Larrivee volume / shaving braces

[jeremy3220]

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.

[jimmy buffett]

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 

[Danny]

Well said 

Yup.

[bearsville0]

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.

[jeremy3220]

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.

[dermot]

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.

[hadden]

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.

[bearsville0]

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.

[hadden]

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

[Scott van Linge]

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

[hadden]

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.

[bearsville0]

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.

[hadden]

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.

[bearsville0]

I like what GA-ME says above.

[Scott van Linge]

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

[GA-ME]

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.

[Scott van Linge]

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
 

[GA-ME]

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!

[Danny]

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.

[Scott van Linge]

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