Quote:
Originally Posted by archtopGeek
To elaborate, I would like to know...
1. Does cantilevered neck/fretboard (as in McPherson and Batson) really allow the upper part of sound board to vibrate to a great extent? In principal it does, but does it so in practice?
2. Does absence of soundhole on the soundboard, and related changes in bracing result in 'almost' doubling of sound level (volume) and response? Again, In principal it does, but does it so in practice?
3. The Bridge system in Batson guitars is quite unique in that , it neither pulls (like a flat top) nor push (like an archtop) the soundboard. Does it have significant effects on the tome/volume?
4. Any other point you guys want to make.
Also, there is only one audio-visual sample of Tom Bills guitar (on his site and youtube), so if any one of you know of any other, Please do post.
Further, If you know of any other builder(s) implementing such extreme changes in traditional designs, please do post.
Mitesh
|
First off, I never played a Batson or McPherson, and just one Bills, very briefly. But I have built guitars with offset soundholes and very small top soundholes and large side ports. More often than not I elevate the fretboard and neck extension over the top.
1. This is not actually a cantilever in engineering terms, because there is no load on the end of the board. But it sounds cool and techie to call it that. Actually, the neck on any guitar is a cantilever, since there is a load on the unsupported end. But I digress.
In practice, very little difference. Some of my best guitars have had the fretboard glued to the top in the conventional way. I have reasons other than sound for doing elevated extensions.
2. Neither in theory nor in practice can this "'almost' double" the sound. Pure marketing hype. What percentage of the top is the soundhole occupying? Then consider that it is in a less active part of the top. Most sound comes from the lower bout. Then consider that it is venting reflected sound from the underside of the top. Even in theory the gain would be slight.
3. No idea. I do notice that the Batson site is difficult to navigate, though.
4. I guess by now I should stop being surprised when people read stuff on a guitar company's site that was written by someone who does advertising copy and take it literally.
Other things: the guitar has been developed over centuries by a lot of smart people who were willing to experiment. They were not unaware of developments in the physics of musical instruments, which were pretty much all worked out 150 years ago. But there is never a shortage of new builders who think they are first person ever to apply some science to the instrument.