Why Do Larrivee Guitars. . .

[rockstar_not]

Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.

KE=.5mv^2

If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.

Only true if the mass is in a not in location on the guitar where the kinetic energy must be transmitted into the air.  Mass is also a key component to damping and it's also on the right side of the equation.  If you make the top, or any other intentionally vibrating surfaces of the guitar more heavy, you will not convert the kinetic energy present in the wood into translational motion of the surface, and hence to the air, and hence you will have LESS perceived output of the guitar.

So, yes - mass matters, but it's not a simple more mass=more sound situation.  Finally, one last thing to think about with the Kinetic Energy equation is that the equation does not consider where the velocity portion of the equation comes from.  You wrote "If Velocity is held constant....."

Well, velocity doesn't come from thin air.  With a guitar, it has to come from you, the player.  To maintain the same velocity, for more mass, you have to exert more force into the guitar.  Heavier strings are partially an example, as their vibration velocity in their transverse waves is dependent on both mass and tension.  To get them to move in the same translational wave velocity, it requires more input force.

But again, looking at that in isolation is not the correct approach.  One has to consider the entire structure, build construction, resultant mode shapes of surfaces, etc. of the guitar to try to get a handle on how mass impacts the output sound power capability of the guitar, across the audible frequency range.

It will never be a "More mass = better" "More mass=worse" to a certain point.  However, put too much mass on vibrating surfaces and eventually you do get to "More mass = worse" situation as the mass damping effects swamp the ability for the surfaces to move air.

[dermot]

I was just commenting on that there was a difference in build weight between the two (OOOs: sc rosewood should be heavier) when it was indicated they were the same, more or less. Nothing more. I wasn't making a comment on quality due to that. Well actually I stated when making a comparison myself I prefered the heavier Larrivee in rosewoods to the SC rw in the couple I tried. Which also means nothing.

the open back tuners on the SC are alot lighter than the Ping's on the larrivee.. remove that variable (or drop in a set of StayTities on the Larivee) and see where it's at?

d

[Walkerman]

One thing you have to be aware of is that different woods have different weights.  IOW, you cannot compare a bubinga from luthier A with a maple from luthier B.

[jeremy3220]

So, yes - mass matters, but it's not a simple more mass=more sound situation.
  

I didn't say that. The opposite tends to be true. I was thinking about the amount of energy input required. To get out the same amount of motion with an increase in mass more energy input will be required.

Finally, one last thing to think about with the Kinetic Energy equation is that the equation does not consider where the velocity portion of the equation comes from.

Yes, of course it does. It's velocity with respect to the mass in the equation. Otherwise it would be one screwed up equation. Since we were talking about mass of the guitar or more specifically, an important area of sound production(like the mass of the bridge or soundboard), the velocity in question is that of the wood.

[Danny]

Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.

KE=.5mv^2

If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.

Yup, I took a bunch of magnesium citrate and the mass moved at a greater rate of velocity for at least two days.

[rockstar_not]

I didn't say that. The opposite tends to be true. I was thinking about the amount of energy input required. To get out the same amount of motion with an increase in mass more energy input will be required.

Yes, of course it does. It's velocity with respect to the mass in the equation. Otherwise it would be one screwed up equation. Since we were talking about mass of the guitar or more specifically, an important area of sound production(like the mass of the bridge or soundboard), the velocity in question is that of the wood.

I think we both misunderstood intentional points.  I agree with you considering that now we are both talking about the vibrating surfaces.

One area where I think some conventional wisdom falls down in this particular forum is the idea of brass bridge pins.  Definitely more mass, in an area that should not be mass-damped.  That's my opinion, based somewhat in physics, but not ever tested myself simply because I'm too cheap to run what I think would be a failed experiment.  More mass should be bad in bridge pins.

[247hoopsfan]

I think we both misunderstood intentional points.  I agree with you considering that now we are both talking about the vibrating surfaces.

One area where I think some conventional wisdom falls down in this particular forum is the idea of brass bridge pins.  Definitely more mass, in an area that should not be mass-damped.  That's my opinion, based somewhat in physics, but not ever tested myself simply because I'm too cheap to run what I think would be a failed experiment.  More mass should be bad in bridge pins.

I have done the experiment, although not intentionally.  I have had a D10 EIR for about 6 years.  I recently got a D10 Brazilian.  The original owner put brass pins on it.  I played it with the brass pins, then exchanged them for the ebony pins from my other D10.  I really could not tell any difference.  Maybe my ears are not sensitive enough, but it sounded fine with both types of pins.  Now what did make a difference is when I took off the light guage elixirs and put on medium EXP17's.  Wow! The Elixirs seemed kind of tinny/jangly to me.  I actually put the old Elixirs on my OM-05MT and they sounded pretty good.  The jangly sound was warmed by the all-mahogany. 

[ryler]

  Yup, I took a bunch of magnesium citrate and the mass moved at a greater rate of velocity for at least two days.

Danny, you get to the nub of the argument quite succinctly.  Sadly, I understood your point better than all others made.

[L07 Shooting Star]

Basic physics dictates that mass has significance.

KE=.5mv^2

If velocity is held constant and mass increases, energy will have to increase. The more mass there is the more energy will be required to move it. Since we are talking about sound and guitars it will also change the vibrational patterns depending on where that mass is. Luthiers and scientist know mass is important.

I don't disagree with that at all.  I didn't articulate what I meant very well.  To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator.  Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound.  The original OP simply asked why Larrivees seem to be heavier than some other brands.  I'm saying even if they are heavier, that doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically inferior to the other brands.  Or conversely, another brand that is superior in tone for example won't automatically be lighter than a Larrivee.

Kurt

[Mr_LV19E]

I don't disagree with that at all.  I didn't articulate what I meant very well.  To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator.  Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound.  The original OP simply asked why Larrivees seem to be heavier than some other brands.  I'm saying even if they are heavier, that doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically inferior to the other brands.  Or conversely, another brand that is superior in tone for example won't automatically be lighter than a Larrivee.

Kurt

Very well put.

[L07 Shooting Star]

Very well put.

Thank you.   

[jeremy3220]

I don't disagree with that at all.  I didn't articulate what I meant very well.  To clarify, I just meant mass alone was not a good indicator.  Just weighing a guitar without knowing anything else about it in terms of model, size, bracing, wood, etc. wouldn't be very helpful in predicting it's quality or sound. 

Yes, I even made the same point earlier in the thread... "The total weight for sure doesn't account for all the difference in sound, otherwise simply making a really light guitar with no regard for design or craftsmanship would yield a better guitar."

But let's not kid ourselves, we can get a general idea of where the mass difference comes from. It's not like Larrivees have fishing weights in the neck block or dangling off the end pin by a string. The mass difference between a Larrivee and a pre-war Martin of same body size and materials is going to come from a significant tone producing location. Some of this can easily be seen or felt. You're right about weighing a guitar without knowing anything else wouldn't be helpful in predicting it's quality or sound but that's never the case. The opposite is true, we tend to know a good deal about a model's size, bracing, wood, etc.

I tend to like guitars that happen to be light. The guitars that stick out in my memory were lightly built guitars. It doesn't mean everything but it does mean something. Excluding things like electronics and just comparing regulars ol'acoustics, light guitars have a different sound. I'm not arguing heavy guitars suck or anything of the sort, I really don't care what peoples' preferences are and appreciate the diversity in guitars.

[L07 Shooting Star]

I agree Jeremy.

In this discussion there should be a big distinction between a simply light (in total weight) guitar and a lightly-built guitar.

Kurt

[jeremy3220]

I agree Jeremy.

In this discussion there should be a big distinction between a simply light (in total weight) guitar and a lightly-built guitar.

I think if you do that you need to clarify what exactly is lightly built because light (in total weight) guitars are lightly built. I mean a guitar can't weigh as little as a pre-war Martin and not be lightly built; everything on the guitar is lightly built.  On a guitar with a light top & bracing but thick heavy B&S I don't think calling it lightly built is accurate but saying 'lightly built top' might be.