PPonk wrote:
"The gap is not a chasm. It is crossed by quite a few lucky factory guitars. One of these days, I suspect technology will close the gap a lot further with the ability to measure the density of materials, match up a top with the appropriate braces, and thickness the top and carve the braces to a target flexibility"
I'm told that Taylor has already started doing that to some degree. The word is that they're measuring the density of the tops they get in, and using that as a way to determine the proper thickness. It's a start.
This can more or less work because soft woods all have the same basic structure. As a result they all follow the same rule (as closely as you'd expect natural materials could) relating Young's modulus along the grain to density. If you measure those things on a bunch of guitar top blanks you'll find that about 2/3 of them will fall within 10% plus or minus of the same line on a chart. Given the errors of measurement you can't get rid of, that's pretty good. The neat thing about this is that, since you're working 'to the piece' rather than 'to the species' or cosmetic factors, you're more likely to end up with consistent results.
The other third can be pretty widely scattered, of course. This could get you into trouble. Some tops are much less stiff then their density would indicate, and they would end up too thin, sometimes by a lot. Also, of course, there are those tops that are stiffer than their density would suggest they 'should' be. Those can make superior instruments, since you can work them thinner and lighter. In either case, the lack of a direct Young's modulus measurement is a drawback.
The problem is density is easy and quick to measure, but Young's modulus takes time. Man-hours are the most expensive input in a factory setting, and everything is done to minimize them. That's why you see such great fit and finish on even low-end factory instruments: it's the best way to avoid unnecessary lost time in assembly.
In the end, then, Taylor will still have to do what all guitar factories have done: over build a bit to avoid warranty issues. They may do less of that, and should end up with more consistent instruments if, indeed, they're measuring density as I was told. But their average instrument will still be a bit heavier than it could have been, sacrificing a bit of power and treble for structural reliability.
At any rate, all factories work to averages, and once in a while they get lucky. Since every instrument they make will be somebody's Holy Grail all they have to do is find that person and they have a happy customer. Most hand makers are trying to meet a defined standard in sound; wrapping a box around it. It's a lot like catching smoke in a bottle. I'm not the only maker to produce something that everybody liked EXCEPT the guy who ordered it. Sure, you can sell it to somebody in the end, but for a luthier that's a failure.
Finally, I have to say that we can pretty reliably measure the difference between a 'poor' guitar and a 'good' one. What we don't have is a way to tell a 'very good' one from a 'great' one. Is 'great' just 'more good', or is it something else entirely? Depending on which it is the whole approach you take to get there will be different.
|