Manufactured guitars vs. handbuilt

[rforman15]

yes, I agree, some cheap guitars do have immense appeal. I think electric guitars especially, sometimes with electric guitars it's the cheaper the better, the Dan Electros and guitars like that, but acoustics can be that way too. sometimes, not always.

everything has it's tone and I've played some cool Stellas and Harmony guitars and guitars of that calibre. I had an old ladder braced "Radio Tone," (name pon headstock) I don't even know who made it, but it sounded great.

[rforman15]

Also, I do believe that a single builder can afford time and focus to a single instrument that you don't get from a factory such as Martin, so there are advantages to that approach too. and the results show for it. it works both ways which is why you see great Martins and great luthier guitars too.

[Matt Mustapick]

Originally Posted by bitsmith

I've often wondered about this. What specific changes do luthiers make to adapt their construction of a guitar to the idiosyncrasies of the specific pieces of wood used to build that guitar? I can imagine that they might, for example, change bracing patterns, or change the size and/or tapering of braces, or vary the thickness of the top. Is someone sufficiently familiar with this to be able to list the specific types of adjustments that are typically made? That is, what aspects of the wood do luthiers take into account (e.g., density, stiffness, grain, etc.), and how do they change their construction technique based on their observation of these characteristics?

Another point I've wondered about is whether luthiers are generally in agreement concerning how to make such adjustments, or whether their approaches are highly individual. It's certainly clear from numerous threads that AGF members have a wide range of opinions concerning what factors most affect the sound of an acoustic guitar, and I'm curious whether luthiers' opinions are similarly diverse.

Bryan

I'm a little shy about engaging in the argument about manufactured vs. handmade, except to suggest that there's a lot more gray area there than people might think. Factory workers are not always non-thinking automotons, far from it.

Anyway, in my opinion there's one variable that far and away outweighs all the rest in the sense that a relatively small change can make a very big difference and that's the thickness of the top and how it affects the flexility of the top. The flexibility of the top varies with the square of it's thickness, and that variation is distributed over about 300 square inches of soundboard, where it matters most. So I pay close attention to how flexible the top is as I'm thinning it. Once I get down to about .115" of thickness as it's going through my drum sander I flex the wood often as I'm getting near my desired amount of flexility. For me, this generally happens somewhere between .095" and .110". So, that's one area where sensitive human intervention can have a positive impact over a factory filled with uneducated labor. But, there are factories where the workers have a great deal of expertise regarding these kinds of considerations. After all, they build guitars all day, professionally! And there are also factories where nobody cares.

Of course there are of other examples. After assembly but before binding I thin the perimeter of the top around the lower bout with a palm sander as I listen to the guitar and feel it. Again, measures like this are taken in high quality factories as well.

I suppose that individual luthiers are able to be more flexible, reactionary, and improvisational in their approach as each guitar is coming together. I often tweak bracing patterns based on my intuition of how a guitar is coming together. Some factories do this and some don't. Some individual builders do and some don't.

In the end of course, the process is not what matters, unless you want to consider very esoteric notions of what's beautiful. What really matters is the result. There are two kinds of guitars...good ones, and the other ones.

Regarding your last question...I think there are a huge range of approaches to handling all the variables so that some builders would have difficulty even comparing their techniques in useful ways. For instance, I know of one great builder who thins the perimeter of his tops before assembly by feeding it through the sander on a radiused dish. For two builders who do most things the same but a few things differently, I think there's probably a great deal of really interesting conversation and note sharing that can happen. For builders who's approaches are very different it would be more difficult, even if the end result of their guitars may happen to be very similar.

[Ruble]

You can get great guitars from factories or from individuals.

I am waiting (patiently) on a guitar that I ordered from a small factory. I am sure it will be outstanding. The big difference I see from ordering from a company vs. an individual luthier is that the company is focused on building a guitar that gives "their sound" and the individual luthier is more tuned in to building exactly what I am looking for...but people go to these small factories because they like "their sound."

I hope to have my new guitar by next weekend. I am sure it will be outstanding.

Chris

[bitsmith]

Matt,

Thanks for the detailed reply. It sounds like the process you follow draws a lot on intuition you've developed through hard-earned experience, such as knowing when the amount of flexibility in the top "feels right", or when thinning of the top perimeter produces the desired sound, or how you might tweak the bracing pattern for a given top. This is a very interesting subject to me, both because I so love the sound of the acoustic guitar, and because the engineer in me is drawn to quantify and explain how the construction of an acoustic guitar determines its sound.

Would you say, based on your own experience and the experience of other luthiers whose work you know, that the added value in well-built handmade guitars generally derives more from application of intuition than from application of quantitatively determined alterations? It certainly makes sense to me that intuition about how to achieve a certain desired tonal result could be developed more fully by someone who builds whole guitars from start to finish one at a time, and can observe how the individual variations in the approach affect the final result. A factory technician whose job is to perform one particular step of the construction process (say, bracing the top) in high volume is certainly at a disadvantage when it comes to developing an intuition about how the combination of the various aspects of construction affect the final result.

Bryan

[Plaid Coyote]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Here is a good article written by Ervin Somogyi.

"Some Thoughts on the Differences Between Handmade and Factory Made Guitars"

What does he know?

[Matt Mustapick]

Bryan, I think your point about the factory tech who does a repetitive task versus someone who follows a guitar to completion must be true. There are many builders who have developed methods involving many quantifiable values and measurements. To date, the acoustic guitar seems to have defied those who would model it mathematically. It's a ridiculously complex system, perhaps more like a weather system than a suspension bridge. My hat's are off to those who are working in that direction, but I haven't seen any modeling attempts that seem nearly sophisticated enough to be getting near anything essential. There are builders who don't get too carried away with numbers but can achieve consistent results with a consistent process along with intuitive alterations, builders who take copious notes and try to correlate them with results but don't feel like their modeling anything comprehensively, and builders who feel that they're on the verge of various truths in the way of modeling. It hasn't seemed to me that any of these various kinds of builders is categorically outperforming the others.

[Fngrstyl]

I have had 4 Hand Made Guitars, and a lot of Factory guitars ( mostly mid to higher end ), and I would love to be able to have a guitar made to my specs, but I'm also a little worried, "What if I don't like it"?...... If money were no object, that wouldn't matter so much I suppose. Personally, one of the best sounding guitars I have owned is my Laurence Juber Model.. Mine is the East Indian model. There is something special about these Factory made Laurence Juber models Martins... I'd love to have the Madagascar model...

[bitsmith]

Originally Posted by Matt Mustapick

There are builders who don't get too carried away with numbers but can achieve consistent results with a consistent process along with intuitive alterations, builders who take copious notes and try to correlate them with results but don't feel like their modeling anything comprehensively, and builders who feel that they're on the verge of various truths in the way of modeling. It hasn't seemed to me that any of these various kinds of builders is categorically outperforming the others.

Thanks for that summary -- that's precisely the sort of characterization I was trying to grope toward. Do you know of any forums where luthiers are discussing their attempts to quantify or model their construction approaches? I'd find that fascinating reading, if it exists somewhere :-).

Thanks,
Bryan

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by bitsmith

Thanks for that summary -- that's precisely the sort of characterization I was trying to grope toward. Do you know of any forums where luthiers are discussing their attempts to quantify or model their construction approaches? I'd find that fascinating reading, if it exists somewhere :-).

Thanks,
Bryan

AG Magazine Forum has a "luthiers corner" section where builders discuss topics.

[Simon Fay]

I believe the primary reason why many artisan-made guitars sound better (louder, more responsive, more vibrant) is that they are built much lighter. In general, factory guitars are WAY overbuilt. If these manufacturers were willing to build lighter, there guitars would immediately sound much better.

However, most players are not aware of how to properly care for an instrument. And it would be a foolish design move to not overbrace their instruments or they would be swamped in repairs and their reputations for quality would take a dive.

That said, there is way more to tone that just building lightly. Building lightly will certainly give you a guitar that is much more alive and vibrant - but will the sound be balanced, have good note separation, have sweet trebles, etc...

[bitsmith]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

AG Magazine Forum has a "luthiers corner" section where builders discuss topics.

Thanks for the pointer. I've looked at some forums, such as the OLF (Official Luther's Forum) in the past, and may have even looked at the AG luthier's corner at some point, but I don't remember seeing discussions of attempts to mathematically model the acoustic guitar. The forums I've looked at seem focused, understandably, on more practical aspects of guitar building.

The Holy Grail, I guess, would be for a luthier to be able to have a customer specify a "sound profile" (something that captures frequency response, sustain, etc., of the desired sound) along with choice of woods, body style, appointments, etc., and then construct a guitar that matches that profile closely enough to satisfy the customer. The problem isn't well-enough formed in my mind for me to even be able to say what would be included in the sound profile, but one possibility would be for the "profile" to simply be a high quality recording of a guitar that sounds the way you'd like yours to sound.

The Holy Grail would be a program to which you would supply the following:

• a sound profile (possibly one or more recordings of your "ideal sound")
• the customer-requested characteristics (body shape, wood types, scale length, etc.)
• measured characteristics of the specific pieces of wood being used (say, stiffness, density, etc.)

The output of this program would be detailed plans for building the guitar with the specific wood that's available. It could well be that at various points in construction you'd do acoustic tests with parts of the guitar (say, thumping the top with a "precision thumper" that applies a well-controlled force, and recording the sound) and input this to the program, which would then refine the plans.

The notion that such a thing could be possible is probably hopelessly naive -- I have *no* experience whatsoever with guitar building. Matt, who clearly knows what he's talking about, is clearly skeptical. Nevertheless, I've always been the kind of person who needs to understand why something is impossible before I can fully believe the chorus of voices telling me that's the case :-). On rare occasions, things that everyone "knows" are impossible turn out not to be.

Bryan

[stoney]

I dont know anything about building guitars, but I do know something about materials. Perhaps the inconsistency of organic materials makes modeling impractical for wooden instruments. However, modeling should be expected in the production of instruments made of engineered materials. This, of course, always leads to the emotional discussions of wood versus anything else, but if predictability and consistency is a goal then engineered materials make a great deal of sense.

Check our luisandclark.com for info on some really remarkable non-traditional instruments. (I have no connection to Luis and Clark or any other instrument manufacturer.)


Stoney

[woodruff]

Originally Posted by 12 string

Woody! Good to see you again! How's the wrist, how's the playing? Is the Guild gone now?

David

hey david! yes, the guild is gone in trade for a gibson hummingbird. my wrist is fine with a 6 string, but the 12, though bearable, i realized i'd be playing against myself over the long haul. so i had to let her go. but man, i swear this H-bird was made for me. total blessing. and i appreicate your asking david!

i will most likely always have issues with the left wrist, but the surgery did at least reduce the issues to a functional level. i wont play barr chords again, or at least not anytime soon, but i always felt they were overrated anyway....

[12 string]

Originally Posted by woodruff

hey david! yes, the guild is gone in trade for a gibson hummingbird. my wrist is fine with a 6 string, but the 12, though bearable, i realized i'd be playing against myself over the long haul. so i had to let her go. but man, i swear this H-bird was made for me. total blessing. and i appreicate your asking david!

i will most likely always have issues with the left wrist, but the surgery did at least reduce the issues to a functional level. i wont play barr chords again, or at least not anytime soon, but i always felt they were overrated anyway....

Well, I'm glad to hear that your're keeping on keeping on, but it sure makes me feel sad that you had to give up the 12er. Maybe a super-slick shorter scale handbuilt 12er could be in your future...

' Strang