Build Philosophies...what and why?

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by theEdwinson

Here's one of my leaps of faith that turned out beyond my hopes: A seven string, semi-baritone multiscale, with a string spread of 1 3/4". It was my first seven string, first multiscale, with a 27 1/4" low B. I really had to step out on this one. A lot of instinct went into it- and it came out well!
It sounded huge, airy, and spacious, with rumbling thunder down low, detailed mids, and prismatic trebles. Definitely one of my best ever.
The bracing idea came from cranking my standard X/Fan pattern a little counterclockwise, and moving some secondary braces; but you can see the idea I was after. Accounting for all the force vectors from string pull on a multiscale seven-string, the bracing distributes the load evenly all over the active area of the top.

Wait a second, how come I'm just finding out about that thing now? Do you still have it?

[iim7V7IM7]

See what happens when the "boss" leaves the shop for a week and you sign your name on the top...

Originally Posted by nacluth

This is a great thread, and I always enjoy hearing how fellow builders think about their process. I was surprised that my name got listed on one of the bracing patterns especially among such illustrious names. While I did glue the braces to the top and carve them, the design is definitely Steve Kinnaird's (and his layout is a variant of previous double-X designs). I'm not saying I'm not using the screenshot as my background picture, but as a neophyte among craftsmen, due credit is deserved.

I would echo that the guitar is a whole system of variables. While using a variety of bracing patterns, our guitars typically sound like ours - a certain timbre. Charles Fox once said to "build to the sound of what a guitar is to you." I think we do that. We like our sound. We tinker with the variables, but if doesn't sound like "ours", we keep working. A fellow luthier once told me that he was still looking for his sound. That would be a scary place for me. I'm always mindful of that sound.

Sorry, that's not the in and outs of construction, but that's how I think of the most basic philosophy. This sound. (hear guitar in your brain). This is how I keep the neophyte status.

[Marcus Wong]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Wait a second, how come I'm just finding out about that thing now? Do you still have it?

Sounds like somebody has itchy fingers.....

[Mark Hatcher]

I see I have already been participating in the conversation and in fact I have written quite a bit about my thinking and processes in the many build threads I have done. I'm trying to find a way to sum up my philosophy and I don't know how. The control of sound character is extremely complex. I think experienced builders tend to develope a general model of how it works to use it as a framework in their thinking about the mind boggling number of elements that effect the end result. Often when builders disagree it's more of a clash of models than end result.

So as to not sound like I'm being evasive here are some of my specific thoughts in building and more specifically about top braces;

The function of the transverse brace is structural then to shape sound. It's the opposite on all the other top braces

I want to be able to point to each brace and say why it is there. Why is it coupled or not coupled, why it weighs what it does, is as tall as it is, profiled as it is, shaped as it is, what it's grain orientation is (and why), the what and whys of what it is made of, it's density, stiffness to weight ration, what other brace it may be matched to in density, weight, etc. and why, and importantly what my specific intent is with each brace without invoking "magic" or "tradition".

I suppose I should mention that all of the sound of a guitar does not come from the top there are a myriad of other influencers some as inconspicuous as the weight of the end block.

Also, since the back of one of my guitars was shown here a couple times I'd like to add that other reasons I often use very lightly built responsive backs is they lower the body resonance making a smaller guitar sound bigger.
Also, having that back moving vastly improve the player's experience (in my opinion and the clients I've asked)

Thanks!

[theEdwinson]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Wait a second, how come I'm just finding out about that thing now? Do you still have it?

Sorry, no, I built this one on commission a few years ago for a gentleman who hails from Calgary, Alberta. Speaking of a leap of faith... He took a chance that I could pull this off, even though I'd never tried anything like this before; and both of us were thrilled with the end result.
If you'd like to look through some photos of this build project, here they are on Photobucket: http://s958.photobucket.com/user/edw...?sort=3&page=1 In retrospect, I wish I'd spent a little more time designing the bridge; but this guitar came out sounding like a seven-string grand piano.

Since then, I've made about a dozen multiscales. I am completely enrolled in the whole concept, and LOVE making them- and playing them. In regards to the subject of this thread, making a multiscale guitar adds a huge number of new variables into the mix of an already extremely crowded mix of design possibilities. But successful attempts will take our favorite instrument into whole new realms of expressive potential.
If you've never played a multiscale, you should go to a big guitar show and seek them out. It's a whole new paradigm to experience- especially if you play in open tunings a lot.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Marcus Wong

Sounds like somebody has itchy fingers.....

Come on, Edwinson 7 strings with fanned frets? Who wouldn't want to try that?

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by theEdwinson

Sorry, no, I built this one on commission a few years ago for a gentleman who hails from Calgary, Alberta. Speaking of a leap of faith... He took a chance that I could pull this off, even though I'd never tried anything like this before; and both of us were thrilled with the end result.
If you'd like to look through some photos of this build project, here they are on Photobucket: http://s958.photobucket.com/user/edw...?sort=3&page=1 In retrospect, I wish I'd spent a little more time designing the bridge; but this guitar came out sounding like a seven-string grand piano.

Since then, I've made about a dozen multiscales. I am completely enrolled in the whole concept, and LOVE making them- and playing them. In regards to the subject of this thread, making a multiscale guitar adds a huge number of new variables into the mix of an already extremely crowded mix of design possibilities. But successful attempts will take our favorite instrument into whole new realms of expressive potential.
If you've never played a multiscale, you should go to a big guitar show and seek them out. It's a whole new paradigm to experience- especially if you play in open tunings a lot.

Thanks for the information and pictures! Multiscale guitars are the only way to go for me. All three of my non-factory guitars have them. I can't imagine having a guitar made that wasn't multiscale. There's no down side IMO and IME. So please don't throw away those multiscale jigs and templates just yet.

[dekutree64]

There certainly is a huge range of possibilities regarding soundboard design. Thin plate/stiff bracing, thick plate/minimal bracing, and the whole range between. My current thinking is that thin plate works best for large guitars, and thick plate for small ones... provided the wood has a good tap tone. Large soundboards are heavy, and thin plate minimizes mass. Small soundboards it's a non-issue, and thick plate allows the wood to color the tone more.

Then there's stiffness distribution. The philosophy I follow is to try and distribute the bridge stress evenly over the whole soundboard. Start stiff in the bridge area, and gradually loosen toward the perimeter so every point on the soundboard flexes equally, rather than having a sharp bubble behind the bridge, or being too stiff to flex much at all.

But then there's the scalloped bracing philosophy, which makes the bridge area flexible, perimeter flexible, and inbetween stiff. Tends to belly behind the bridge, and requires higher total stiffness to survive, but it still works. My theory on why it's so popular for large guitars is that they're naturally bass-focused, so the extra stiffness isn't a bad thing. It helps to get the resonant frequencies up. And making the bridge area loose allows it to move somewhat independently rather than having to drag the entire soundboard along with it, which also favors higher frequencies, and is particularly helpful when the total soundboard mass is high (which is pretty much guaranteed on factory guitars).

Another thing is mass distribution. Is most of the soundboard mass concentrated in the bridge area, or evenly distributed all over? I'm not sure exactly what effect this has.

Yet another major choice in bracing is whether to carve them down to 0 height where they meet eachother, or notch them all together. If the plate is thick, then carving down to zero still leaves you with quite a bit of stiffness at the meeting point. Thin plate style, any point with no brace support is quite flexible. Interconnected bracing also has a sort of synergy effect, where the whole is stiffer than the sum of the parts. Trying to bend one brace transfers the stress to all the others. But one drawback is that it makes some repair work impossible (e.g. if the bridge plate has braces running over it, then you can't remove and replace it if it ever gets too worn). Lattice bracing is an easy and effective way of making highly interconnected bracing.

[ryanwood22]

Cannot believe nobody has mentioned a certain luthier in this thread yet...

...David Anthony Reid

http://www.darluthier.com/photos-of-...Construction_4

His bracing patterns are like structural works of art. I have never had the pleasure of playing one of his guitars but would be fascinated to see what influence this bracing style has on the sound.

[invguy921]

Originally Posted by ryanwood22

Cannot believe nobody has mentioned a certain luthier in this thread yet...

...David Anthony Reid

http://www.darluthier.com/photos-of-...Construction_4

His bracing patterns are like structural works of art. I have never had the pleasure of playing one of his guitars but would be fascinated to see what influence this bracing style has on the sound.

Ok, so here is one of David Anthony Reid's designs taken from his website. David's design obviously has some significant structural similarities and some interesting modifications as well. I'd love to hear others chime in, or even better have David explain why he likes this structure. and what the placement of the holes have to do with what makes it all work. It is quite entertaining to look at, and suggests a great deal of thought about how to accomplish the "tuning of tone".

[printer2]

Originally Posted by invguy921

I'd love to hear others chime in, or even better have David explain why he likes this structure. [/IMG]

Mind if I chime in with a talk from David?

[ocmcook]

are all these various bracing patterns carefully figured out or do they just happen by trial and error?
curious minds want to know.

[theEdwinson]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Thanks for the information and pictures! Multiscale guitars are the only way to go for me. All three of my non-factory guitars have them. I can't imagine having a guitar made that wasn't multiscale. There's no down side IMO and IME. So please don't throw away those multiscale jigs and templates just yet.

Hey, Roger, no way would I toss my multiscale tooling! I could easily see expanding my multiscale practice out to half or more of my total output. I love everything about the idea. I've always favored D- and C-based tunings, and the very best way to have an optimum sound, performance, and hand-feel experience is to do it with a multiscale.
My number 100 guitar is coming up real soon, and that one is going to be a 25"- 25.75" scale. That's my way of endorsing the entire concept!

[theEdwinson]

Originally Posted by ocmcook

are all these various bracing patterns carefully figured out or do they just happen by trial and error?
curious minds want to know.

I don't know about other people; but when I have some new concept or design I'm working on, I will meditate on it as I'm drifting of to sleep, and let my subconscious mind come up with the specifics. It's happened lots of times that way. I'll be waking up in the middle of the night, or in the morning, and suddenly I get a detailed mental picture of what the new design supposed to look like, and how it will accomplish its purpose. I have to be sure to have a notepad and pencil handy, so I can scribble it down before the idea evaporates off the front of my brain.
A lot of other people take a much more scientific approach, and design and build off of a series of already-knowns. In other words, refining an already proven pattern. That brings steady and reliable innovation; but I have always been oriented more towards giving it over to instinct, and letting the subconscious, or Universal Mind, come up with a plan.

[dekutree64]

Originally Posted by ocmcook

are all these various bracing patterns carefully figured out or do they just happen by trial and error?
curious minds want to know.

Usually some combination of logic, intuition, and good old trial and error.

As far as structure is concerned, the trial and error part comes largely from past generations, seeing which instruments survived the longest and then studying how they were built.

Another thing is that some builders will look for top wood that fits their parameters, others will use a variety and see what happens, and others will design a guitar to fit the wood

When laying out the bracing pattern for a guitar, I just use my eyes to judge whether they're all evenly distributed. I generally don't want any large unsupported spans of top wood between braces (squishy spots), or braces too close to eachother making an overly stiff/heavy spot. The exact angles of the braces are mostly intuition based on how the top wood feels and how much long grain versus cross grain stiffness seems right.

But that does bring up another of the philosophy points... is even distribution a good thing, or should you, by trial and error, figure out uneven patterns that happen to produce an interesting tone? According to the photos in this thread, most of us agree that even distribution is good. Steve's multiscale pattern is a great example of how to do it despite the natural asymmetry from the angled bridge.