The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Carbon Fiber

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 05-04-2017, 11:00 PM
pandaroo pandaroo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarDoc View Post
Won't the thinness of the body effect the tone. My daughters thin ovation has to be plugged in when playing with anybody. It's sound acoustically is really anemic.
Nylon electric - I suspect if this is predominantly to be played plugged in, the advantage would be feedback related. But yes, the acoustic properties may diminish.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2017, 12:08 AM
rwtwguitar rwtwguitar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 30
Default New Nylon electric

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanB View Post

I do not need a new guitar but the nylon string guitar is one of my few indulgences. I've purchased three Blackbirds, one Rainsong, and three Emeralds in an attempt to support and further the development of nylon string CF guitars.
An admirable goal that should be widely emulated.

Ever considered a nylon string CF archtop guitar?


Last edited by rwtwguitar; 05-05-2017 at 12:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-05-2017, 12:14 AM
ac ac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,787
Default

Evan, have any of your past nylons had scales as short as 24"?

A) If so, how was the projection?

B) How was the play-ability in terms of sloppy string feel?

I assume if you had scales that short, you used the highest tension strings you could find.

My past nylons were full scale, but now, I've moved to short scale lengths (steel)--so I am curious on these two points.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-05-2017, 09:35 AM
Guest 928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AC;

I made four suitcase guitars with 19" scales and yes, the string were a bit sloppy--but so much so that they could not be played cleanly.

I'm thinking 24.plus, something along the line of the Rainsong Parlor. The Parlor came with high tension strings but I have been using normal with no problem.

I don't think a thin-bodied electric is going to have much of an acoustic voice. But I believe it will have enough of a voice for song-writing and practice. I don't foresee as much loss of tonal quality as loss of projection.

I have considered an arch top nylon string guitar, but it doesn't have a strong pull for me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-05-2017, 06:32 PM
Guest 928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I hope it is clear that I am not looking for a particularly sophisticated guitar--I am looking for a good start. Emerald's electric green steel string guitar is probably a more complex unit than what I am looking for. I've had or played all the high-line electric nylon string guitars and I believe that they can be matched or bettered with a clean, minimal CF/woody build. We'll see. With a nylon in its electric arsenal, Emerald will have covered a lot of guitar territory.

This is such fun. With Rainsong we have a history of CF build and quality. With Blackbird we have innovation at a philosophic level. With Journey we have a significant move for players who travel. With Emerald we the ability to climb every mountain, ford every steam--just like we sang at high school graduation. Living the dream.....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-09-2017, 01:10 PM
Tom2 Tom2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 158
Default

The fact that you can compare an NP12 to an X10 Nylon side by side gives you an advantage that no one else has. Can you describe similarities, differences, and what you specifically like about each?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-09-2017, 06:10 PM
Guest 928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom 2;

You ask hard questions. I've been trying to answer them for the past year, and I am somewhat confounded.

Starting with sound, the Emerald has a much longer sustain. But the Rainsong has a cleaner sound. In terms of volume, the Rainsong is the winner.

The Emerald is a winner relative to the body comfort. But, while I used to like a thin neck I'm finding the wider neck of the Rainsong to be more comfortable.

In terms of fret reach, the Emerald is the clear winner; at 16 frets to the body I can play high up the board. But I've also realized that the tonal qualities are not particularly pretty and I am not really very good at high fret play. The Rainsong, with 12 frets to the body, is OK, but I think the design could be changed to give a bit higher reach.

Relative to tone, they are both acceptable. They are not quite the same, but they are both pleasant, both nylon, both sweet.

In my estimation, neither guitar reaches the qualities found in a good classical instrument. I use my brother-in-law's Ramirez as a standard for volume and tone. But they are both close.

As you can tell, I have a hard time in deciding between the two. this is important to me because I have decided to have no more than two guitars. I've been through all of the CF nylon string guitars and the Emerald and the Rainsong are the two I've kept. If the electric turns out to be a keeper, one of the two guitars will have to go.

An electric nylon string would be my soft -sounding acoustic songwriting guitar and my public/mass player. The other guitar would be my small group acoustic guitar. The advantage of eliminating the Rainsong is that it is a production instrument; I can always get another one. The Emerald is a one-off, not easily replaced. But if I had an Emerald electric that served my needs, maybe I'd keep the Rainsong as my acoustic player.

You can see my quandary. I look forward to hearing how you respond.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-11-2017, 03:58 PM
Tom2 Tom2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 158
Default

Looking at photos of the X7 and NP12, I notice the lower bout of the X7 is not very round. This places the bridge closer to the tail. If the bridge were placed in the center of the lower bout, it would be extremely close to the tail. While this would produce a fuller acoustic tone, it would also reduce the sustain and may be awkward to play.

If your main interest is playing plugged in, acoustic tone is not so much of an issue, and the standard bridge placement would be fine. You would have access to more frets and have more sustain. If acoustic tone is important, moving the bridge to the center of the lower bout would be an improvement, but I've never played a guitar with the bridge so close to the tail. It may be fine, but I have no reference for offering even a guess.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-11-2017, 06:07 PM
Guest 928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tom 2;

Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe that the offset soundhole diminishes the sound for the audient(s). But enhances the sound for the player. For the electric I am think of it as a song-writing instrument (which makes the offset fine) and a plug in for volume.

It looks like we're going for a 12 fret, offset sound hole, active pickup with volume and tone controls at the guitar, in the sound hole. The wood veneer has yet to be determined, but we're close.

I've owned or played the star nylon string electrics; the Chet Atkins, the Godin, the Parker, the Rick turner. I believe that Alistair can best them. The Atkins and Godin are heavy and somewhat awkward. The parker is almost too light and has an unforgivable fret width for nylon strung instruments.

The Kirk Sand maybe the standard, but I haven't played one, and that's OK. I am fascinated by changes to a 500 year old tradition of guitar production and think carbon fiber is the future.

So: If any of you have last thoughts on this new, revolutionary nylon string guitar, now is the time to chime in.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-11-2017, 07:55 PM
Tom2 Tom2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 158
Default

So the only remaining dimensions and nut width and string spacing.

You are saying 1 7/8" nut width, which is 47.6mm. I imagine that Alistair is metric, and he may just be saying 1 7/8 " when he really means 48mm. On Emerald's web site, the X20 Nylon lists 48.5mm, and also says 1 7/8", so I don't know what he means when he says 1 7/8".

The reason why I point this out is because nut width and string spacing at the nut is where I did most of my experimenting, and I clearly preferred 48.5mm. A difference of 0.9mm may not seem like much, but at the nut it is a mile.

So if you like the nut width of your X10N, and it happens to be 48.5mm, this deserves clarity. If you are deliberately designing a narrower neck, I would recommend 48mm over 1 7/8", because even 0.4mm can be felt at your fingertips.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-12-2017, 09:11 AM
Guest 928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom 2;

Interesting. I will check with Alistair and I will go for the 48 or 48.5 mm. Thank you for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-12-2017, 09:46 AM
Earl49 Earl49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,982
Default

Evan and Tom2 seem to be doing all the R&D for anyone else who is interested, hammering out all the details for proof-of-concept. Well done!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-12-2017, 10:01 AM
Acousticado's Avatar
Acousticado Acousticado is offline
Anticipation Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oh, Canada!
Posts: 17,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl49 View Post
Evan and Tom2 seem to be doing all the R&D for anyone else who is interested, hammering out all the details for proof-of-concept. Well done!
Yes, and the beauty of it is that whether it's this matter involving nylons, or any other issue involving CF guitars, the CF builders are present in this community and listening, trying hard to deliver on what their customers want within practicality and cost. In the wood guitar world, boutique custom builders offer some flexibility, but no where near what we're seeing in the CF world. Beyond the instruments, it's just plain fun to be part of a forum environment to witness and even influence all this.
__________________
Tom
'21 Martin D-18 Standard | '02 Taylor 814c | '18 Taylor 214ceDLX | '18 Taylor 150e-12 | '78 Ibanez Dread (First acoustic) | '08 CA Cargo | '02 Fender Strat American '57 RI
My original songs
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-12-2017, 03:11 PM
Tom2 Tom2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 158
Default

JimCA just received his 632mm X7N, and it's a 13 fretter. Now we can boldly go where one has gone before.

This brings up an important point. When I talk about a 12 fret guitar, what I'm really talking about is the bridge positioned in the center of the lower bout. I use the term "12 fret" because traditional steel string guitars with the bridge in the center of the lower bout, and a 24 7/8" scale, have the neck meet the body at the 12th fret.

Personally, I like access to more than 12 frets, and this can be accomplished by changing scale length or upper bout design. The important thing is that tone is greatly improved on a small body nylon guitar if the bridge is in the center of the lower bout.

If you could ask Alistair what is the distance from the center of the lower bout to the top of the soundport (where the neck meets the body), I could easily calculate exact scale lengths that would produce 12, 13, or 14 frets to the body. And there's no reason why this meeting point has to fall exactly at a fret either.

I don't know the exact bridge location on JimCA's X7N, but I imagine we'll find out soon.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-12-2017, 07:22 PM
Tom2 Tom2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanB View Post
My past preference for necks has been for thin, but I'm finding that my wrist is starting to hurt more with the thin than with the thick necks--life is a wonderment.
If you think I have been precise on other parameters, neck profile is parameter #1. I've just been patiently waiting for a comment like this.

As a neck becomes thinner, the profile becomes flatter. Even the "C" profile, which is the roundest, becomes quite flat as the profile becomes shallow.

Here comes the precise part. I have actually evaluated the geometry of a compound elliptical neck profile to accommodate variations in the player's left thumb position caused by angular displacement of the player's left arm as a result of the player playing in a reclined position on a couch.

Now that is a true parlor guitar.

Struggling to keep the thumb in position is the source of pain. So imagine a neck profile that provides a curvature capable of receiving the left thumb at it's own natural angle relative to the wrist, regardless of whether the player is sitting in a classical position, standing with a shoulder strap, sitting on a bar stool, or lounging on a couch.

And this profile already exists as a mathematical equation that could be applied to cnc manufacturing. I'm currently using the program "Grapher" to create some gif files that demonstrate the concept.

There is no substitute for the ease of comfort.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Carbon Fiber

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=