Solid lining: why does it seem so rare?

[mafoofan]

I'm a very amateur player, and I've been lurking around here for the past few weeks trying to get up-to-speed on guitar construction and quality. So, thank you in advance for your patience.

Until recently, I didn't know anything about luthier-made or small shop guitars. In my ignorance, I understood Taylor and Martin to be "the best." So, when I started learning about the custom, "handmade" realm, I naturally began with R. Taylor. As it has been discussed on this forum before, they use a solid lining, not a kerfed one. It seems to me there is some consensus that a solid lining is superior. However, it also seems to me that very few luthiers admired here use one. Am I wrong in that perception, or is there a reason why it is the case?

[SteveS]

I don't agree with you that there is consensus. I would say that many agree, but I have no idea what the percentage is. When building it is easy to compare sides and solid linings do make the sides more stiff, but I don't think anyone knows if it matters for sound because when you add the top and back, those linings get lock in to the top. How much more stiff and better are the linings of the completed system? Does it make a difference in tone? I suspect there are no clear answers, just opinions. So I say buy the guitar that sounds the best to you without respect for the type of linings
Not wanting to speak for anyone, I'll just say what I do without commenting on others. For me it is a none issue because I make my guitars with double sides. These sides are stiff enough for me.

[Brock Poling]

I think you will be quicker to get a consensus out of the legislature than you will out of the luthier community.

However, that said. I believe very strongly in stiff rims and believe the linings are a big contributing factor in that equation. But not everyone agrees. In the hierarchy there are several options:

Solid/Laminated linings - very stiff and heavy
Capped linings - very stiff / not quite as heavy
Reverse kerfed linings - pretty stiff / moderately light
Triangle Kerfed linings (traditional style) - not stiff / light

A4 (Ryan) linings - not stiff / light -- but ultra cool and easy to install. Their advantage is they bend on two axises and install very clean without much fuss.

The solid and capped linings are a PITA to make and install and they are impractical in a production setting, and since these production shops set the standard and expectation many luthiers follow in that tradition (plus triangle and reverse kerfed linings are commercially available)

[Brackett Instruments]

Originally Posted by Brock Poling

I think you will be quicker to get a consensus out of the legislature than you will out of the luthier community. ................................................ .......................

I'm sure some builders believe solid linings make a guitar better. I'm not in that camp, but their building style is probably different than mine. I also suspect that some builders use solid linings (as well as a bunch of other stuff) as a gimmick. A great guitar is a great guitar reguardless of the linings.
As far as Taylor and Martin being the "best", they turn out ALOT of really good guitars. If it weren't for the Taylors, Martins, Yamahas ect there probably wouldn't be any interest in Savilles, Polings, or Bracketts.

[mafoofan]

Originally Posted by SteveS

I don't agree with you that there is consensus. I would say that many agree, but I have no idea what the percentage is.

Oh, I understand there is some disagreement on the issue--that's why I said "some" consensus. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I just mean that there is not an insignificant number of people who agree that a solid lining is better, while most agree that it makes for stiffer sides, and very few point to any downsides. Taken together, it is just surprising to me that they are not more common on high-end luthier-made guitars. If it can only make things better, why not? Cost? Difficulty? Time?

Originally Posted by SteveS

So I say buy the guitar that sounds the best to you without respect for the type of linings.

100% agreed. I wouldn't pick a guitar because it has solid linings. I'm just curious as an intellectual matter.

Originally Posted by SteveS

Not wanting to speak for anyone, I'll just say what I do without commenting on others. For me it is a none issue because I make my guitars with double sides. These sides are stiff enough for me.

What are "double sides"? If you don't mind me asking, that is.

Originally Posted by Brock Poling

A4 (Ryan) linings - not stiff / light -- but ultra cool and easy to install. Their advantage is they bend on two axises and install very clean without much fuss.

I was reading about these. Very cool looking. Ryan seems like a very interesting luthier, but I'm not entirely sure what to think of his mixed emphasis on innovation for the sake of better tone versus easier production. But I suppose that at the end, the only thing that matters is what the guitar sounds and plays like. If easier production methods yield a more consistent product and more time to spend on other innovations, why not?

Originally Posted by Brock Poling

The solid and capped linings are a PITA to make and install and they are impractical in a production setting, and since these production shops set the standard and expectation many luthiers follow in that tradition (plus triangle and reverse kerfed linings are commercially available)

Interesting. This type of reverse influence is typical of other niche hobbies as well. Would a luthier be irritated or offended if a client asked for solid linings?

[gregg]

If I didn't build with double sides and carbon fiber internal struts I would use solid linings, but the way mine are built I don't think solid liners would make much difference, though I have given it some thought and just might do it for comparative sake.

Greg

[Brock Poling]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Oh, I understand there is some disagreement on the issue--that's why I said "some" consensus. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I just mean that there is not an insignificant number of people who agree that a solid lining is better, while most agree that it makes for stiffer sides, and very few point to any downsides. Taken together, it is just surprising to me that they are not more common on high-end luthier-made guitars. If it can only make things better, why not? Cost? Difficulty? Time?



100% agreed. I wouldn't pick a guitar because it has solid linings. I'm just curious as an intellectual matter.



What are "double sides"? If you don't mind me asking, that is.



I was reading about these. Very cool looking. Ryan seems like a very interesting luthier, but I'm not entirely sure what to think of his mixed emphasis on innovation for the sake of better tone versus easier production. But I suppose that at the end, the only thing that matters is what the guitar sounds and plays like. If easier production methods yield a more consistent product and more time to spend on other innovations, why not?



Interesting. This type of reverse influence is typical of other niche hobbies as well. Would a luthier be irritated or offended if a client asked for solid linings?

The guys who claim stiff sides make a difference are not doing so in a vacuum. It isn't JUST the solid linings that are making it sound better. It is a philosophy that solid rims absorb (eat) less vibrational energy from the top and back and the plate retains more energy. So construction methods like double sides and capped / solid linings are critical elements in that building philosophy. As I say, not everyone agrees. There are lots of building philosophies. I won't say they are ALL valid, but certainly there is more than one approach to getting to good sounding guitars. Let your ears be the judge.

BTW, double sides are two very thin preminum tonewood sides (around .04" each) glued together. It makes them VERY stiff and given their small size they end up weighing about the same as a normal (non-laminated) side.

Regarding the factories setting the tone for custom builders. I think this is certainly true for our world. I think it sets the expectations of customers first ("I want an OM") and builders second (every builder understands your expectations when you say you want an OM size guitar). Plus, many of us have learned from someone who is in the geneology of the production shoppes. If Martin sets the expectaton that "triangle linings" are standard and "good enough" it is hard to argue with market expectations. Especially when the builder believes that linings don't make an impact on tone. And, to further fuel this fire, the luthier supply houses have an impact as well. Not every part in a guitar is necessarily made by the luthier. Some are commercially available and in situations where quality is not at stake and machining these parts is slow and time consuming many choose to buy them over making them. So in those situations you buy what is available.

[runamuck]

Show me a guitar with solid linings that is built exactly like one with kerfed linings in every other way and with the same materials. Has anyone ever done this? I haven't so have no basis for an intelligent opinion.

Sure solid linings are stiffer. But is that good?

And besides, since opinions vary as to what constitutes a great sounding guitar,
who is to say that the sound of a solidly lined guitar is better?

So many opinions based on what, exactly? There are so, so many variables.

One thing is certain though: solid linings are alot more work to get right.

Jim McCarthy

[Brent Hutto]

I believe the thought process that leads you to think the quality of a guitar depends on the sum of a bunch of features ("solid linings", "mahogany neck", "nitro finish", etc.) comes from buying into a bunch of factory guitar marketing babble over the years. And just to keep up the one-off builders tend to trumpet the same kinds of buzzwords.

When you play a guy many thousands of dollars to spend several months and hundreds of hours building a guitar why would you judge the details of its construction by how it matches up to what a Martin or Taylor advertisement tells you The Best?

Sometimes there are two or three different methods of construction that can produce The Best Guitars. If Martin chooses one method, Taylor choose another and Brock Poling still another it's not like that Highlander movie where There Can Be Only One.

[Kent Chasson]

I used solid linings for years. When I started using them, I noticed an increase in power and I attribute it to the extras stiffness.

I've since gone to capped, kerfed linings. Like Brock said, they are still stiff but a little lighter weight.

But great guitars can be built using any number of methods. We builders can obsess about the minutia because, let's face it, we're an obsessive bunch! And all the little things add up. But usually, any one of the little things (like the linings) aren't going to make or break a guitar.

Would a luthier be irritated or offended if a client asked for solid linings?

That's a great question but it puts me on a bit of a tangent. I have kind of a pet peeve about all the hype that exists in marketing. Everyone is trying to distinguish themselves and it can lead to people, ummmm, "exaggerating" certain points. I admit to getting a little irritated when people buy into someone else's hype and question my methods because of it. I'm not saying you're buying into hype but as for how builders respond to stuff like that, for me it depends on the context. I had a client recently say no to using a particular top I showed him because of the grain count. Right away, he said "I don't know about sound but I do prefer the look of that other one". That was totally fine with me but if he would have said "I only want a top with 16 lines per inch because those make the best sounding guitars", I'll admit it, I might have gotten a bit irked.

[Brock Poling]

I don't know if I would call it "hype" per se. There certainly is enough of that (the grain count example is a perfect specimen) but again, I think builders have different PHILOSOPHIES about how to get a good sounding guitar, and it isn't this, or that, feature individually that makes all the difference but a lot of "little things" added together.

You really can't isolate one small variable and say IT has the magic effect. It just doesn't work like that.

[Jeff M]

A guitar is more than the sum of it's parts, ie, one builder will use this design and get incredible results.
Another one will use another and get incredible results.
If you go around judging a guitars quality based on what kind of kerfling it has you will be missing the forest for the trees. Actually, the twigs.

[Kent Chasson]

Originally Posted by Brock Poling

I don't know if I would call it "hype" per se. There certainly is enough of that (the grain count example is a perfect specimen) but again, I think builders have different PHILOSOPHIES about how to get a good sounding guitar, and it isn't this, or that, feature individually that makes all the difference but a lot of "little things" added together.

You really can't isolate one small variable and say IT has the magic effect. It just doesn't work like that.

I totally agree. But that's what I mean about hype. Something can have truth and still be hyperbole. If someone is just explaining why they use solid linings, that's philosophy. If someone is saying solid linings make all the difference, that's hype. I was just admitting that, if a client came to me and said they only wanted a guitar if it had solid linings, I would assume they were mislead by someone else's hype.

Not that the original poster ever said that! I was just explaining how I might interpret that request, depending on how it was framed.

[mafoofan]

Wow. Thanks, gentlemen. This has been very informative.

To emphasize: I am all too aware of what it means to be a bad client and not respect the expertise of a luthier. I was just curious if the type of lining was the same kind of feature as the type of top wood, or if it is more part and parcel to a particular luthier's method. I also understand any guitar is about the whole product, and not merely a list of specs.

I happen to be an enthusiast of bespoke tailoring. There are many parallels with luthierie. Clients' expectations are often unduly influenced by the ready-to-wear market, which poses some constraint on what bespoke tailors are able to sell. Moreover, most accomplished tailors have a particular style or way of doing things--so, as a client, you are best off if you choose your tailor for what he does, not to do what you tell him to do. You pick the cloth, the type of lapels, the type of pockets, etc., but you would not ask him to do a soft jacket when his style is to do a more structured jacket, and you would not fuss with how he shapes his sleeves.

So, I'm operating on the assumption that working with a luthier is similar to working with a bespoke tailor. It's the particulars I'm trying to get more clarity on.