Acoustic Guitar Design and Construction Book Recommendations

[MC5C]

You'd be shocked and amazed at the discussions on some forums (a Mandolin one in particular) where PhD's in physics and engineering get into heated discussion on the, guess what, engineering and physics of guitar shaped objects. This to say that the science is still waiting to be defined and the art is still worthwhile. My personal investigation into the design parameters of guitars has been largely internet search based, and wide ranging. The only book I have is the Benedetto archtop book, which is more of a recipe for how to make a guitar than a discussion of design philosophy.

Tools? It all depends on your choice. I could easily make a guitar with a hand saw (or three), a scraper or two, a number 4 plane, a rasp, a screw driver or two, a chisel, and a hand drill with a selection of bits. With these tools I can make the guitar, and make other tools like gramils to cut binding channels. Bought used at fleamarkets, under $100. And a bench with a vise, of course, and a hand knife. What I actually use, in addition to the above, is a table saw, a bandsaw, a drill press, a Bridgeport mill (frankly optional, but I have one so I use it), a jointer, a thickness planer, a belt sander, and a router as power tools. Retail value around $5,000, not counting the Bridgeport which is another $5,000 for a used one. I would like to add a thickness sander and at least a copy router, but won't now that I am retired.

[redir]

Aside from the already recommended books from Gore/Gillet you may want to get another book, 'Left Brain Lutherie' by David Hurd PHD.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by CaffeinatedOne

If you're interested in acoustic theory and differing engineering approaches to top voicing, do some research (start with Google and Wikipedia) on the names Michael Kasha and Richard Schneider. You will find truly delicious stuff.

I spent waaaay too much time wasted on that stuff. I'd suggest spend half an hour reading about Kasha/Schneider and then move on. In my opinion, not much of practical value to learn there. Add to that that the focus of their work was primarily classical guitars - while the OP's focus is Martin steel strings - and little of it is applicable. (The Gibson Mark Series doesn't count.)

Left Brain Lutherie is a good addition to the literature.

[redir]

I have to agree that from a historical point of view learning abut Kasha designs may be fun and interesting but over all it's a dead end if you want to design modern/contemporary guitars. I built a Kasha style guitar around probably 1992 or so and ended up re-topping it some years later and it sounded way better. Shnieder of course being an accomplished luthier I'm sure could and did pull it off much better but the designs in general today are considered pseudoscience at best.

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong. And again I still say it's worth looking at because it is interesting none the less.

[printer2]

MC5C, cost me about $45 to make, could not imagine building without it or my bandsaw.



Left Brain Lutherie has about as much theory in how the guitar works as is practical but it also has a wealth of information on wood and guitar building the author has accumulated. At least from the amount of the book I have seen. I have the G&G books but I probably would have been equally well served with LBL.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by printer2

MC5C, cost me about $45 to make, could not imagine building without it or my bandsaw.



Left Brain Lutherie has about as much theory in how the guitar works as is practical but it also has a wealth of information on wood and guitar building the author has accumulated. At least from the amount of the book I have seen. I have the G&G books but I probably would have been equally well served with LBL.

I built 6 or so experimental acoustics, and four "serialized" acoustics (which I sold three, with one "gifted" to my brother), aside from the dozens of electric guitar and electric guitar parts I've done, and I still don't have a thickness sander or band saw! I do have a fixture I made for my jig saw where I can mount it upside down on my table saw, which works OK, but hopefully Santa will have an early Christmas gift for me...

[Alan Carruth]

What Charles Tauber said.

Keep in mind that the traditional designs have be pretty nicely optimized through generations of cut and try. The old boys didn't have any theory on the level we do, but they kept trying stuff, and whatever worked became part of the standard designs. As somebody who has been involved in the 'science' end of it for quite some time, it seems to me that we're still playing catch-up. This is especially true insomuch as 'good tone' is subjective, and very hard to define in any 'scientific' sense.

Keep in mind that Kasha got into this back in the '60s, when nobody knew much about how these things worked. I've seen some very nice instruments made by his followers, but the best of them were not 'better' in every respect than the best 'traditional' instruments. As has been said, the Kasha design has been the wave of the future for a long time, but has never caught on widely. There has to be a reason for that.

Gore's book on design is probably most like what you're looking for in a single package. He has his own focus, of course, but the theory is good as far as I can see for any approach.

Gotta go.

[jessupe]

Originally Posted by DaveJH

Well I'm just interested in understanding the theory for now. I'm an engineer not a woodworker. I hope someday to start messing around with some building as a hobby. For now I just want to research and understand the theory and methods properly.

Well if you are an engineer who understands construction and architecture related to using wood as the medium, the first thing you will notice about the design of a "guitar" IS THAT IT IS ALL WRONG!!!!

To me {one with many years in building} the basic design of the guitar as it is known is greatly flawed and condemns it to an early grave. The flaw resides in the attachment of the back and top and how they are "binded" together to the sides. This is the equivalent of you asking me to install 2000 sq. ft of wood flooring in your home and then telling me to butt it tight right the wall using no base board to hide THE NEEDED EXPANSION GAP.

When we look at historical instruments, comparing violins to guitars, we see one thing, that there are no where near the amount of guitars left from the 17-1800s, why? because the design does not lend itself to repair.

Sure there are some clever ways to repair guitars with the top on, going through the sound hole, but if any thing major happens and it needs to come apart, barring extremely skilled craftsman/repairers with no time limit budgets, the guitar basically needs to be destroyed in order to take it apart, and because of this, guitars that were owned in 1840 and developed a crack in the top would be tossed as the value at the time would not deserve an expensive repair.

And yet when we look to bowed instruments, we see many, many old instruments still in tact and still being played and the reason is the construction design. By having an overhang lip that is purfled instead of bound, we now have an easy way to remove the top and gain access to he instrument in it's entirety. Not only that, by attaching the top and back directly to the ribs we have a very tension free attachment system that builds in an "automatic relief valve" that will allow the top to pop off the ribs/sides in the advent of a dramatic environmental change. Instead of a crack or split developing in the plate, it simply becomes detached from the ribs and is a very simple repair that is not invasive.

I could go on and on with the many things that I think are flaws in the design as well as flaws in the way we as humans come to "parrot" "tradition" and do things because, "that's the way we always do it"

To the best of my knowledge I am the only person who constructs guitars like violins, utilizing a lip edge...The only other guitars that I have seen with this VERY IMPORTANT feature are Ken Parkers archtops....I also build "flat tops" that are arched, this changes the dynamics and "numbers" ...thats another story .

Just my opinions, ones that I'm sure are not popular.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by jessupe

Well if you are an engineer who understands construction and architecture related to using wood as the medium, the first thing you will notice about the design of a "guitar" IS THAT IT IS ALL WRONG!!!!

I think your analysis of the differences between guitar and violin family construction leaves out a number of very important distinctions, some of which might alter your conclusions. Lutes, for example, have their tops glued directly to the "sides" without linings or enclosing bindings - but for the lack of an overhang, essentially the same as violins. By your argument, there should be lots and lots of lutes still in existence and in good playing condition, given that the lute was once the most popular instrument in Europe.

One of the lutes that I made, the top was glued to the "bowl" with Titebond's Liquid Hide Glue. Summer came, humidity and temperatures rose, and I opened the case one day to find that as I did so, the only thing keeping the top flat was the lid of the case. As I opened the case, to my horror, the top, from the bridge end, rolled 180 degrees towards the neck splitting in several places. One of the differences between guitar/lute family construction and violin family construction is that in guitars and lutes string tension is taken entirely by the juncture between bridge and top. Violins, of course, have much of the tension taken by the tailpiece/end block. Had the lute strings been anchored by a tailpiece, there would be no forces on the loosened top to "peel" it from the body and the top would not have been damaged.

True, guitar construction doesn't really accommodate the seasonal movement of wood. Many repairs can - and are - performed through the soundhole. If necessary, the back can be removed for more extensive repairs - not cheap, but doable.

[jessupe]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I think your analysis of the differences between guitar and violin family construction leaves out a number of very important distinctions, some of which might alter your conclusions. Lutes, for example, have their tops glued directly to the "sides" without linings or enclosing bindings - but for the lack of an overhang, essentially the same as violins. By your argument, there should be lots and lots of lutes still in existence and in good playing condition, given that the lute was once the most popular instrument in Europe.

One of the lutes that I made, the top was glued to the "bowl" with Titebond's Liquid Hide Glue. Summer came, humidity and temperatures rose, and I opened the case one day to find that as I did so, the only thing keeping the top flat was the lid of the case. As I opened the case, to my horror, the top, from the bridge end, rolled 180 degrees towards the neck splitting in several places. One of the differences between guitar/lute family construction and violin family construction is that in guitars and lutes string tension is taken entirely by the juncture between bridge and top. Violins, of course, have much of the tension taken by the tailpiece/end block. Had the lute strings been anchored by a tailpiece, there would be no forces on the loosened top to "peel" it from the body and the top would not have been damaged.

True, guitar construction doesn't really accommodate the seasonal movement of wood. Many repairs can - and are - performed through the soundhole. If necessary, the back can be removed for more extensive repairs - not cheap, but doable.

"but for the lack of an overhang, essentially the same as violins."

The overhang is THE essential feature, it is either there, or it is not, if it is not, barring glue seems coming undone from falling in a lake, prying up with knifes and using heat is the only way to get it off, this either takes massive amounts of time, or ends up destroying the instrument.

The overhang lip allows for "knock off"removal, which simply means one can use a tapping block and small hammer to "knock" the top off, leaving very little prying to be done.

Any instrument design that does not use a lip edge has doomed itself to not being easily repaired. Period, including lutes.

I can remove a top from one of my instruments in 10 min, exposing, liners, braces, bridge plates, sides, back, top any components that may need fixing, and that top can be removed with virtually no stress form the repairmen perspective, delicate brain surgery is not needed to simply gain access to the issue. And reassembly is just as easy.

I would challenge anyone who uses a binded system to cleanly remove their top in 10 min.

Let alone getting into "your" {traditional} design fingerboard attachment to the top and how that adds another layer of complexity...My fingerboard "tongue touchdown" based on arched top also eliminates that issue as well as frees the entire area of the top under the fingerboard and allows it vibrate freely, or much more free than fingerboard clamped to the flat top, thus turning 2 to3mm graduations in that area into 10mm and greatly restricting that area of the plates movement.

edit; bottle hide glue is inferior to HHG and should not be considerd the same product

[printer2]

I say nylon bolts to hold the top to the sides for everybody!

[LouieAtienza]

For all the inherent "flaws" in guitar construction, they still survive. Whether flat-top or arch top. Antonio de Torres' personal guitar, which he gifted to Tarrega, survives to this day, even with a top that tapers to .7mm in areas! And unlike a violin, they don't necessarily need to be taken apart to be repaired on, because they have the luxury of the largest access hole in stringed instruments (I cannot consider a banjo an instrument!)

To me the modern guitar is a risk-reward build. And yes I did mention that there are things done on the modern guitar that would be shunned upon in regular woodworking - "locking" wood in by cross-grain gluing, gluing to end grain for example. But there are accommodations, such as softwood against other softwood or hardwood (usually), binding and purfling absorbing shock impact as well as protecting end grain.

Benoit Lavoie makes archtops, using violin-style construction. I believe Benedetto made a couple such instruments.

Then again, I'd hope that in the unfortunate event someone may need to repair a guitar of mine after I leave this earth, that he or she is competent enough to do so. Heck, I'm building a guitar, not a totem pole. If it gets thrown out then so be it; by then guitars may be so technologically advanced that my guitar may end up being screwed onto a bar wall as some sort of folk art!

[jessupe]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

For all the inherent "flaws" in guitar construction, they still survive. Whether flat-top or arch top. Antonio de Torres' personal guitar, which he gifted to Tarrega, survives to this day, even with a top that tapers to .7mm in areas! And unlike a violin, they don't necessarily need to be taken apart to be repaired on, because they have the luxury of the largest access hole in stringed instruments (I cannot consider a banjo an instrument!)

To me the modern guitar is a risk-reward build. And yes I did mention that there are things done on the modern guitar that would be shunned upon in regular woodworking - "locking" wood in by cross-grain gluing, gluing to end grain for example. But there are accommodations, such as softwood against other softwood or hardwood (usually), binding and purfling absorbing shock impact as well as protecting end grain.

Benoit Lavoie makes archtops, using violin-style construction. I believe Benedetto made a couple such instruments.

Then again, I'd hope that in the unfortunate event someone may need to repair a guitar of mine after I leave this earth, that he or she is competent enough to do so. Heck, I'm building a guitar, not a totem pole. If it gets thrown out then so be it; by then guitars may be so technologically advanced that my guitar may end up being screwed onto a bar wall as some sort of folk art!

Don't worry Louie, I'm sure they'll have invented velcro by then, hey that's it, screw the glue, I'm going to use velcro to attach my tops and backs, that way they can be interchangeable let alone easy to repair

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by jessupe

Any instrument design that does not use a lip edge has doomed itself to not being easily repaired. Period, including lutes.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[mirwa]

Whilst there is an abundant supply of books for guitar building / including physics and mathematics associated with it.

I would dump the lot and start of with something like what Robbie O'Brien offers, its an online guitar building course, that shows him doing step by step a guitar build and allows you the first timer to follow.

There is no point trying to re-invent the wheel on your first build ( I am making an assumption its your first build...), go with tried and true, build your skills build your tools.

Then read to your hearts content / debate to your hearts content, but you always have to start somewhere.

Steve