Nylon crossover bridge position, 12 fret vs 14 fret

[Tom2]

Originally Posted by new2guitar_eh

... then I can simply order one...

This.

Originally Posted by new2guitar_eh

... so my current guitar will have a nylon twin.

And this.

I have always been attracted to the idea of a nylon/steel matched pair (with a semi-hollow body electric to round out the set). This is what led me to the Rainsong P12, which taught me that a matched pair still needs to have unique necks.

Maybe the guitar gods have selected Evan and me as emissaries to help manifest a nylon/steel twin flame acoustic guitar matched pair.

If Alistair does choose to update the X10, he has an ideal opportunity to create this matched pair. And a 640mm 12 fret steel string X10 would compliment his current X20 similarly to how the Taylor 522 12 fret and 814 compliment each other. They are different enough that people will want one of each. Add in a nylon X10 and a semi-hollow body electric, and people will start ordering Emeralds in sets of 4. Or not.

In any case, a matched pair of 640mm 12 fret nylon/steel acoustic X10's would probably be a very nice thing.

Tom2;

When it comes to matched pairs (steel/nylon) you an others will have to pull the wagon. Nylon has been my objective because that is what I like and that is where I think the biggest challenge is in a contemporary hybrid competing with a good traditional classic guitar.

Given your analysis of the ideal X10 I could see myself ordering yet a 3rd version (sometime in the future). In the meantime, my X10-OSN and RS Parlor serve me well. Speaking of the X10, would your ideal have a center or off-set sound hole?

Also in the meantime, I am hot on the trail of a X7-based nylon electric. I believe that contemporary electric nylon string guitars can be bested and look forward to an early prototype of the future.

[Tom2]

Carrying the nylon half of the torch is plenty. I agree that finding someone who is willing to build a crossover from the ground up, to equal the tone of a good classical guitar, is the primary challenge. The issue is that all of these composite guitar companies are steel string guitar companies. The NP12 is an adaptation of the P12, the X20N is an adaption of the X20. Whatever nylon guitar they produce will have its steel string twin. The question is, is anyone willing to start with the nylon version, focus on achieving the classical tone, and build the steel version later?

Your involvement in the nylon/steel pairing is actually greater than you think. I originally was looking for a nylon/steel pair, which pointed to Taylor. Then I heard an Al Petteway recording of the same song with five guitars. I liked the sound of the Shorty so much, I researched all cf guitars. No one was making nylon/steel pairs, so I took a "what if" approach. If a cf manufacturer was willing to make a nylon version of an existing steel string production model, which existing production model would I choose? After listening to as many youtube videos as I could find, I chose the Rainsong P12. Two weeks later, Rainsong announced the NP12.

The opportunity to try one didn't manifest, so eventually I ordered an NP12A (acoustic only because I don't buy battery operated guitars with barn door electronics) from MacNichol in December, 2014. Two weeks later, Rainsong announced their new marine burst, so I asked if I could update my order to an NP12AM, and Michael said yes. The guitar arrived around Feb 1, but I couldn't relate to the neck. Michael the infinitely accommodating allowed me to return it. Soon after, he announced the end of his guitar retail business, and the world's first Rainsong NP12AM became available at a "going out of business" price. Sound familiar?

You are the leading edge of the cf nylon movement, and you have two guitars. One is a custom order, placed by you, to Emerald. The other is a special order, placed by me, to MacNichol. I placed that order with the specific intention of acquiring a nylon/steel matched pair. A marine burst nylon and a tobacco burst steel would have looked so cool on stage.

So now I'm surfing that leading edge with you. Bringing the tone and feel of nylon into the world of steel is a worthy endeavor. The true potential of a composite crossover will only reveal itself when someone chooses to design a guitar with nylon tone as the primary design goal. To that end, I'm all in.

Tom2;

I think the makers have altered their guitar faces to suit nylon strings. But you are right, they all start out with steel string dreams.

Anyway, I'm pulling my plow and you are pulling yours, and others on this forum are pulling their various plows; this is a well plowed field.

[rwtwguitar]

Originally Posted by Tom2

The question is, is anyone willing to start with the nylon version, focus on achieving the classical tone, and build the steel version later?

Well, I'm not building either a classical guitar turned cf or a dreadnaught cf. I have a nylon string archtop, because cf worked for that application where spruce and cedar did not. I didn't go cf first and then into nylon.

I know I've posted here before, but I don't check this forum often. At the risk of seeming like I'm spamming this forum, here is my nylon archtop that happens to be built using cf in a composite soundboard.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimCA]

Originally Posted by rwtwguitar

Wow! Gorgeous guitar.

The bridge looks mysterious to me -- is it wood?

Jim

It is indeed a beautiful guitar. Are there any sound tracks available?

[rwtwguitar]

Originally Posted by JimCA

Wow! Gorgeous guitar.



The bridge looks mysterious to me -- is it wood?



Jim

Wood. Full contact foot.




Sorry, no pro quality sound. There's a simple webcam recording of my mediocre playing here:

https://youtu.be/0wo3xpoIOoM

I should probably pay the money to have a pro play in a studio, but I only make a few guitars a year. So far displaying them in person at shows has been enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tom2]

Originally Posted by EvanB

Speaking of the X10, would your ideal have a center or off-set sound hole?

I just noticed this.

I've never played or recorded a guitar with an off-set sound hole. Clearly, if some of the energy is being directed upward to the player, less acoustic energy is being projected toward the audience. But a decrease in overall volume doesn't automatically mean a decrease in quality of tone. In fact, I can imagine the possibility of an offset sound hole improving overall tone (think violins and cellos). The only way to know for sure is to make a high quality recording and listen to that.

I can live with lower overall volume if the tone is good. If the other players or the audience is far enough away that projection is an issue, then I'll be using a mic and a sound system, even if it's just a very small sound system.

Tom2;

I believe that you are correct, the extra outlet diminishes the audience projection. Most of my play now is acoustic--with a banjo, a mandolin, and two other guitars. I've found that my parlor does a better job of reaching the acoustic audience, than my Emerald X10-OSN. I still use my Emerald in my acoustic play because I like to mess around on the higher frets.

As you suggest, the tonal qualities are another matter. The tonal qualities of my emerald easily match the tonal qualities of the RS. For acoustic play, I would prefer a center hole. Plugging in is a different ball game.

With an electric guitar, such as I am working on, the sound hole can just about be anywhere. The advantage of the off-set is that volume and tone controls can be installed within easy reach.

[Tom2]

I appreciate the projection requirements of a purely acoustic performance. I haven't played through a sound system in over two years.

So its all interconnected: tone, projection, sound hole location, body size, bridge position, scale length, and string tension. From an engineering perspective, I start seeing each parameter as part of an equation that models the overall output of the system (literally called a parametric equation).

The interesting thing here is that the defining parameter, that all other parameters must serve, is a parameter that has nothing to do with sound. It's neck width.

If neck width was not an issue, we could all be playing classical guitars, because classical guitar makers have already worked out the parametric relationships that produce desirable tone for any scale length. They can do this because they can make the neck as wide as necessary to accommodate any scale length, string height, and string tension. This, in turn , is only possible because of a classical player's willingness to place the left thumb in the center of a neck with a flat profile.

For the rest of us, who have grown accustomed to placing our thumb wherever we want, the entire model falls apart. While this has not been an issue with steel strings, because string tension is so high that other parameters play only a minor part in the overall equation, nylon strings are so loose that the entire equation needs to be rewritten. The process is straight forward, which is literally what degreed engineers are trained to do, but it's not trivial.

So, when Alistair says that moving the bridge to the center of the lower bout on an X20N produces too much bass, what he's really saying is that the parametric equation has not been adjusted to accommodate this new bridge position. Think about how many classical guitars have a 650mm scale and a bridge in the center of the lower bout, and don't have an issue with too much bass. I think this describes more than half of all classical guitars that have ever been made, so it's clearly an accomplishable design goal.

A molded two-dimensional sheet of fiber offers immense control over individual parameters that could never be accomplished by constructing wooden boxes. Eventually, superior tone, ergonomics, and industrial design as pure art will all be accomplished. We're definitely getting there.

Tom2;

I must disagree. I do not see neck width as the "defining property of parameter." My suspicion is that every parameter is defining. There is something holistic here, and you are clearly on the its trail. But I am not sure why you would give one critical part more importance than other critical parts.

[Tom2]

Causality, in a free will Universe, is the answer to the question, "Why?"

Yes, every parameter is related to every other parameter, but that's not what I'm talking about. Remember that I see a crossover as a modified classical guitar, not a modified steel string guitar, so the question becomes, "Why modify a classical guitar?"

If someone gave you a classical guitar that embodied your ideal tone, loudness, and projection, and also gave you a magic wand that allowed you to modify one, and only one, parameter without interfering with the guitar's tone, what would you do?

Would you choose not to modify anything, because there is no reason to change perfection, or would you make an ergonomic modification while preserving all of the tonal qualities? What change would you make, and why?

[Captain Jim]

I would like to borrow that wand to get some of my hair back. What? Oh... off topic again. Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, back to my corner.

As an old rock 'n roller, I am enjoying the nylon string discussion - may have to try one.

Tom2;

Well, right off the get go I want a cut-a-way--more fret reach. And if I had full free will, I'd also want less nut width. I'd also like some radius. And maybe some ergonomic body modification. I like this magic wand stuff.

Also, we've neglected what may be the most important variable--medium. Carbon fiber is a whole new ball game. There are things that are possible with CF that would never have been possible with a classical wooden guitar. We also need to keep an eye on Blackbird--a new, new medium. Our parameters are changing and we are in the process of making the guitar of the future. Got to love it!