more expensive slope-shouldered Collings this guy has & after playing mine. I have a nice, balanced sound, nice treble when I play where I can accent them (closer to the bridge: still has nice highs), but not too much. Mine is an '05, not sure what yours is. Why all of the work on it unless it really needed it? I know you said it was cheap, so you'd play around with it, but unless something was wrong from the beginning, why do anything? Great sounding guitars from the start!
And, once again, in the words of Rodney King, the great philosopher, "why can't we all get along?"? :?
Jeff :guitar
And Jeremy, I had posted in the thread were you were talking about the black Buffalo horn nut, could you try a saddle first & let us know if the density of it makes a difference? Check my post out. Sorry to get off the subject, though I find all of this fascinating. Wouldn't try it myself. Just not skilled enough. Maybe I'll send it to Jeremy or GA-ME? :humour:
And if this thread id going to get so technical, why isn't it in the technical area? My mind is going to explode from some of these posts. Of course, we all have our preferences, but shouldn't push them on others & say it's the word. It's fun & cool to read about these ideas, but some of this is getting tit for tat, don't you think? Maybe agree to disagree?
And Larry, you tell 'em! :thumb
Quotein the words of Rodney King, the great philosopher, "why can't we all get along?"
bluesman , bluesman....you stole my line !!!
My line is, "in the words of that great philosopher, "fill in the blank", " fill in his saying "
like
in the words of that great philosopher, John McEnroe, "you can NOT be serious"
I only see 3 options in this case-
1. you owe me some royalties (I like doughnuts with raspberry filling) :thumb
2. you could say you copied my idea as a sincere form of flattery :bgrin:
3. or you must show that you used the line before me - if so, I'll provide the doughnuts :bgrin:
I think the first time I used the line on this forum was with the one about John McEnroe -
although I came up with it on my own years ago.
- Larry
Quote from: BluesMan1 on July 19, 2009, 05:10:35 PM
And Jeremy, I had posted in the thread were you were talking about the black Buffalo horn nut, could you try a saddle first & let us know if the density of it makes a difference?
Sorry, I don't have the material for a saddle.
Let me throw a couple observations and questions about them to you guys. First, I have a 000-60 like GA-ME. If you vocalize into the sound hole, like ooooooooooooooooo, an A note and G note
resonate. You can feel the whole guitar vibrate. The D is a little lively. The E note causes no such response. I took that to be the shape of the cavity. All sides of the guitar vibtate and come to life on A and G.
When playing the strings open, you can hear the loudness of A and D. But unlike GA-ME's, an A note, 6th string, 5th fret, is not what I would call dead. Now it's not as loud as 5th string open, but it's being fretted.
Same on 4th string. I just checked it out. 4th string 5th fret sounds better and more overtones that 4th string open. So weather the sound source is my voice into the sound hole, or from vibtating string, guitar reacts in a similar way to certain frequencies, regardless of what string they are played on. These resonent freqs are more noticable when using voice. Each of my 3 guitars
have differents resonating freqs. The L's G is most prominent and the Gallagher dread likes F#. So where does this play into adjusting braces?
Luckily my trebles are not weak. And my low E is not what I would call anemic but I can relate. Then what about other factors like the particular pieces of wood used, The neck (which doesn't seem to get much attention these days) Different types of bridges. Anyway..............
What guage strings do you use GA-ME. I assume you've tried different guages. Sometimes mixed guages can do the trick too. Actually I keep custom guages on all three of mine.
The L-10 and Gallagher I do like, 54-42-32-24-17-13 The 000-60 56-44-35-24-16-12. The L-10 and G-50 pretty much beefed up the 1-2 strings for single string flatpicking breaks, and intonation on the B, sometime put 18 there. But with the 000-60 I just messed and messed and it seemed to jump up when I found the right mix. Mediums or light complete sets didn't do the same.
And it didn't seem to be a linear thing. Like put on a thicker treble and it gets louder. It seemed to be a certain combination that did best for the whole guitar. (slam me)
Overall I believe all guitars are different and that all the parts of guitar contribute to sound. I know little about the particulars of bracing that effect certain strings or notes, But I have the feeling that to get best results you'd have to take a guitar on an individual basis and be good enough to know what that particular guitar needed to maximize bracing change enhancement.
Ok past time for me to back away from something I know little about!
Quote from: BluesMan1 on July 19, 2009, 05:10:35 PM
OdiePiker, what gauge strings go you use on your SD-50? I have one, use mediums only (EJ-17's), and it is about the best dread I've ever played or heard. Needed no "tweaking" of the braces or anything. I'm assuming you're using mediums also. My SD has been compared to a much more expensive slope-shouldered Collings this guy has & after playing mine. I have a nice, balanced sound, nice treble when I play where I can accent them (closer to the bridge: still has nice highs), but not too much. Mine is an '05, not sure what yours is. Why all of the work on it unless it really needed it? I know you said it was cheap, so you'd play around with it, but unless something was wrong from the beginning, why do anything? Great sounding guitars from the start!
I use mediums as well.
I suspect there are differences guitar-to-guitar and ear-to-ear that leave some (myself included) dissatisfied with their axes. As a matter of fact, I have an email exchange (from another board) going with another SD-50 owner who bought one after a very positive experience with the same model some time before. He's just not as "wowed" with his current instrument as he was with the one he had originally played.
As I said in my original email, I loved the box when I first played it. Even while I was dissatisfied with one aspect or another, it was (and remains) a joy at first strum. I have, in my opinion, taken a great guitar and made it
my great guitar. My sound, my technique, my Larrivee.
Quote from: flatlander on July 19, 2009, 06:48:51 PM
Let me throw a couple observations and questions about them to you guys. First, I have a 000-60 like GA-ME. If you vocalize into the sound hole, like ooooooooooooooooo, an A note and G note
resonate. You can feel the whole guitar vibrate. The D is a little lively. The E note causes no such response. I took that to be the shape of the cavity. All sides of the guitar vibtate and come to life on A and G.
When playing the strings open, you can hear the loudness of A and D. But unlike GA-ME's, an A note, 6th string, 5th fret, is not what I would call dead. Now it's not as loud as 5th string open, but it's being fretted.
Same on 4th string. I just checked it out. 4th string 5th fret sounds better and more overtones that 4th string open. So weather the sound source is my voice into the sound hole, or from vibtating string, guitar reacts in a similar way to certain frequencies, regardless of what string they are played on. These resonent freqs are more noticable when using voice. Each of my 3 guitars
have differents resonating freqs. The L's G is most prominent and the Gallagher dread likes F#. So where does this play into adjusting braces?
Which notes are you humming - open 5th string A or an octave above? If the guitar is responding at the low A then that's the lowest resonant frequency, however the resonant frequency of the top is usually about an octave above the lowest resonant frequency so it's quite possible both A's are louder. A is kind of high for a OM or 000 guitar to resonate at, I think my OM-03MT's lowest resonant frequency is at G# if I remember right and my OM/PW is at G.
Basically if you increase the mass, decrease the stiffness, and decrease the soundhole diameter the resonant frequency will drop and vice versa.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 19, 2009, 08:55:41 PM
Which notes are you humming - open 5th string A or an octave above? If the guitar is responding at the low A then that's the lowest resonant frequency, however the resonant frequency of the top is usually about an octave above the lowest resonant frequency so it's quite possible both A's are louder. A is kind of high for a OM or 000 guitar to resonate at, I think my OM-03MT's lowest resonant frequency is at G# if I remember right and my OM/PW is at G.
Basically if you increase the mass, decrease the stiffness, and decrease the soundhole diameter the resonant frequency will drop and vice versa.
Both A's louder/richer yes. But what about the air cavity? Does it not have a resonant freq by it's size? Like when the wave length or fractions of it match up to cavity? Is it strictly the top or also air cavity size and shape? Or put another way, what effect does the size and shape of body have freq response? I just looked up the wavelength of 440hz. Said it was 30 inches. I'm not gonna look up lower bout sizes exactly in the middle of the night, but they hover around 15 to 16 inches. Ok you know how we get. I did look it up. 000's lower bout is 15.375. The wavelength of A5
(880hz) is 15.3 inches. Of course 440 would match up nicely with half wavelength which would still resonate well.
The L is wider and resonates lower but the wavelengths don't match up as well. G would be closer to 17 inches. Then theres the question of all the different angles the wave is traveling and what points it would reflect off of and between to set up resonance where reflections of other waves were in phase and adding. Yes I agree, it's time to go back to bed!
Sorry, yes the lowest resonant frequency I spoke of earlier is an air resonant frequency based on the size of the air cavity. However guitars are not simple Helmholtz resonators because the top and back are flexible and the more flexible they are the lower the resonant frequency will be.
btw, don't hum too close to the soundhole or your face being there will essentially have the same effect as making the soundhole smaller by blocking the air coming out of the guitar.
Also, the low A on the guitar is 110Hz not 440Hz.
Just to answer Larry, I've used the King quote @ least twice before, being appropriate sometimes. Never used the J.M. one, since I think that one is more subjective. Since I used it on this thread first, though you were thinking of it, wouldn't that make me kinda psychic & therefore I deserve the doughnuts? :humour: My special abilities need to be addressed in some way. When I'm completely bored, I'll search for my post(s) & direct you there, thus clearing all up.
I'll still send you a few doughnuts (make believe they're filled with raspberries!), just to keep all cool!
Now, back to this bracing discussion Like I said, good reading & makes one think about how subtleties done to your guitar can make such a difference?
O.P., my SD-50, being almost 4 yrs. old now, has opened up into just one great guitar. Agree about the differences in individual guitars, as all would. Mine is a special one, esp. for me, & my decision to part with it is a financial one.
Jeremy, I don't remember if I still have your email or if it's on your info, but I'm suddenly getting "blushing" of finger prints, which are appearing. Are under the finish, me thinking it was something I did & tried some Meg.'s #7 to take them out. Didn't work, sent picks to my luthier, he saying it looked like blushing, something on the neck prior to the original finish being applied & now showing up. If I have your email, I'll send all of the pics for your opinion. Rob, chime in if you have any clues. Thanks.
Jeff :guitar
Quote from: jeremy3220 on July 20, 2009, 11:41:06 AM
Also, the low A on the guitar is 110Hz not 440Hz.
right. I thinking (or not) 220 but at any rate the wave lengths of the A's match up pretty close in varying 90 degree increments to lower bout width of 000-60. Coincidence? The bottom line is, I'm wondering about the connection and relitivity to each other, of air resonance v top resonance and if air resonance would be taken into consideration for loudness of certain freqs along with top and brace shaving.
Quotewouldn't that make me kinda psychic & therefore I deserve the doughnuts?
I'm thinking more like......great minds think alike :roll
we would have to compare the post date of your ref vs the post date of my ref to 'great philosopher' to be exactly sure...
that might be too much work....
let's call it a draw ( I accept your word as a gentleman that you did not just try to avoid paying me royalities )
....here's plenty of doughtnuts for both of us...enjoy.... (dibs on the chocolate covered :bgrin: )
- Larry
[attachment deleted by admin]
Done. And I forgot the doughnuts. Close your eyes & make believe! :donut :donut :donut :donut :donut2 :donut2 :donut2 :humour:
Jeff :guitar
I finally posted enough to be able to upload pictures. Might as well cover all of my tweaks in one post.
Let's see if I can do this right.. First, the soundport. Next the bracing (not a great picture, but you can see the altered contour.. and the sawdust). Third are the Ivoroid Waverlies (I added Ivoroid bridge pins to match), and finally a pic of the whole box.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: OdiePiker on September 09, 2009, 03:50:52 PM
I finally posted enough to be able to upload pictures. Might as well cover all of my tweaks in one post.
Let's see if I can do this right.. First, the soundport. Next the bracing (not a great picture, but you can see the altered contour.. and the sawdust). Third are the Ivoroid Waverlies (I added Ivoroid bridge pins to match), and finally a pic of the whole box.
:+1: Wow - I love the look of those Waverlies!! Looks like a rather interesting SD-50.. The "Paw print" sound port is most intriguing - can you describe the difference in sound before and after?
Jeff your luthier is right it could be a natural oil pocket thats just now working its way to the surface,or a moisture pocket that never fully dried in the aging process before cutting and building.The guy to ask is Jim at Trinity he got so much more wood knowledge then I ever will,that is without a vulcan mind meld of some sort.
QuoteWow - I love the look of those Waverlies!! Looks like a rather interesting SD-50.. The "Paw print" sound port is most intriguing - can you describe the difference in sound before and after?
Zohn, some guitars "wash" over you, enveloping you in the sound, where others project more "outward". My SD was definitely an "outward" guitar. In the right room I would get plenty of aural feedback, but in the wrong room I would be slamming the axe just to hear myself. The soundport makes a big difference. Interestingly, the sound doesn't seem to come out of the port per se, but envelopes me as I play. It's just louder to in my ear. If I cover the port and strum the box is noticeably quieter.
Oh, yeah - one more tweak: I installed a new bone nut, narrowing the string spacing to be more like 1-3/4". My hands aren't quite big enough to handle 1-7/8 all night..
[attachment deleted by admin]
OdiePicker, looks nice! It's nice to know I'm not the only wack-job altering one of the Traditional Series guitars. I have been mucking about with the bracing on my 000-60 with pretty good results. I am in the process of deciding whether to reduce the tone bars, at the intersection with the X brace, a bit more right now. I just changed to the third set of strings since I first reduced it and decided not to remove more yet.
It's been about a month and change since I shaved the tonebars, so I'm letting it settle in for a bit more before I decide. I will say the reduction at the intersections seems to have improved the volume from the low E, to my ears, as well as, my trio mates and my fiance, so I'm thinking it might be more than confirmation bias. Last weekend, I played the Kipona Festival in Harrisburg Pa. and a couple of the Susquehanna Folk Music Society members really thought the guitar sounded good, both plugged in and acoustically.
Quote from: OdiePiker on September 10, 2009, 10:19:30 AM
Zohn, some guitars "wash" over you, enveloping you in the sound, where others project more "outward". My SD was definitely an "outward" guitar. In the right room I would get plenty of aural feedback, but in the wrong room I would be slamming the axe just to hear myself. The soundport makes a big difference. Interestingly, the sound doesn't seem to come out of the port per se, but envelopes me as I play. It's just louder to in my ear. If I cover the port and strum the box is noticeably quieter.
Oh, yeah - one more tweak: I installed a new bone nut, narrowing the string spacing to be more like 1-3/4". My hands aren't quite big enough to handle 1-7/8 all night..
The room-thing is most important to consider when listening to a guitar - it definitely sounds different in different environments. About the nut - seems like that SD is tuned to your perfection, and I'm glad for you. Thanx for sharing your experience! :+1: