I am curious about why guitars come is certain shapes (other than tradition). We all know that wood, bracing, size, scale, etc. all affect the tone we get out of a guitar. My question is does the shape of the top have much to do with it?
Say we have a group of guitars all with a 16" lower bout and all with identical interior volume, woods, and scale just to make it equal. So the difference would be in the dimension of the waist, upper bout, and depth. The shapes would be dread, jumbo, OM and 000 shapes. Would they sound different from one another, just because of the shape, or would they be the same?
By tone do you mean timbre or do you mean balance of pitch?
Quote from: ridethatbike on May 03, 2011, 01:48:34 PM
By tone do you mean timbre or do you mean balance of pitch?
:welcome: :gotdonuts: (Rules)
I mean both. Assume the guitars have all else magically identical
They'll sound different. It may not be that noticeable but it definitely will cause a change in the way the top vibrates. Tighter curves will create areas of higher stiffness simply because the sides will add support to certain areas. Even disregarding the sides, if you've seen pictures of chladni plates you might notice that circular plates when vibrating at their lowest mode will form an almost perfect ring and that rectangular plates give very different patterns.
(http://www.pudak-scientific.com/image/plat-chladni_d(1).jpg)
No. They make all different sizes and shapes just so guitarists can properly accessorize. :rolleye:
Quote from: jeremy3220 on May 03, 2011, 02:07:25 PM
They'll sound different. It may not be that noticeable but it definitely will cause a change in the way the top vibrates. Tighter curves will create areas of higher stiffness simply because the sides will add support to certain areas. Even disregarding the sides, if you've seen pictures of chladni plates you might notice that circular plates when vibrating at their lowest mode will form an almost perfect ring and that rectangular plates give very different patterns.
(http://www.pudak-scientific.com/image/plat-chladni_d(1).jpg)
Quote from: ducktrapper on May 03, 2011, 02:13:27 PM
No. They make all different sizes and shapes just so guitarists can properly accessorize. :rolleye:
Some how both of these make complete sense to me... :arrow
Quote from: cke on May 03, 2011, 01:55:29 PM
:welcome: :gotdonuts: (Rules)
I mean both. Assume the guitars have all else magically identical
Sorry!
(http://www.drgirlfriend.com/donuts.jpg)
Now that you are all full, if we are talking about magical guitars, doesn't logic fly out the window?!? :nana_guitar
In exchange for those beautiful donuts, whatever you say :wink:
Even if the interior volume of the box's are the same the sound coming out of the hole will be different because of the different shapes of the box's. Shape will alter the air movements inside.
Quote from: Mr_LV19E on May 03, 2011, 05:02:39 PM
Even if the interior volume of the box's are the same the sound coming out of the hole will be different because of the different shapes of the box's. Shape will alter the air movements inside.
That's getting at what I surmise. If the shape alters the tone, then is it reasonable that a dread and a jumbo for example might be better suited for one style or another; or more accurately, please one set of ears more than another?
I guess I could have stipulated that the tops would have the same area too. Or is volume alone relevant? I am thinking it must be both...
Here's a simplified explanation of how a guitar works:
It's a coupled three-oscillator system. The top, back, and internal air are the three oscillators. String energy sets the three parts in motion and they play off each other.
Just considering the top, it has three primary vibrational modes. The lowest frequency mode behaves like a drum. So the bigger the drum (top), the lower the frequency (bigger = more bass).
As Jeremy pointed out, the stiffness of the drum head also sets the frequency. Bracing and thickness obviously affect stiffness, but so does shape.
Consider the dread with its wide waist vs a jumbo with the same lower bout width but tighter waist. The dread drum head will be looser near the waist and therefore have a lower frequency response.
Higher frequency response involves the top undulating from side to side and from top to bottom. Again, the dread will have freer movement from top to bottom than a tight-waisted jumbo, and that will lower the frequency response of some of those higher-frequency modes.
In short, yes, shape affects tone. :smile:
I'll go along with this..but....................you see Stefano Barone and others playing dreadnoughts and it kind of shoots down the theory that we should all play pinch waist small body guitars for fingerstyle........................ This ain't your average picker on a bluegrass guitar. :humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YE-GPXYeTA
Thanks Gitnoob and all
Quote from: abalone at last on May 03, 2011, 07:08:47 PM
I'll go along with this..but....................you see Stefano Barone and others playing dreadnoughts and it kind of shoots down the theory that we should all play pinch waist small body guitars for fingerstyle........................ This ain't your average picker on a bluegrass guitar. :humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YE-GPXYeTA
Well I play everything finger-style. :smile:
Partly my question was prompted after I strummed on a 50's vintage SJ 200. I expected thunder, but it didn't have it. (Maybe just that 1, but it was being offered proudly) In standard pitch gits I hear the most bass and thunder out of the dreads I have played : the Hall of Fame being Martin D-18GE, Martin Ditson 333, and a Goodall 12 fret slope dread. Unclrob mentioned the wide range of tone he gets from Jumbos, and I have liked the 12 string jumbos better than the 12 string dreads I have tried. I have had no experience with jumbo's other than that. So I wondered... if there is more science to why certain shapes are associated with certain sounds - other than just size.
But I also suspect that Ducktrapper has the main reason we choose what we choose :roll
gitnoob.... :+1:
ducktrapper... :+1: :+1:
No two guitars even if there made from the same piece of wood will sound the same.For me being able to pull a varity of tone's from a guitar come's from how and were I pick/finger it.With jumbo's I can get almost a nice archtop tone,with a more aggessive attack I can get a nice overdrive tone,in tunings I can get a delicate finger style to a ranchy blues tone of smaller body guitars.With my LS bodies I can't get archtop tone or that rauchy blues tone.With my 12 fret neck joint OM I again loss that archtop tone but I do get all the other tone's with it as with the jumbo.As for science of it,it just doesn't apply its a friggin guitar and science is in the parking lot hurling. :bgrin:
This applies to my electrics and my single pu bass.
Quote from: unclrob on May 03, 2011, 10:52:16 PM
No two guitars even if there made from the same piece of wood will sound the same.For me being able to pull a varity of tone's from a guitar come's from how and were I pick/finger it.
:+1:
I agree with this and its one of the reasons I like my 12 fret best, more space between the fingerboard extension and the bridge allows for more tone variation. To me that means music, I get bored if the song is to monotonous.
I think that each shape of the instruments affect the sound
Dashquid (http://dashquid.com)
fatlossprofessional.co.uk (http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk)
fatlossprofessional (http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk/how-to-lose-weight-fast/)
mobilehelper (http://mobilehelper.co.uk)
securetrip (http://securetrip.co.uk)
whichpetcover (http://whichpetcover.com)
google (http://google.com)
abc (http://abc.com)
facebook (http://facebook.com)
craigslist (http://craigslist.com)
Just add that two guitars the same shape made by a low end factory will sound like a joke when played next to one made with tedious attention to details on gluing, bracing, tonewoods, nut and saddle placement, tuners, scale length, finish, hydration during the build. Plus proper drying techniques when the wood is cured.
I know there is more. But getting the best out of some of my guitars had required adjustments and replacements of the items I can deal with.
My Forum III is a basic 000 sized guitar in the end. It is one of the few new ones I have acquired that sounded right to me from the get go. Still does, though I can't resist tweaking some things. :blush:
Thanks all, I like tweaking and upgrading the components on my guitars too. I have too active a mind for my own good. After being a dread fan most of my life, my dream guitar turned out to be an L body. I thought (foolishly) that the Gibson jumbos were a gimmick to say "We do too" to the D-18 and 28. Now I am thinking a jumbo may be a superior body shape to a dread as it allows both the big boom and the nice open sound. In other words, the shape does make a big difference. Or as usual, it really matters more how you play it.
Quote from: cke on May 04, 2011, 04:28:02 PM
Thanks all, I like tweaking and upgrading the components on my guitars too. I have too active a mind for my own good. After being a dread fan most of my life, my dream guitar turned out to be an L body. I thought (foolishly) that the Gibson jumbos were a gimmick to say "We do too" to the D-18 and 28. Now I am thinking a jumbo may be a superior body shape to a dread as it allows both the big boom and the nice open sound. In other words, the shape does make a big difference. Or as usual, it really matters more how you play it.
A good Gibson Southerner Jumbo cannot be beat in a 6 string. Guild made some marvelous 12 strings though for a while and earned top of the heap there.
J-200 are notorious for needing to be picked hard with pick or fingerpicks. But this is not the shape. There are plenty jumbos which are responsive like a feather - ever played a Lowden or Avalon?
The "this shape is for fingerpicking and that shape for flatpicking" rap is a marketing trick to make you buy more. The equation is more complex than that.
The J200 is a one trick pony and thats a nice chugalug tone,The only jumbo that sounds better then my Guild JF30 was my Larrivee J05.I have played almost all of the jumbo's out there that are standard production instruments and they pale compared to the Larrivee.The edge the Guild JF30 has is the lamenated pressed arch back.
OK ducking now for the rocks thrower's for me stating my personal/biased/over opinunated statement. :wave :donut :donut
Quote from: unclrob on May 04, 2011, 10:09:07 PM
The J200 is a one trick pony and thats a nice chugalug tone,The only jumbo that sounds better then my Guild JF30 was my Larrivee J05.I have played almost all of the jumbo's out there that are standard production instruments and they pale compared to the Larrivee.The edge the Guild JF30 has is the lamenated pressed arch back.
OK ducking now for the rocks thrower's for me stating my personal/biased/over opinunated statement. :wave :donut :donut
Yea but y'all missed my wording. Not a J-200... a "SOUTHERNER JUMBO".
Another way that guitar shapes affect the tone is because the wave lengths of different notes (the pitch) and their harmonics vary. Certain wavelengths will be emphasized (reinforced) by the way they bounce around inside the guitar while others will be diminished (cancelled out). It depends on whether or not a certain note has a wavelength that is the same as or a multiple of one or more of the guitars inner dimensions (the distance between 2 or more of the reflecting surfaces) or the note's wavelength is not the same as any of these distances. Some notes will create "standing" waves inside the guitar and others won't. One of the reasons guitars and other acoustic instruments are curved-sided as opposed to straight sided (rectangular, triangular, etc.) is to minimize these standing waves.
It's the same theory as speaker cabinet design and also why different placements of speakers in a room with a given shape and dimensions will have different frequency responses.
You'll know when this one rings it's time for dinner...
(http://www.guitarandbanjo.com/pics/4993-1.jpg)
Quote from: Zohn on May 05, 2011, 01:24:09 AM
You'll know when this one rings it's time for dinner...
(http://www.guitarandbanjo.com/pics/4993-1.jpg)
Very cool, Zohn
I guess that would be best described as a bell-shaped guitar??? I wonder how that shape affects the tone compared to more conventional shapes? My guess is it does, but insignificantly. In other words, it would be different, not better or worse, just different.
Quote from: dependan on May 04, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
Yea but y'all missed my wording. Not a J-200... a "SOUTHERNER JUMBO".
Didn't you write SJ200? Gibson terminology is what it is but Southern Jumbo is SJ only, SJ200 means super jumbo...I think.... Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
Edit: confusion on my part. OP wrote sj200, dependan wrote southern jumbo. I write about the mumbo jumbo.
There was the SJ200 which is a jumbo and a slope shoulder{later a standard dread}was called a Southern Jumbo.
Thanks guys. So SJ 200 is the big one the has the mustache bridge. Then there is the Southern Jumbo and the and Advanced Jumbo, and J-45/50. How are they different?
Which has more effect on creating bass, area of the top or volume of the box?
This has been a rough week for me. My office chair broke, I fell off a truck and broke some ribs, my favorite watch caught on a gate fell and shattered the crystal, it's been HOT and 5% humidity, knocked my coffee off my desk (Paper cup thank the Lord - not my beautiful Forum mug!)
:wave
Sorry to hear that cke. Hope you feel better soon. I didn't realize you were asking how guitar shape affects tone. Sorry for my sarc. :beer
Quote from: cke on May 05, 2011, 02:20:20 PM
This has been a rough week for me. My office chair broke, I fell off a truck and broke some ribs, my favorite watch caught on a gate fell and shattered the crystal, it's been HOT and 5% humidity, knocked my coffee off my desk (Paper cup thank the Lord - not my beautiful Forum mug!)
:wave
Dang Dude! Hopefully, next week is lots better!
Quote from: cke on May 05, 2011, 02:20:20 PM
Which has more effect on creating bass, area of the top or volume of the box?
They both contribute differently. Cover the sound hole and you'll just hear the top. Then add the air resonance back in, and you'll hear more bass. Depth matters. Sound hole diameter matters. Box volume matters.
Bridge pins? Probably don't matter. :smile:
(P.S. Ouch -- feel better!)
Quote from: cke on May 05, 2011, 02:20:20 PM
Which has more effect on creating bass, area of the top or volume of the box?
There are two considerations; what frequencies the modes occur at and amplitude. The larger the top plate the lower the resonant frequencies(modes) will be. Same thing with the box volume. Of course we could make a huge box with a relatively small top but to get much energy out of it the top will have to be able to pump the air of the box. Conversely we could make a really large top but a really shallow box but if there is no air to pump then again you don't get much energy out.
Within the confines of typical guitar building I would guess you get more bass and amplitude out of increasing air volume. I would think a really deep OM would sound larger than a really shallow Dread.
Might be more complicated than just the Helmholtz resonance due to the box volume.
Here's Al Carruth on the topic of body depth:
http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2595298&postcount=10
Quote from: gitnoob on May 05, 2011, 06:11:55 PM
Might be more complicated than just the Helmholtz resonance due to the box volume.
I didn't mention it, if you're replying to me.
Good link though.
Slightly off topic -- the top frequency is lower than the back. You can hear it just by giving the back then top a knock. Sounds like a difference of a little over a step on my LV-03r.
Quote from: unclrob on May 04, 2011, 10:09:07 PM
...The edge the Guild JF30 has is the lamenated pressed arch back.
Rob,
No need to run! The best guitar I ever let get away was a Blond (Maple) JF-30!!! If they could only put that sound in a small box with a wider neck I'd have another in a minute!!!
Back to the subject: Shape, construction, etc. definitely affects tone but what about neck joint (12 vs. 14) affecting volume?
f
I know a little more about grand pianos. A grand has the shape it does to accommodate the string length. A baby grand has short bass strings, and consequently weak bass. A 9' concert grand has huge bass and volume, but consequently the pianist has to lighten their left hand technique to keep balance. The 7' may have the ideal balance. The "Larger = bass/Volume" formula translates, but since the guitar string length isn't a factor, other things influence the guitar tone more.
I am wondering if a dread with a fairly simple shape emphasizes bass and volume, while a jumbo with it's pinched waist and narrower upper bout makes for a freer upper range?
Quote from: hadden on May 06, 2011, 08:48:23 AM
Slightly off topic -- the top frequency is lower than the back. You can hear it just by giving the back then top a knock. Sounds like a difference of a little over a step on my LV-03r.
Yeah, that's one of the elements of voicing. Some builders actually tune the back to the top. A stiffer back improves projection, but Somogyi talks a lot about an "active" back that acts more as a diffuser for sort of a "surround-sound" effect.
I always thought many Martin guitars have huge bass and have heard the break angle at the bridge has something to do with. conversly Taylor acoustics tend to over do it with the treble.................Larrivee and Gibsons have a more balanced sound............. :coffee
Quote from: hadden on May 06, 2011, 08:48:23 AM
Slightly off topic -- the top frequency is lower than the back. You can hear it just by giving the back then top a knock. Sounds like a difference of a little over a step on my LV-03r.
Here's another great thread from Alan Carruth.
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=187583&sid=a9af51562feaa1aa320b11af17499d78#p187583
Quote from: ducktrapper on May 05, 2011, 03:37:23 PM
Sorry to hear that cke. Hope you feel better soon. I didn't realize you were asking how guitar shape affects tone. Sorry for my sarc. :beer
No I found it cleaver :cheers
Quote from: GA-ME on May 05, 2011, 03:55:09 PM
Dang Dude! Hopefully, next week is lots better!
Thanks :wave
@gitnoob,
you know - sometimes they will run you out of a forum thread if you try to bring too much science into the discussion. Just sayin'. :whistling:
BTW, your descriptions have seemed spot-on to me.
-Scott
Quote from: rockstar_not on May 09, 2011, 02:22:39 PM
@gitnoob,
you know - sometimes they will run you out of a forum thread if you try to bring too much science into the discussion. Just sayin'. :whistling:
BTW, your descriptions have seemed spot-on to me.
-Scott
For what it's worth, I like bringing the science into the discussions. After all, how else can some of these things be explained? Old wives tales? Physics exist for a reason. Could we put a man on the moon otherwise? Just sayin'
Kurt
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on May 12, 2011, 02:23:05 AM
For what it's worth, I like bringing the science into the discussions. After all, how else can some of these things be explained? Old wives tales? Physics exist for a reason. Could we put a man on the moon otherwise? Just sayin'
Kurt
Well there are some topics here (multiples of them over multiples of years) that just seem to live on in perpetuity that have no basis in physics of acoustics and vibration as well as physiology of hearing. To suggest that any of them aren't based in reality can start a flame war. I won't even call out one of them here because I don't want to start another war. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I don't see an emoticon for that.
-Scott
Quote from: rockstar_not on May 12, 2011, 08:50:58 AM
Well there are some topics here (multiples of them over multiples of years) that just seem to live on in perpetuity that have no basis in physics of acoustics and vibration as well as physiology of hearing. To suggest that any of them aren't based in reality can start a flame war. I won't even call out one of them here because I don't want to start another war. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I don't see an emoticon for that.
-Scott
Oh you mean like why a guitar using very similar designs, woods, builds should cost two or three times more than similar guitars with a different name on the headstock and how come people are so willing to pay? :whistling:
For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction.
Quote from: rockstar_not on May 12, 2011, 08:50:58 AM
Well there are some topics here (multiples of them over multiples of years) that just seem to live on in perpetuity that have no basis in physics of acoustics and vibration as well as physiology of hearing. To suggest that any of them aren't based in reality can start a flame war. I won't even call out one of them here because I don't want to start another war. My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I don't see an emoticon for that.
-Scott
I indeed intrepeted your post as "tongue in cheek".
I think you and I are actually on the same page. The point I was trying to make was that I need to see some scientific explanation that makes sense to me before I will believe any of these hairy fairy theories (not based on science) you refer to. So, in a thread such as this, I appreciate and enjoy the posts that try and demonstrate, with real factual information, the physics going on. If such a post dispells or contradicts some of these long-held, traditional "factoids", that's fine with me. If it gets me "flamed" I'm OK with that too. Helps me make more informed decisions.
Beside, I'm kind of a geek when it comes to this kind of stuff. :cheers
This video may contain unsavory language but is humorously related to the science discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
Quote from: ktron on May 15, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
It's all about herding cats who are totally ignoring you because they're trying to decide whether to eat the chicken or the egg.
Or herding butterflies.
Physics can define the answer, but the number of parameters would make the equation obscenely complicated, and in the end, the answer would be something like "42".
42... That number is very significant. ie "The completion of sufferings"
Science should be objective, but listening is subjective. Science gives you helmholtz frequencies; listening gives you music.
Earplugs help while shopping at Guitar Center
For a lot of players its easier to simplify the physics by talking about the parts of the guitar that effect the most audible differences. But the subjective nature of playing will always make it hard to know if you are really hearing the guitar you're playing (defined by sound) and not the guitar you think you are playing (defined by emotional attachment to a certain body style, bracing, wood, etc. etc. etc.).
"Well... There you go again." R.R.
Body styles have tendencies toward certain timbres and balances, but a good luthier could adjust for those, to the point where you'd be delighted with any number of different body styles (as long as you were physically comfortable playing them). Shear volume (sound pressure) may be different between body styles, but anyone who's played with a bad drummer knows that volume ain't all its cracked up to be.
Let alone BANJOS
Considering that these discussions always revolve back to experience, it is good to remember the frequently overlooked scientific baselines that should be talked about: where are people playing these instruments and when?
Empirical evidence is the bottom line here.
You make some good statements and I enjoyed your post, I hope you don't mind my "coloring". :wave
Quote from: ktron on May 15, 2011, 12:02:08 AM
Science should be objective, but listening is subjective. Science gives you helmholtz frequencies; listening gives you music.
For a lot of players its easier to simplify the physics by talking about the parts of the guitar that effect the most audible differences. But the subjective nature of playing will always make it hard to know if you are really hearing the guitar you're playing (defined by sound) and not the guitar you think you are playing (defined by emotional attachment to a certain body style, bracing, wood, etc. etc. etc.).
The physics has nothing to do with guitar players nor does it require listening. Builders can study and work with the physics of guitar building without worrying about the subjective nature of playing. It's not that what you said isn't true but what you're saying isn't countering the science argument; rather you're only diluting it by trying to show it is part of a bigger system which we cannot grasp.
We can know things,
Jeremy
People have studied both the physics of guitars and the psychoacoustics of listening to guitars.
If you're interested, here's a PhD thesis on the subjects:
http://www.hakwright.co.uk/thesis.html
AS A NEWBIE you might like these
:cheers:nana_guitar :donut :donut :donut :donut :donut :wave :nana_guitar :donut :donut :donut :nanadance :nana_guitar :cheers
I am afraid to say that I am interested in both but then I can find stuff like scale theory interesting too! Which means its just another blinkin variable and so which shape suits is just up to yerself, knowing why isn't necessary but can be just interesting!
have another from me :donut :donut :donut
Quote from: peterh on May 17, 2011, 03:03:42 AM
AS A NEWBIE you might like these
:cheers:nana_guitar :donut :donut :donut :donut :donut :wave :nana_guitar :donut :donut :donut :nanadance :nana_guitar :cheers
I am afraid to say that I am interested in both but then I can find stuff like scale theory interesting too! Which means its just another blinkin variable and so which shape suits is just up to yerself, knowing why isn't necessary but can be just interesting!
have another from me :donut :donut :donut
My my, a wise newbie... Hooda thunkit? :welcome:
Actually, I too enjoy both science and art. My suspicion is that all of our instruments were evolved by highly skilled and intuitive artisans, and the science came later to try to explain what they were/are doing. My question at the beginning was to learn more about guitars, having never played a jumbo that wasn't a 12 string, and wondering if there were tonal advantages in addition to their attractiveness for shape/appearance as compared to a dread shape. Luthiers have ways of drawing out from any shape the sound that they prefer. The shape of the soundboard would seem to have a significant contribution. I am in rapture of the tone my L-09 has, from its bassy bottom to its OM - like top. Its shape is vaguely Jumbo-esque, and I wondered if the lower bout contributes to the one and the upper bout to the other. All of your posts have been good food for thought and I appreciate it.
Quote from: L07 Shooting Star on May 12, 2011, 02:23:05 AM
For what it's worth, I like bringing the science into the discussions. After all, how else can some of these things be explained? Old wives tales? Physics exist for a reason. Could we put a man on the moon otherwise? Just sayin'
Kurt
Haven't been in this forum long but on AGF, science is a dirty word to some. They know what they hear and no amount of scientific evidence that says a certain change is inaudible will convince them otherwise. Questioning someone's ability to hear a change is like questioning their manhood, no good can come from it. :tongue:
Though I don't care either way I was wondering if there are any builders out there building based on and using the science available to them to actully build guitars and I'm not talking about CAC or CNC stuff but act true computer science and physic to build.
Also I'm not trying to make trouble,just wondering as I do what I do based on what I've been taught and things I've learned on my own as a repairman.Sometime's I call it reverse enginneering.
Maybe something like this............................
http://www.guitarnoize.com/blog/comments/emerald-guitars-9-string-carbon-fibre-fan-fret-acoustic-guitar
Nah thats not what I'm talking about.Fiber guitars are just a different material and fan frets have been around forever.I asking is there any builder building base on science and physics to construct a guitar.Is there a real math formula designed based on what phsyics dictates ie;dimention,top thickness,side thickness etc?You know real science stuff,real physics,not another trick market pony.
Quote from: unclrob on May 21, 2011, 11:40:43 PM
Nah thats not what I'm talking about.Fiber guitars are just a different material and fan frets have been around forever.I asking is there any builder building base on science and physics to construct a guitar.Is there a real math formula designed based on what phsyics dictates ie;dimention,top thickness,side thickness etc?You know real science stuff,real physics,not another trick market pony.
unclrob, we got into this a few months back regarding compensated saddles. Fan fretted instruments and compensation at the saddle ARE based on real science and physics on transverse wave motion. If you want to look at the formulas, I can haul them out. Or you can have a look online. It's kind of hard to type them in with a text-only editor here. The wave frequencies are based on length, tension, cross sectional thickness, density, and other factors and fan fretting CAN provide a more accurate tuning for fretting along the length of the string, as do compensated saddles. Don't tell me that when you re-string an electric guitar with different gauge strings than what were on there before, you don't change the saddle distance from the nut or from the top of the guitar than where they were before. If you do this, then you are using some of that physics - whether you know the equations or not.
Back several years ago, Garrison guitars from Canada did a great job using engineering know-how and physics to re-think the way that the string vibration translated through the guitar. Garrisons sounded quite nice, but man were they heavy! There is no overall single formula for all of this, however. It's an integration of mode shapes of the top and the equations that govern that, the transverse wave equations of the strings themselves, the equations governing the coupling of those systems, the equations governing the mode shapes of the air as it vibrates inside the guitar, etc. Connecting all of the equations together in a single mathematical model that works in a predictive fashion is nearly impossible.
-Scott
In a lot of case's I don't change the intonation because the distance between the nut and the bridge has not changed.I do have to change the slotting.As for the Garrison Guitars I'm not really sure it was done for the purpose stated or for the ease of build and really good marketing.Non the less they didn't get far but thats another story.
:cop:I'm sure that many will think that anything that I will ever post again will have any credability after the above statement and I know I will either be ignored by more people or my posting will never have merit.I understand the science behind the fan frets and it works and is also physics and I also understand that when a builder works the wood to his/hers desired effect that physics is involved even if they're not using a math. formula to get there.I'm also not pooh poohing the science but I do believe that there is much more then science involved.So if I've distroyed my rep here,Sa La Vee.I hope I spelled that right. :wave
Quote from: unclrob on May 21, 2011, 03:14:17 PM
Though I don't care either way I was wondering if there are any builders out there building based on and using the science available to them to actully build guitars and I'm not talking about CAC or CNC stuff but act true computer science and physic to build.
Yeah of course. Alan Carruth was already mentioned. There are many others - Somogyi, Ryan I know off the top of my head. http://www.esomogyi.com/principles.html
Quote from: unclrob on May 21, 2011, 11:40:43 PM
Nah thats not what I'm talking about.Fiber guitars are just a different material and fan frets have been around forever.I asking is there any builder building base on science and physics to construct a guitar.Is there a real math formula designed based on what phsyics dictates ie;dimention,top thickness,side thickness etc?You know real science stuff,real physics,not another trick market pony.
Yeah there are actual builders who test chladni patterns, top deflection, dampening, etc to help them build a better guitar. Physics could never give a single equation to build a good guitar. You have to figure out what physical quantifiable characteristics you desire then use physics to achieve that.
Cool and thanks,Now I know so off to check out the builders.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on May 22, 2011, 01:43:36 PM
Yeah of course. Alan Carruth was already mentioned. There are many others - Somogyi, Ryan I know off the top of my head. http://www.esomogyi.com/principles.html
Yeah there are actual builders who test chladni patterns, top deflection, dampening, etc to help them build a better guitar. Physics could never give a single equation to build a good guitar. You have to figure out what physical quantifiable characteristics you desire then use physics to achieve that.
Interesting from Somogyi about different attitudes between classical and steel string players. I find steel string players are not near critical enough, and we get the guitars and service to a certain level because of it. I think there is still a lot wrong with steel strings and they are at a primitive state as serious instruments compared to classical. Not near in nuance and articulation, clarity --much harder to shape the sound with technique.
jeremy and rockstar THANKS I wish they talked about the technical{physic}thing more.
Its amazing when you think about the history of stringed instruments.Some gut/gal is walking along see's a turtle shell things "hey if I stick a piece of wood on one end and tie a piece of string attaching it from one end to the other and strum it I might be able to make music." :winkin:
Quote from: hadden on May 24, 2011, 08:35:31 AM
Interesting from Somogyi about different attitudes between classical and steel string players. I find steel string players are not near critical enough, and we get the guitars and service to a certain level because of it. I think there is still a lot wrong with steel strings and they are at a primitive state as serious instruments compared to classical. Not near in nuance and articulation, clarity --much harder to shape the sound with technique.
He's right. In the steel string world the PC attitude is that there are only good guitars and maybe better guitars, no company makes bad guitars, 'brand bashing' is for bigots, etc. There are a lot of companies who are making bad guitars on a consistent basis but you'll get flamed if you mention it; if you criticize a particular action by a builder you'll get 'well they've been in the business for XX years, I think they know what they're doing'. Those attitudes prevent buyers from being discerning enough to want a better guitar and perhaps subsequently preventing builders from building a better guitar.
unclrob,
I had the good fortune of nearly begging none other than Mr. Jean Larrivée for a job in the lobby of the Oxnard facility about 8 or 9 years ago - telling him that I could help him confirm or reject design ideas with a methodology called Modal Analysis (used to document mode shapes of the vibrating surfaces).
In no uncertain terms, Mr. Larrivée said, "Thanks but no thanks. Folks have been trying to improve on the design of acoustic guitars using science for many years and so far, nobody has got it nailed down." (Or something to that effect).
This was after Mr. Larrivée had given me a nearly hour personal tour of the facility where he was there fitting necks to bodies of the California model - commemorating their new Oxnard facility. In said tour, he showed me plenty of cool technology that he used in the manufacturing of Larrivées including the CNC machine used to rough shape the necks ( to which he graciously credited Bob Taylor for introducing him to that technology ) and the very cool vacuum clamping machine used for clamping glued braces to tops/backs.
As for another builder that uses science in construction - check out the adjustable neck joint used by Greg Babicz. http://www.babiczguitars.com/continually-adjustable-neck.htm I've seen that design personally at a local violin luthier who is working with Babicz on some items. Very cool design that makes lots of sense from the physics part of the situation.
(try not to look at the way he connects the strings to the outer rim near the binding - can't figure that one out!)
-Scott
I played his {Babicz} guitars when they first came out and they were pitiful.His design if I remember rite was based on a late 1800 early 1900's parlour design I can't remember who's.I understand Mr. Larrivee's feeling towards science/physic I think,in physic/science the soul shall we say disappears.I had a client that just had his guitar Plexked{spelling}the machine used to dress frets.He brought it to me because the guitar would fret out when bending notes.Anyway I did my low tech test to see if the frets were level and they weren't.I then did a fret dressing the old fashion way and an hour latter he left happy as he has a gig tonite swearing he'd never believe anything he reads again until he talked to me first.This was his first visit to me.So science is a wonderful thing but you sometime's it gets you into things you don't want it in.
yep - doesn't always work.
However, that said, I would take ANY model of a Rainsong put in my hands any day.
BTW, I'm not sure all Babicz guitars have that weird string attachment. The model I played did not have it - but it wasn't labeled a Babicz (yet!)
You'd love that violin luthier shop here in Colorado Springs - feels like stepping back into the 1700's. I go in there and chat with the luthier now and then. He's the person who does the repairs on my daughter's viola. (out here in the dry, seems like the glue attaching the back to the sides needs more humidity than what we can reliably provide). On that topic, he recommends either being very anal about humidifying to a constant %-age or not humidifying at all - since our humidity doesn't vary that much. His feeling is that it's worse to only remember to humidify now and then than to either do it religiously or not at all. His feelings is that it's the swings in humidity that are problematic for the instrument. Makes sense to me.
-Scott
Quote from: rockstar_not on May 24, 2011, 11:19:59 PM
, he recommends either being very anal about humidifying to a constant %-age or not humidifying at all - since our humidity doesn't vary that much. His feeling is that it's worse to only remember to humidify now and then than to either do it religiously or not at all. His feelings is that it's the swings in humidity that are problematic for the instrument. Makes sense to me.
Interesting perspective
So I was just wondering...."Does guitar shape affect tone :?" :winkin:
Seems like humidity levels may effect tone more than guitar shape.......... :whistling:
Make mine a dry............... :beer
Quote from: jeremy3220 on May 24, 2011, 12:44:49 PM
He's right. In the steel string world the PC attitude is that there are only good guitars and maybe better guitars, no company makes bad guitars, 'brand bashing' is for bigots, etc. There are a lot of companies who are making bad guitars on a consistent basis but you'll get flamed if you mention it; if you criticize a particular action by a builder you'll get 'well they've been in the business for XX years, I think they know what they're doing'. Those attitudes prevent buyers from being discerning enough to want a better guitar and perhaps subsequently preventing builders from building a better guitar.
Even much of the high end has too much noise in the sound and a kind of bag pipe momentum to where you are dragged along with the response and you have not near enough control of it. Guitars thought highly of in the market -- like older (good) Martins and Collings and Santa Cruz can often have a sort of sourness and noise to the sound profile that is just not musical to me. I think the entire market needs a major kick in the behind. Players salivate over the high end --- but so much of what is produced is only slightly better than the completely crummy level of what the big companies produce over and over, for the most part. Some of the stuff Taylor comes out with is inexcusably Bad. Still they sell a ton.
Rockstar I had the pleasure of hanging/learning how to repair violins from a wondrful vintage{no longer use the word old}builder and stepping into his basement felt like stepping back in time to Italy.Wonderful smells coming fromthe kitchen mixed with the smell of aging woods,sawdust and finishing material.