McPherson, Batson and Tom Bills Guitars: Care to comment?

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by sligots

1. This is not actually a cantilever in engineering terms, because there is no load on the end of the board. But it sounds cool and techie to call it that. Actually, the neck on any guitar is a cantilever, since there is a load on the unsupported end. But I digress.

This is confusing - is it or isn't it a cantilever? From your own web page - "elevated and cantilevered fretboard extension with distinctive treble side partial 20th fret,"


4. I guess by now I should stop being surprised when people read stuff on a guitar company's site that was written by someone who does advertising copy and take it literally.

Does this standard apply to your site? Lots of flowery, marketing hype type lingo there!


Not sure what you are implying with this statement. I recall seeing the Batson site clearly state that they are not the first builders to do some of things that are part of their design approach.
I guess I just read your input as kind of condescending to and dismissive of new and different thoughts and approaches.
Long live the innovators, the dreamers and the envelope-pushers!

And I'm not sure what you are implying with your statement.

I have nothing against innovation. Do you think I said I do? I don't know where that would be. I try myself to be innovative. And I'm quite sure I never said that Batson falsely claimed to be the first to do anything. You're correcting a position that no one has taken.

I also never set out a "standard" for websites, so I'm not sure what you refer to. Is there any language on my website that you think says something not true? Please point out anything that you think is misleading or "marketing hype." Also please point out flowery language. I'm always trying to improve the site and I try not to be flowery or to say anything misleading.

[BTW, I call it a cantilever, because that way it will be understood by the reader, since the language has become commonplace. As I said, technically it isn't. What would suit you for my website, as long as you are critiquing it?]

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

...What would suit you for my website, as long as you are critiquing it?]

More free product samples!!

[archtopGeek]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

IMO, much of what is "innovative" about them seems to be based not on whether those "innovations" actually improve how the guitar performs, but on layman "non-luthier" theory and how much easier they make production.
I still wonder how these "innovations" will affect the warranty return rate...which I understand has been fairly high.

I am new to guitar construction, but not layman certainly. You are right though, these innovations excite me more than a luthier or a traditional guitar lover. Having said so, I really believe that some of the new design concepts/innovations will have longer lasting effects. It's just that the right time has not come. Would like to know more about McPherson warranty return rate, which you say is very high. How come? & they are very, I mean very very costly.

Originally Posted by Jeff M

Bottom line..if it sounds good to you, it is good.
If it's worth the asking price to you..it's worth it.

Originally Posted by drcmusic7

Couldn't agree more. Well put!

@ Danny & Jeff :That's true, But I am trying to assess the general (or individual) consensus here about these innovative designs.

Originally Posted by Jeff M

(Specifically re; the "cantilevered neck"..this is not a McPherson invention. It has been around for awhile. Gallagher guitars, for one, was using it long before McPherson came along.
Doesn't seem to have caught on like hot cakes.)

Apparently, Gallagher(s) (Kevin et. al. I suppose) is/are less into publicity and advertising then McPherson!

Originally Posted by drcmusic7

I think you meant this question for me rather than David. Personally, I don't find it too bright, but that's me. They are very different sounding than a McPherson. What the audience hears vs the player with a McPherson are much closer than the difference of a Batson. Perhaps that's the difference of the sound hole being completely on the side rather than on the on the side of the top? Also, i've found Batsons have more fundamental in the tone than a McPherson.

Originally Posted by David Hilyard

You meant Bills, I think. No, I wouldn't describe the tone of my Bills as "bright". I have tried a large variety of strings on it, and can get "bright" with bright strings, but in general, the Bills is mellow. I've settled on Elixirs and find the sound round and pianistic. I have a Lowden that is bright by comparison.

Well, That was quite a mix up (my apologies, I am quite a bit sleepy, but couldent leave this interesting discussion!), yet, useful for me . Both Batson and Tom Bills not sounding too bright is good, in spite of the sound hole facing the player directly.

Danny you say "Batsons have more fundamental in the tone than a McPherson", I have vaguely found that on some side ported instruments (none of them high end), but is it true for listener as well?

And thanks David for more recordings. I feel like it's all there, I just need to make a wish for it , I don't generally get so lucky.

Originally Posted by sligots

Not to speak for anyone but myself -
I have a Batson - Rosewood/Cedar GC, and a Goodall Rosewood/Spruce CJ. The "tone" of both are similar in that it is deep, lush and complex. In my personal experience the Batson tone is what you make it - style, attack, dynamics. I have a colleague who's playing style is the opposite of mine. I rarely use a pick, he mainly uses one. His right hand attack is very aggressive, mine less so. We have passed both guitars back and forth, and they both sound different depending on who's playing (both to the live ear, and on recorded playback). The difference with the Batson is really based on where you are in relation to it - playing position = darker, warmer and nearly too complex. Out front - great balance and articulation.

That's spot on sligots. Brief and informative. One question though, Do you mean to say that your batson is compatible with playing styles of both you and your buddy with equally good results?

I would also like to ask you guys that, Do you accredit the niceties of your McPherson/batson/tom bills guitars to the innovations being discussed here, or do you feel that these guitars would sound same even without these innovations if they were built by same luthiers viz. McPherson/batson/tom bills.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by archtopGeek

Can I ask what reasons? I guess better access to upper frets, and I have noticed that first hand. Or structural reasons?



Well, in theory it should have a considerable effect, IMHO. Let me explain my point of view. The sound hole only occupies say 7-10% area of the top (so it should not be SO MUCH important), but it is accompanied by heavy structural adjustments (bracing) and the neck joint is just above it. This are precisely two reasons why upper bout is acoustically less active/dead. What other reason can there be for the upper bout to be less active/dead? Batson and Tom Bills remove most of the heaviness and thus CLAIM almost double top area. Of course, there is some marketing hype involved, but I believe, as their designs evolve, the fraction of marketing hype will decrease and actual benefits, if any, will be evident. As we have noticed above, Bobby and David have noticed detectable (to be moderate) benefits.

Thanks for your comments, archtopgeek.

1. Better access to upper frets, more upward pull on the top (which IMO gives stronger fundamentals), and that the effect on sound from the upper bout is >0, which may help by a detectable amount. It also enables me to use some construction methods I like, such as for binding and fretting the fingerboard.

2. There is a considerable body of evidence from laser interferometry about how guitar tops actually vibrate. One of the things we have learned is that the first few top modes, where the overwhelming majority of the sound power comes from, are very similar on every guitar, regardless of bracing. It is not the case that leaving the soundhole area solid enables any great reduction in the bracing required to keep the top from collapsing. But the main top mode (where most of the volume comes from) does require that a guitar to be able to flex well just above the waist. For these reasons I think any gain in output from omitting a central soundhole is going to be minor. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it would have to be by a well designed and neutrally conducted experiment. Subjective reports from owners of the guitars in question, regardless of my respect for those people, just don't count as scientific observation.

[drcmusic7]

Danny you say "Batsons have more fundamental in the tone than a McPherson", I have vaguely found that on some side ported instruments (none of them high end), but is it true for listener as well?

It's more true for the listener than the player. The player on a Batson hear's a more complex tone. Both the player and listener hear wonderful sustain and overtones. Overall, the Batson's have a very contemporary voice. I think they're built for fingerstyle players who like that sound.

Kindly,
Danny

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by archtopGeek

Apparently, Gallagher(s) (Kevin et. al. I suppose)

Not Kevin.
This Gallagher;
http://www.gallagherguitar.com/


Doc Watson probably their most famous customer.

Originally Posted by archtopGeek

is/are less into publicity and advertising then McPherson!

Most definitely.
Don't think too many guitar builders of similar size are.
Matt made his fortune building archery equipment, then went into guitar building with a huge "war chest".

[sligots]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

And I'm not sure what you are implying with your statement.

I have nothing against innovation. Do you think I said I do? I don't know where that would be. I try myself to be innovative. And I'm quite sure I never said that Batson falsely claimed to be the first to do anything. You're correcting a position that no one has taken.

I also never set out a "standard" for websites, so I'm not sure what you refer to. Is there any language on my website that you think says something not true? Please point out anything that you think is misleading or "marketing hype." Also please point out flowery language. I'm always trying to improve the site and I try not to be flowery or to say anything misleading.

[BTW, I call it a cantilever, because that way it will be understood by the reader, since the language has become commonplace. As I said, technically it isn't. What would suit you for my website, as long as you are critiquing it?]

Well, sir, to this reader your first post clearly made what can be read as dismissive and demeaning comments about two of the builders referenced by the OP - even as you state you have never played either of them.
You imply - whether you intended to or not - that these builders use some type of marketing trickery to hawk their designs - yet a casual comparison to your website shows similar types of claims such as "There is a lot that is out of the ordinary about my designs and construction methods." Should a visitor be as skeptical of your claims - or of authorship - as you seem to be of your competitors?
As for your comment about these new guitar builders thinking they are the first to apply science (or what ever the words you used were), well it does read like something and old person would say about the next generation.
Glass houses and such.
I am sure your guitars are lovely. After all - I read it on your web site!
(Just kidding on the last part!)

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by sligots

Well, sir, to this reader your first post clearly made what can be read as dismissive and demeaning comments about two of the builders referenced by the OP - even as you state you have never played either of them.
You imply - whether you intended to or not - that these builders use some type of marketing trickery to hawk their designs - yet a casual comparison to your website shows similar types of claims such as "There is a lot that is out of the ordinary about my designs and construction methods." Should a visitor be as skeptical of your claims - or of authorship - as you seem to be of your competitors?
As for your comment about these new guitar builders thinking they are the first to apply science (or what ever the words you used were), well it does read like something and old person would say about the next generation.
Glass houses and such.
I am sure your guitars are lovely. After all - I read it on your web site!
(Just kidding on the last part!)

Let me get this straight. My post can be read as implying something dismissive even though I was careful to say I hadn't played the guitars in question? And you are offended since you can find this implication, "whether you [me] intended to or not"? And the best shot you have to take at my supposed marketing hype and flowery language is that I say, "There is a lot that is out of the ordinary about my designs and construction methods."? If so, no response is really needed beyond quoting you. But I'll also confirm that I do indeed invite anything I say to be viewed with a healthy skepticism. And I'll add that I regret you introducing generational conflict to the discussion. Oh, while I'm at it, that your favored manufacturers are not my competitors; I compete in the single luthier market.

[Long813]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Thanks for your comments, archtopgeek.

1. Better access to upper frets, more upward pull on the top (which IMO gives stronger fundamentals), and that the effect on sound from the upper bout is >0, which may help by a detectable amount. It also enables me to use some construction methods I like, such as for binding and fretting the fingerboard.

2. There is a considerable body of evidence from laser interferometry about how guitar tops actually vibrate. One of the things we have learned is that the first few top modes, where the overwhelming majority of the sound power comes from, are very similar on every guitar, regardless of bracing. It is not the case that leaving the soundhole area solid enables any great reduction in the bracing required to keep the top from collapsing. But the main top mode (where most of the volume comes from) does require that a guitar to be able to flex well just above the waist. For these reasons I think any gain in output from omitting a central soundhole is going to be minor. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it would have to be by a well designed and neutrally conducted experiment. Subjective reports from owners of the guitars in question, regardless of my respect for those people, just don't count as scientific observation.

I'd love if you could point me into the right direction on finding the studies on this. Studying acoustics and such is quite a passion of mine and seeing it applied to an acoustic is amazing

[sligots]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Let me get this straight. My post can be read as implying something dismissive even though I was careful to say I hadn't played the guitars in question? And you are offended since you can find this implication, "whether you [me] intended to or not"? And the best shot you have to take at my supposed marketing hype and flowery language is that I say, "There is a lot that is out of the ordinary about my designs and construction methods."? If so, no response is really needed beyond quoting you. But I'll also confirm that I do indeed invite anything I say to be viewed with a healthy skepticism. And I'll add that I regret you introducing generational conflict to the discussion. Oh, while I'm at it, that your favored manufacturers are not my competitors; I compete in the single luthier market.

Exactly!! Do you build obtuse shaped instruments? I am not taking "shots" at you website - merely pointing out that you use very similar language and spin to that which is found on the sites of the builders you are denigrating. You consider the Batson brothers "manufacturers"? Generational conflict, eh? You are a funny guy!!!

[Jeff M]

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by Long813

I'd love if you could point me into the right direction on finding the studies on this. Studying acoustics and such is quite a passion of mine and seeing it applied to an acoustic is amazing

Okey dokie. Try here: http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/...mmingbird.html

here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...qh7AHMhLDLMm1A

here: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/gu...ics/modes.html

and here, where you can download Howard Wright's PhD thesis; one of the best and most comnprehensive things done on the subject so far: http://www.hakwright.co.uk/thesis.html

[David Hilyard]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Okey dokie. Try here: http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/...mmingbird.html

here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...qh7AHMhLDLMm1A

here: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/gu...ics/modes.html

and here, where you can download Howard Wright's PhD thesis; one of the best and most comnprehensive things done on the subject so far: http://www.hakwright.co.uk/thesis.html

Howard,

Thanks for these papers. I wondered how interferometry was used to measure the top vibration. You may know that I use interferometry daily in my optics work and couldn't visualize how an interferometer was used to see the top vibrating. Now I see it was with holograms way back in 1969. I'll spend some time with these papers. That paper was written 3 years after I started in optics and 7 years after I started guitar. It's cool to know this research was going in the field I work in on the passion of my life, and I'm amazed I missed it all. Thanks!

David

[Long813]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Okey dokie. Try here: http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/...mmingbird.html

here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...qh7AHMhLDLMm1A

here: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/gu...ics/modes.html

and here, where you can download Howard Wright's PhD thesis; one of the best and most comnprehensive things done on the subject so far: http://www.hakwright.co.uk/thesis.html

Thanks a lot. This will be exciting.

[archtopGeek]

Thank you Danny, David, Bobby, Howard, Sligots, Jeff - for your inputs. Thanks howard for the Sci-Literature. Welcome Long813 to the discussion.

@Sligots

Originally Posted by archtopGeek

Do you mean to say that your batson is compatible with playing styles of both you and your buddy with equally good results?

@Danny, David, Bobby, Sligots

Originally Posted by archtopGeek

I would also like to ask you guys that, Do you accredit the niceties of your McPherson/batson/tom bills guitars to the innovations being discussed here, or do you feel that these guitars would sound same even without these innovations if they were built by same luthiers viz. McPherson/batson/tom bills.

Originally Posted by David Hilyard

I wondered how interferometry was used to measure the top vibration. You may know that I use interferometry daily in my optics work and couldn't visualize how an interferometer was used to see the top vibrating. Now I see it was with holograms way back in 1969.

@David, Howard, Long813 & interested others
You guys may want to take a look at this book "Engineering the Guitar: Theory and Practice" by Richard Mark That may be found at http://xinio.info/?http://ifile.it/o53u9vt/etg.djvu (.djvu format ~5 MB)
or
http://xinio.info/?http://ifile.it/a...0387743685.rar(.pdf format ~27 MB)

There is a rather long section about laser interferometry, and loads of info on every structural aspect of a guitar, with theory, explanations, popular beliefs and conjectures.

Mitesh