Tuning top and bottom of guitar

[jay42]

I just watched a video from ~2017 with Dana Bourgeois tuning an OM top with little planes to shave the braces. I had not understood that this is how guitars are built...so I have some questions.
In the video, he said that he does 8 tops a week. That seems like a major throughput issue. Does this mean that all Bourgeois guitars are tuned by him, or just a limited portion?
Would my '94 Taylor 710 have been tuned like this, or more likely an N C machine program?

[TomB'sox]

Not all braces are carved for a given top especially a factory made guitar. They tend to bring their braces down to a predetermined height and width for each model.

Dana's claim to fame was that even as he got bigger, he still picked out and did the final carving on all the tops. Now that he has another company and has grown bigger, I do not see how it would be possible for him to do this now.

All the custom builders on the AGF will be tuning each top individually themselves until they are happy with them. That is one of the great things about a custom build, each top and back are manipulated through bracing and carving to bring out the best in each piece of wood and to make sure the back and top are working together not against each other.

[Tim McKnight]

I suspect many new builders, first starting out, just copy a standard bracing pattern without any understanding of why certain braces are there in the first place or how to manipulate brace angles, heights, widths, shapes, profiles, scalloping, materials or glue actually influence the final voice of the instrument. I was told by one of my first mentors that until you have ~50 builds under your belt that you will be flying by the seat of your pants and then the light bulb of semi-understanding will actually come on.

I didn’t want my response to sound condescending because we all have to start somewhere. In this craft much of what one learns is by seat of the pants trial and error unless you were fortunate enough to attend formal training, through an apprenticeship or be mentored by a veteran master luthier.

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

I suspect many new builders, first starting out, just copy a standard bracing pattern without any understanding of why certain braces are there in the first place or how to manipulate brace angles, heights, widths, shapes, profiles, scalloping, materials or glue actually influence the final voice of the instrument. I was told by one of my first mentors that until you have ~50 builds under your belt that you will be flying by the seat of your pants and then the light bulb of semi-understanding will actually come on.

I didn’t want my response to sound condescending because we all have to start somewhere. In this craft much of what one learns is by seat of the pants trial and error unless you were fortunate enough to attend formal training, through an apprenticeship or be mentored by a veteran master luthier.

I'd agree with your mentor. There might be another plateau around 100. If you have studied formally or, better, apprenticed, you can lower those numbers, sometimes quite a bit.

It has been fascinating for me to see how sometimes equivalent results can be obtained by very different methods - when in the right hands.

[jay42]

I had the opportunity to ask my only luthier friend and while he was aware of this tapping technique, he never did it and got exceptional results nonetheless. Note, this is academic for me.
One of his mentors, Roy Noble, felt that euphemisming around with a bridge-less and unrestrained top wasn't very meaningful.
Hmm....

[jt1]

I've so much to say here. Because discretion is always the better part of valor, I'll be discrete.

It depends.

I've played guitars that were the builder's 50th or 100th and, well, they weren't good.

I've also played guitars very early in a builder's career that were stellar. A case in point: I currently have in my house Ken Parker's 4th guitar, which he completed in 1977. You will not, ever, find a better guitar.

One of the variables, imvho, is the extent to which a builder has had his/her/their hands inside what most of us consider golden-era acoustic guitars. I'm talking about pre-WWII guitars from Martin, Gibson, and the Larson brothers. It's the rare guitar maker, again invho, who can produce stellar modern guitars without having a deep knowledge of the benchmarks of historically great acoustic guitars.

Yes, there are those rare guitar makers. But there aren't many, once again, imvho.

I'm currently at work on a book about the science and art of the acoustic guitar for Oxford University Press. The Acoustic Guitar: Inside the World’s Most Popular Musical Instrument will reach bookstores sometime late next year. It will contain chapters on history, physics, acoustics, the neurology of hearing, the psychology of hearing, and diagnostic images (X-rays and CT-scans of guitars I deem worthy--sorry, my choice). The book will also contain a chapter of interviews of luthiers who I think have contributed to the art and science of our favorite instrument.

[Treenewt]

John

I cannot wait for that book, sir. Thank you!

[Guitars44me]

Originally Posted by jt1

I've so much to say here. Because discretion is always the better part of valor, I'll be discrete.

It depends.

I've played guitars that were the builder's 50th or 100th and, well, they weren't good.

I've also played guitars very early in a builder's career that were stellar. A case in point: I currently have in my house Ken Parker's 4th guitar, which he completed in 1977. You will not, ever, find a better guitar.

One of the variables, imvho, is the extent to which a builder has had his/her/their hands inside what most of us consider golden-era acoustic guitars. I'm talking about pre-WWII guitars from Martin, Gibson, and the Larson brothers. It's the rare guitar maker, again invho, who can produce stellar modern guitars without having a deep knowledge of the benchmarks of historically great acoustic guitars.

Yes, there are those rare guitar makers. But there aren't many, once again, imvho.

I'm currently at work on a book about the science and art of the acoustic guitar for Oxford University Press. The Acoustic Guitar: Inside the World’s Most Popular Musical Instrument will reach bookstores sometime late next year. It will contain chapters on history, physics, acoustics, the neurology of hearing, the psychology of hearing, and diagnostic images (X-rays and CT-scans of guitars I deem worthy--sorry, my choice). The book will also contain a chapter of interviews of luthiers who I think have contributed to the art and science of our favorite instrument.

This all makes perfect sense to me, and I too am looking forward to your next book! Cindy and I both loved Kalamazoo Gals! What a great story and just in time to catch the last gal on the way out.

Hope you are well John.

Paul

[jt1]

Originally Posted by Treenewt

John

I cannot wait for that book, sir. Thank you!

Thank you! I can't wait for it either! I've just got the luthiers and imaging chapters to complete. I've done the heavy lifting (physics, acoustics, neurology, psychology).

Originally Posted by Guitars44me

This all makes perfect sense to me, and I too am looking forward to your next book! Cindy and I both loved Kalamazoo Gals! What a great story and just in time to catch the last gal on the way out.

Hope you are well John.

Paul

Thank you! It's the little book that changed my life.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by jt1

One of the variables, imvho, is the extent to which a builder has had his/her/their hands inside what most of us consider golden-era acoustic guitars. I'm talking about pre-WWII guitars from Martin, Gibson, and the Larson brothers. It's the rare guitar maker, again invho, who can produce stellar modern guitars without having a deep knowledge of the benchmarks of historically great acoustic guitars.

John Greven instantly comes to mind. He has probably as much or more experience with the repair and setup of historical Pre-WWII era guitars than any contemporary luthier. John spent many years at Gruen's repair shop before he launched his building career. He has also single handily built in excess of 1000 guitars which I doubt may ever be surpassed by any solo builder.

I think it was at the final Healdsburg Guitar Festival that John hosted a discussion panel comparing vintage and modern day copies. Along with John, TJ Thompson, Eric Schoenburg, Paul Asbell and Kevin Ryan made up the panel and it was one of the most interesting and memorable events I ever attended. Eric had several pre-war Martins and Gibsons there, John had a stellar 32' LOO as well as a couple of his reproductions, Kevin had a modern build and Paul played demo's on all of them and then the panel commented on each guitar. TJ gave a brief discussion on how he views "old wood" verses new wood. It was certainly enlightening and entertaining.

[jt1]

Great observations, as always, Tim.

We could add Kim Walker to that list, who followed John as shop foreman at George's shop. To this day, George contends that Kim is the greatest craftsperson he's ever encountered. Ken Parker did repairs to vintage instruments for a long time. John Monteleone, too.

And then TJ ...

I do want to add that, as folks here know better than I, there are other paths to luthier stardom. And those vintage benchmarks are but that: benchmarks. If I want true vintage sound, I'll reach for a vintage guitar.

Thanks to all for their thoughtful contributions.