The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-20-2010, 09:32 AM
Long813 Long813 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada, Eh?
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archtopGeek View Post
@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://gigapedia.com/redirect?hash=8...79d08490161ec6 (.djvu format ~5 MB)
or
http://gigapedia.com/redirect?hash=d...4d75b0b824f46f
(.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
I'de look into it, but I don't have the access rights.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-20-2010, 09:58 AM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Try this links...

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)

Let me know if they don't work...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-20-2010, 10:30 AM
Paje Paje is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archtopGeek View Post
... so I would like to know how do they compare with traditional (custom or factory made) flattops/archtops, of similar quality.

To elaborate, I would like to know...

1. Does cantilevered neck/fretboard (as in McPherson and Batson) really allow the upper part of sound board to vibrate to a great extent? In principal it does, but does it so in practice?

2. Does absence of soundhole on the soundboard, and related changes in bracing result in 'almost' doubling of sound level (volume) and response? Again, In principal it does, but does it so in practice?

3. The Bridge system in Batson guitars is quite unique in that , it neither pulls (like a flat top) nor push (like an archtop) the soundboard. Does it have significant effects on the tome/volume?

4. Any other point you guys want to make.
I've owned both a McPherson & Batson guitar.

1 ~> Unknown. It would actually require some instrumentation (as previously posted) to quantitatively measure this.

2 ~> "doubling of sound volume"? No. (btw - where has that statement been made/advertised?) "Response" - define that pls? (sounds subjective)

3 ~> Yes. I would guess that this is a major contributing factor.

4 ~> The McPherson & Batson are really so different from one another, I would say it's a bit of a nonstarter to lump them (as well as the other builder) together and attempt to compare them to "traditional" builds.
__________________

'08 Batson Grand Concert | Myrtlewood & Sinker Redwood
'93 Larrivee OM-10 cutaway | IR/Sitka florentine
String Section Portrait
PajeMusicTube (youtube channel - vids in HD)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-20-2010, 10:42 AM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

Here's another good site:

http://www.speech.kth.se/music/acviguit4/
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-20-2010, 11:42 AM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Welcome to the discussion Paje.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
1 ~> Unknown. It would actually require some instrumentation (as previously posted) to quantitatively measure this.
Of course, but we can hardly accomplish measurements, so what we can do is, we can be content with detectable/perceivable changes. Like, if I put my finger on the upper bout soundboard near 20th fret and play low E string, my archtop vibrates very less but my friend's flattop gives considerably high vibrations (relatively). And so on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
2 ~> "doubling of sound volume"? No. (btw - where has that statement been made/advertised?) "Response" - define that pls? (sounds subjective)
I am not sure whether I read/heard it, it was written/said in a suggestive manner or it was an informed guess on my part, but I think that IS logical, No? Any ways, does your NO means no gain in sound what so ever (compared to say a regular flattop with similar build quality) or There is considerably high sound but NOT DOUBLE, say 1.5 times or may be 1.25 times? As about response, I mean "the ability of instrument to respond to the lightest touch".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
3 ~> Yes. I would guess that this is a major contributing factor.
Well, this is one definitive answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
4 ~> The McPherson & Batson are really so different from one another, I would say it's a bit of a nonstarter to lump them (as well as the other builder) together and attempt to compare them to "traditional" builds.
This is not an attempt to compare the above three guitars with each other (thanks to you, I made it explicite in the first post itself), rather these three are mentioned here due to their innovative/non-traditional features. The purpose here is to compare these (and other such guitars with other innovative features) with standard/traditionally built instruments with respect to the results like sound level (volume), Tone (fundamental vs. Overtones, as perceived by player and listener), response, Attack, Sustain and whatever differences one may have observed for these instruments (again, as compared to traditional ones).

Mitesh
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-20-2010, 01:20 PM
Paje Paje is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 152
Default

Welcome to the discussion Paje.

Thanks

Of course, but we can hardly accomplish measurements, so what we can do is, we can be content with detectable/perceivable changes. Like, if I put my finger on the upper bout soundboard near 20th fret and play low E string, my archtop vibrates very less but my friend's flattop gives considerably high vibrations (relatively). And so on...

Accurate measurements can be made. I just don't have the prerequisite equipment. Subjectively I would say there is an increased output/input quotient on my Batson. The same was not observed with my (formerly, now sold) McPherson. So I can not necessarily attribute it to one particular design factor but, if I had to guess, neck cantilevering is a minor part of the equation with the bracing, soundboard (hole or not) and bridge design being much more significant.

I am not sure whether I read/heard it, it was written/said in a suggestive manner or it was an informed guess on my part, but I think that IS logical, No? Any ways, does your NO means no gain in sound what so ever (compared to say a regular flattop with similar build quality) or There is considerably high sound but NOT DOUBLE, say 1.5 times or may be 1.25 times? As about response, I mean "the ability of instrument to respond to the lightest touch".

Ok. There were posts referencing "marketing hype". I wanted confirmation of these claims. It's proper to be clear that no manufacturer is actually making those statements. My observations (subjective) are, again, that it varies. My Batson is the most responsive/sensitive guitar I've ever experienced. I think a 25% gain in sound-transmission efficiency is possible. It responds efficiently to the lightest touch and can get loud as anything when played such. The tone varies nicely with technique and it excels at expression. The McPherson is completely opposite. It's tone was consistent no matter how dynamically it was played. It was also much more subdued, almost compressed sounding.



Well, this is one definitive answer.



This is not an attempt to compare the above three guitars with each other (thanks to you, I made it explicite in the first post itself), rather these three are mentioned here due to their innovative/non-traditional features. The purpose here is to compare these (and other such guitars with other innovative features) with standard/traditionally built instruments with respect to the results like sound level (volume), Tone (fundamental vs. Overtones, as perceived by player and listener), response, Attack, Sustain and whatever differences one may have observed for these instruments (again, as compared to traditional ones).

I understand that you're not trying to compare the three guitars to one another. I am suggesting perhaps you should. The contrasts I've detailed between my McPherson and Batson, for example, make comparing them as a group to traditional guitars a bit of an academic exercise imho. If all these guitars shared all of the same "non-traditional" features the discussion would probably be more fruitful. In my own comparison (McPherson vs Batson) the only shared design feature is the cantilevered neck. The only deduction I can make from that is the contribution of the cantilevered neck can be negated by bracing, soundboard hole and/or bridge placement.

Lastly, there is a science vs art aspect. Not to mention that words are utterly insufficient. I would humbly suggest - go play these models that have piqued your curiosity. You'll get a massive ROI in information.

Cheers,
Paje
__________________

'08 Batson Grand Concert | Myrtlewood & Sinker Redwood
'93 Larrivee OM-10 cutaway | IR/Sitka florentine
String Section Portrait
PajeMusicTube (youtube channel - vids in HD)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-21-2010, 06:33 AM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Few more links...

http://www.guitarmasterworks.com/abo...stics-101.html
http://www.rainsong.com/sound/

Rethinking the braces (?)...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-21-2010, 07:41 AM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
I just don't have the prerequisite equipment.
That's what I was referring to, when I implied we CAN'T. We are not equipped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
There were posts referencing "marketing hype". I wanted confirmation of these claims. It's proper to be clear that no manufacturer is actually making those statements.
Fair enough. I will try to find such claims, If any at all is there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
My Batson is the most responsive/sensitive guitar I've ever experienced. I think a 25% gain in sound-transmission efficiency is possible. It responds efficiently to the lightest touch and can get loud as anything when played such. The tone varies nicely with technique and it excels at expression.
So this is where my question comes, already asked before to others, "Do you accredit the niceties of your batson guitar to the innovations (departure from traditional designs, say soundhole less top) , or do you feel that your batson guitar would sound same even without these innovations if it was built by same luthiers viz. batson brothers in any other design?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
I understand that you're not trying to compare the three guitars to one another. I am suggesting perhaps you should.
That would yield nothing. I mean, I am trying to access net effect of the innovative feature(s) as compared to traditional instruments. In comparing two non-traditional instruments I would end up concluding nothing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
The contrasts I've detailed between my McPherson and Batson, for example, make comparing them as a group to traditional guitars a bit of an academic exercise imho. If all these guitars shared all of the same "non-traditional" features the discussion would probably be more fruitful. In my own comparison (McPherson vs Batson) the only shared design feature is the cantilevered neck.
That's why the comparison is one to one. One from McPherson/Batson/Tom Bills Vs. One traditional - preferably with similar build quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
The only deduction I can make from that is the contribution of the cantilevered neck can be negated by bracing, soundboard hole and/or bridge placement.
My feelings as well. You said it, this is exactly why I can not compare them with each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
Lastly, there is a science vs art aspect. Not to mention that words are utterly insufficient. I would humbly suggest - go play these models that have piqued your curiosity. You'll get a massive ROI in information.
Now this is something I won't be able to do. I don't think there is any store in my country selling any one of this (or for that matter, any high end custom guitar). This is not going to happen in near future. And that's the reason I need to ask it here .
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-21-2010, 10:24 AM
Paje Paje is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, Ore.
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archtopGeek View Post
So this is where my question comes, already asked before to others, "Do you accredit the niceties of your batson guitar to the innovations (departure from traditional designs, say soundhole less top) , or do you feel that your batson guitar would sound same even without these innovations if it was built by same luthiers viz. batson brothers in any other design?"
Though I don't have a traditional build by Batson (I do think they are making them actually), I would have to say yes, the combination of all these unique design aspects is key.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archtopGeek View Post
Now this is something I won't be able to do. I don't think there is any store in my country selling any one of this (or for that matter, any high end custom guitar). This is not going to happen in near future. And that's the reason I need to ask it here .
What country? Too bad you're not in the US so that you could take advantage of the Batson demo.

Best of success in your search!

Cheers,
Paje
__________________

'08 Batson Grand Concert | Myrtlewood & Sinker Redwood
'93 Larrivee OM-10 cutaway | IR/Sitka florentine
String Section Portrait
PajeMusicTube (youtube channel - vids in HD)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-21-2010, 12:54 PM
archtopGeek archtopGeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: India
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
Though I don't have a traditional build by Batson (I do think they are making them actually), I would have to say yes, the combination of all these unique design aspects is key.
See, This is what I am after. I just wanted to know from the users themselves that these innovations work. And you confirm that they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
What country? Too bad you're not in the US so that you could take advantage of the Batson demo
I'm in INDIA. As such, we are not very enthusiastic about acoustic guitars (Of course, there is quite a herd following electric trend). Our classical music is survived by our own traditional instruments like sarod & sitar, so for a singleton weirdo like me, research is the last resort. Never mind, I may be able to visit the US in next couple of years for some conference, or else, I will be modifying some instruments here itself in near future to see for my self! The best acoustic flattop/archtop in my nearest vendor costs 10,000 bucks, which is approx. 250 US$, so you may understand the scarcity of well built instruments here, on the other hand, well-built instruments from custom luthiers are out of reach for most of us financially. I am aware of Batson Demo though, but alas, It's not for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paje View Post
Best of success in your search!
Thanks Paje.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=