Volume reduction from cutaway?

[sinistral]

As others have pointed out, this and related questions (affect on tone, etc.) have come up pretty frequently over the years. Here’s a recent one in which several luthiers contributed (Tim McKnight, Laurent Brondel, Alan Carruth, etc.).

How does a cutaway alter the sound of a guitar?

Most threads devolve into—or go straight to—the typical back and forth about likes and dislikes.

The difficulty answering the question is that there is no way to tell if a particular guitar (say, your Spohn) would be louder if it didn’t have a cutaway. Common sense suggests that a reduction in the airspace of a guitar should have some impact, but what can’t be known is whether the difference would be noticeable to you. You could ask Max to build you an “identical” guitar without a cutaway, but the problem is, it’s impossible to build an identical guitar.

One thing is certain—the best luthiers are capable of building guitars with cutaways that have as much richness of tone and volume as guitars without cutaways. A decent percentage of guitars made by Ervin Somogyi and his apprentices, Kevin Ryan, Michael Bashkin (as mentioned) and the list goes on, have cutaways. If these luthiers thought that the cutaway compromised the sound of their guitars, they wouldn’t make them.

I agree that this is a conversation that is worth having with Max, even after the fact.

[fpuhan]

I would posit that if it were possible to test two identical guitars, with the exception being that one has a cutaway, it would be nigh on impossible to tell the sonic difference. If there were a difference, I suspect normal human hearing would be unable to ascertain the difference. (And if you're over 40 years of age, your hearing is already the worst signal in the sonic chain, anyway).

[sinistral]

One way to test the difference would be to start with a guitar without a cutout, and then have a cutout retrofitted. According to this thread:

Anyone ever retro-fitted a cutaway on a guitar?

several artists have had it done, including Leo Kottke and Pierre Bensouson, and there are assorted videos of people performing lowerupperboutectomies on guitars on the internet. The coolest part of the thread is the retrofit “cutaway” that Paul Woolson did for Scott Stenten, which Paul describes in post #5.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by jpmist

My last google-dive led me to a video of someone showing how a top vibrates and what I drew from that was that the part of the top where the saddle usually lands offers the majority of the top vibration both in frequencies and intensity.

The upper bouts don't seem to add much as they are stranded above the sound hole. Lopping off less than 5% of the top surface area of the tightest least vibration part of the top means to me that the difference between a cutaway and non is pretty small.

What a cool image! It really shows us what is moving and what isn't!

- Glenn

[Deliberate1]

Originally Posted by jpmist

OP here. That is a really cool image, and would seem to support the consensus that a well-executed cutaway does not reduce the sonically active part of the box.

David

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by sinistral

One way to test the difference would be to start with a guitar without a cutout, and then have a cutout retrofitted. According to this thread:

Anyone ever retro-fitted a cutaway on a guitar?

several artists have had it done, including Leo Kottke and Pierre Bensouson, and there are assorted videos of people performing lowerupperboutectomies on guitars on the internet. The coolest part of the thread is the retrofit “cutaway” that Paul Woolson did for Scott Stenten, which Paul describes in post #5.

Actually that may sound reasonable at first blush However if you pull back and look at it objectively/logistically that would also not really be sure fire for a totally accurate A/B comparison (unless you had three things in play)
#1 some kind of highly accurate repeatable strumming/plucking machine (because humans cannot reproduce two of the exact same performances )
#2 very accurate completely flat recording system with ability to do reverse polarity for a null test
#3 a vary flat and dead recording space like and anechoic chamber

Which is also why any test where someone is comparing two different performances is suspect for total accuracy

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Actually that may sound reasonable at first blush However if you pull back and look at it objectively/logistically that would also not really be sure fire for a totally accurate A/B comparison (unless you had three things in play)
#1 some kind of highly accurate repeatable strumming/plucking machine (because humans cannot reproduce two of the exact same performances )
#2 very accurate completely flat recording system with ability to do reverse polarity for a null test
#3 a vary flat and dead recording space like and anechoic chamber

Which is also why any test where someone is comparing two different performances is suspect for total accuracy

Agreed 100%. My only point was that taking the same guitar and modifying it is going to be as close as you’re going to get to hearing the audible effect, if any, of a cutaway vs. a non-cutaway. It’s too late now for the Spohn to be a Guinea pig, but I’m hoping the idea will inspire David on his next custom commission.

[s2y]

I love that picture! I have some guitars with and without cutaways. I touched the non-cutaway part after striking some chords. Yup, not a ton going on up there.

[KevWind]

Myself I like this photo of a cutaway courtesy of the Mark Hatcher 24 thread