|
|
#31
10-13-2011, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Part 6 While the tops are braced exactly the same and only differ in their geometry (5' arch vs. circa 60' dome), the backs differ in bracing and geometry. One is arched 5' and braced with 2 x 1/4" upper braces and 2 x 5/16" lower braces, triangulated and tall, all laminated with cocobolo caps. The other is braced like a Martin, 2 x 1/4" tall upper braces and 2 x 3/4" low lower braces, no cap on either the centre strip or braces. The radius of the back is about 20', with braces 2 & 3 around 15'.  I should say I kept the 5' back a hair thinner. The geometry of the rims is another issue: totally flat for the "pre-war" top and 20' radius for the back, the other guitar gets my usual 5' arch for the top and compound 5' / circa 20' for the back.  I made some bridges yesterday:   It's always useful to have a model (here a '27 0-17 in need of serious restoration), although I routed an intonated saddle slot and chose to drill the pin holes in line with it, instead of the bridge's edge:  Finally a few shots of the guitars under finish:   
__________________
Laurent Brondel "Faiseur d'instruments" Last edited by Laurent Brondel; 10-13-2011 at 03:55 PM. 
|
|
#32
10-13-2011, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
SHOP ENVY.......
__________________
"And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." John 1:16 90' American Strat Customized/W Working Bridge Soon my own acoustic build..... https://www.facebook.com/pages/Blue-...78294772235384 The business my wife and I own. No school like the Old school!
|
|
#33
10-13-2011, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh wow, beautiful finish. Seen from the but wedge before finish I tend to prefer the traditional box look. To me it looks more balanced... sort of a gut feeling thing I guess. Not that you spend a lot of time admireing things from that angle (one would hope).
__________________
Sakazo Nakade Flamenco 1964 Bourgeois D Adi Tasmanian Blackwood 2011 Tom Anderson Strat 1990s Schecter California Classic Strat 1990s
|
|
#34
10-13-2011, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Looking forward to the final results and hopefully some sound clips Laurent.
Did you start out building more "traditional" instruments... if so, how did you come to start using the lateral arch, asymmetrical bridge and capped bracing? And then what has prompted you to go back (I'm not going to use the word "regress")... is it because you hope to get closer to the tone of the vintage 000 you described playing at Schoenbergs?
|
|
#36
10-13-2011, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Two thoughts.
Bracing is a clear departure from standard issue Martin. Not a bad thing at all - but if the inspiration is a vintage box then the results may be very telling. Secondly, have you compensated for the total volume of the box with the different arching schemes. Je comprends que c'est un petit détail, but it may be relevant.... -C
|
|
#37
10-14-2011, 04:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc, I didn't start building a traditional guitar per se as my first was a 26.5" scale 13 fret 000 hybrid of sorts that was my personal guitar for 3 years.
When I was conceiving my first adjustable neck guitar I wanted to give maximum longitudinal strength to the top and back because of the "free-floating" neck torque. Rick Turner suggested I arch the plates, like Stefan Sobell. Voilà! I liked the result so much that it became a feature of my regular builds as well. I'll repeat: this is an experiment and I do not wish to modify my builds! I am interested in hearing the tonal differences and fully expect the flat-top to be inline with the vintage Martin paradigm. Chas, the bracing is not a departure from a pre-war blueprint at all! I listed the changes, and except for the patches in lieu of finger braces you have a 96º x angle, bridgeplate and tonebars that could be found on a '37 000! Many "new vintage" builders do not tuck their braces because the advantage is doubtful, and it's a repairer's nightmare. Yes, I compensated the soundbox's volumes for geometry differences, see below. Again, I am not building a facsimile, but am solely interested in how the plates geometry affect tone. Thus I tried to eliminate variables. Further thoughts about bracing and… what are the differences? Another way I look at bracing, besides supporting the top, is to divide the soundboard into a few small areas. Structurally, the most important are the UTB and how the x-braces meet with the bridge / bridgeplate. The angle of the x has an influence on tone by rendering the top stiffer more or less along and/or across the grain. Besides that, I haven't found the position of the other braces to be crucial, or even determinant in the final outcome as long as they fulfil their structural role. What matters most in my world is how much in tune within themselves, as free plates, the soundboard and back are. And their tonal relationship, still as free plates. I believe this to be the most important aspect in achieving balance and evenness.   The two guitars differ thus: - circa 60' radius vs. 5' lateral arch for the top - 20' radius vs. compound 5'/20' arches for the back - consequently, the shape of the rims - thicker plates vs. circa 5% thinner plates - Martin style back braces vs. capped back braces, all thin and tall - soundhole diameter and position, 3 7/8" at the 22nd fret vs. 4" at the 21st - straight Martin style bridge with 3/32" saddle vs. "bowtie" bridge with 1/8" saddle - paddlehead vs. my regular peghead shape    The "flat-top" is built to Martin's specs concerning body depth, namely 4" at the tail and 3 1/4" at the headblock. The other is 4 1/8" at the tail and 3 5/8" at the headblock, which are my normal dimensions and compensate more or less for the internal volume lost with the arch. An interesting note is that both soundboxes tap and sound exactly the same. The "flat-top" is more flexible in the bridge area, logically. Finish is stripped in preparation for bridge glue-up:   Another bridge is glued: 
__________________
Laurent Brondel "Faiseur d'instruments"
|
|
#38
10-14-2011, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laurent -
Those sunbursts just ain't fair! Kills the competition! These both look beautiful - stellar work. LL
|
|
#40
10-14-2011, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Merci pour les explications Laurent... tres interessant mon vieux. Comme d'habitude, ton travail est superb. Bonne chance a Woodstock. J'espere que tout passera bien (surtout ton petit concert avec LC). Desolee, pas de clavier francais!
|
|
#41
10-15-2011, 04:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Louis, Brad and Marc: thank you for the kind words!
Necks and bridges yesterday, we're now in real time!    
__________________
Laurent Brondel "Faiseur d'instruments"
|
|
#42
10-15-2011, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The guitars look great. I'm interested in hearing your impressions of the tonal differences between the 2.
__________________
woody b politically incorrect since 1964
|
|
#44
10-15-2011, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Strung up today, more tomorrow!
   
__________________
Laurent Brondel "Faiseur d'instruments"
|
|
#45
10-15-2011, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow, those two guitars look amazing! Are you bringing them to woodstock?
|
