Good vs Great Guitar

[mot]

I agree that pleasure and preference are subjective, but that doesn't mean a person's preferences can't be measured. We can all sit around and vote that we prefer that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean we can't scientifically test our "preference" once the technology becomes available to see if the moon has the same properties as gouda.

The nice thing about science is that it doesn't care how you vote.

You may obscure the facts with some silly theory, but once you nail down your preferences there is or soon will be an objective way to measure them and even replicate them on the cheap.

[NEGuy]

Boy, Larry and Alan – great posts.

Great assets to this forum.

If anyone knows the answer to this and cares to respond: Do luthiers generally "tune" the top, or do they simply build according to objective specs and go with that?

Also, Young's modulus: I realize that this is a measure of tensile strength. Would a better top wood generally be one with a high Young's modulus and low density? (Not sure about this at all, but, it does seem that this would be the piece of wood that would be responsive and yet still have plenty of headroom and clarity.)

Thanks to anyone who responds.
.

Originally Posted by NEGuy

If anyone knows the answer to this and cares to respond: Do luthiers generally "tune" the top, or do they simply build according to objective specs and go with that?

Here's a picture of Bill Wise tuning the top of one of my former Charis GCs:

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by NEGuy

Boy, Larry and Alan – great posts.

Great assets to this forum.

If anyone knows the answer to this and cares to respond: Do luthiers generally "tune" the top, or do they simply build according to objective specs and go with that?

Also, Young's modulus: I realize that this is a measure of tensile strength. Would a better top wood generally be one with a high Young's modulus and low density? (Not sure about this at all, but, it does seem that this would be the piece of wood that would be responsive and yet still have plenty of headroom and clarity.)

Thanks to anyone who responds.
.

Yes, luthiers do tune tops. There are quite a few different methods, from objective measurement of material properties to simply tapping and listening, and everything in between.

Young's modulus is not a measure of tensile strength, it's a measure of stiffness. You are right about high modulus and low density being best.

[seannx]

I think the good versus great comparison breaks down when you get into luthier territory. There are now very good quality solid wood guitars coming out of China. Considering the variability in manufactured guitars, for example Martin and Taylor, it's possible that, for example, the best of a batch of Breedlove guitars for a specific model, could sound equal to or better than an average or below average sounding Martin or Taylor.

Personally, I doubt that the fit and finish of the Breedlove would equal that of the Taylor or Martin, but considering the price differential, and that the difference would probably be minor, for some people that could be an acceptable tradeoff. But when you compared that outstanding Breedlove guitar to one built by a skilled luthier, the difference would be obvious.

[ikravchik]

Thanks for all your great replies. I think a lot of you have answered my question about the difference between an all solid wood mass produced guitar and an all solid wood luthier crafted one. The explanations about tuning the top etc. are very helpful.

I continue to be amazed by how much resonance people like James Goodall are capable of extracting from a couple of dry pieces of wood.

[rick-slo]

Within limits I adapt my playing technique (and ears) to the guitar at hand. After that the difference between a "good" versus "great" guitar becomes fuzzier.

[NEGuy]

Originally Posted by Rodger Knox

Young's modulus is not a measure of tensile strength, it's a measure of stiffness.

Ah, Rodger – you should know from the other thread that I remember just enough physics and physical chemistry to be dangerous.

By the way, the book you referenced in the other thread seems quite good (I even posted a couple of links to it in this thread, I think). If not recently retired, I probably would have just ordered it, but, at ~ $250.00 (plus shipping from Australia?), I have been trying to realistically assess whether I would dig into it or not.

It seems that it’s not listed on Amazon (or places where one can read reviews), but if the Tables of Contents for the two volumes are any indication, it would seem to be an important work on guitar design and construction – possibly even the definitive guide.
.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

PPonk wrote:
"The gap is not a chasm. It is crossed by quite a few lucky factory guitars. One of these days, I suspect technology will close the gap a lot further with the ability to measure the density of materials, match up a top with the appropriate braces, and thickness the top and carve the braces to a target flexibility"

I'm told that Taylor has already started doing that to some degree. The word is that they're measuring the density of the tops they get in, and using that as a way to determine the proper thickness. It's a start.

This can more or less work because soft woods all have the same basic structure. As a result they all follow the same rule (as closely as you'd expect natural materials could) relating Young's modulus along the grain to density. If you measure those things on a bunch of guitar top blanks you'll find that about 2/3 of them will fall within 10% plus or minus of the same line on a chart. Given the errors of measurement you can't get rid of, that's pretty good. The neat thing about this is that, since you're working 'to the piece' rather than 'to the species' or cosmetic factors, you're more likely to end up with consistent results.

The other third can be pretty widely scattered, of course. This could get you into trouble. Some tops are much less stiff then their density would indicate, and they would end up too thin, sometimes by a lot. Also, of course, there are those tops that are stiffer than their density would suggest they 'should' be. Those can make superior instruments, since you can work them thinner and lighter. In either case, the lack of a direct Young's modulus measurement is a drawback.

The problem is density is easy and quick to measure, but Young's modulus takes time. Man-hours are the most expensive input in a factory setting, and everything is done to minimize them. That's why you see such great fit and finish on even low-end factory instruments: it's the best way to avoid unnecessary lost time in assembly.

In the end, then, Taylor will still have to do what all guitar factories have done: over build a bit to avoid warranty issues. They may do less of that, and should end up with more consistent instruments if, indeed, they're measuring density as I was told. But their average instrument will still be a bit heavier than it could have been, sacrificing a bit of power and treble for structural reliability.

At any rate, all factories work to averages, and once in a while they get lucky. Since every instrument they make will be somebody's Holy Grail all they have to do is find that person and they have a happy customer. Most hand makers are trying to meet a defined standard in sound; wrapping a box around it. It's a lot like catching smoke in a bottle. I'm not the only maker to produce something that everybody liked EXCEPT the guy who ordered it. Sure, you can sell it to somebody in the end, but for a luthier that's a failure.

Finally, I have to say that we can pretty reliably measure the difference between a 'poor' guitar and a 'good' one. What we don't have is a way to tell a 'very good' one from a 'great' one. Is 'great' just 'more good', or is it something else entirely? Depending on which it is the whole approach you take to get there will be different.

A great guitar to me is the one that responds best to my technique and delivers the closest thing to the sound I hear in my head. I will, of course, adjust technique to get the most out of an instrument that gets close enough, but I've owned what were obviously some really fine instruments that just didn't work for me. I'm very light to pretty aggressive with a heavy pick and the flesh and nails of my middle and ring fingers. I need a guitar that's responsive enough to sound full with a gentle touch, but has plenty of headroom for hard pick attack. I need volume because I sing loud. And I do not want a ton of harmonics. I like a fairly fundamental sound.

I've owned a lot of guitars. It is surprising how few hit all those spots well enough to be really comfortable partners. I'm not sure over-built, at least to the extent that good factory guitars are over-built these days, is a huge problem. Will a lighter guitar be louder? Probably. The very light walnut/cedar Lowden I owned was pretty light for a full jumbo, and very loud, very responsive to a light touch...and very, very wrong for me. In other words, it's all pretty personal.

P

[billgennaro]

And here is yet something else to think about from a completely different angle. As energy producers, acoustic guitars are terribly inefficient. I've heard from a few luthiers that as little as 5% of the string's initial energy is transmitted into sound by the guitar (this figure is probably up for debate, but the point is well taken). If this is so, then the construction of the guitar, in every aspect, becomes incredibly important. If an instrument that can only reproduce 5% of the initial energy pumped into it happens to lose another 1% of efficiency due to over-building or less than perfect coupling of parts, then the overall loss equates to 20% of the instrument's total energy budget. When looked at in this light it is easy to see how important the mastery of the luthier is.

Bill

[jeanray1113]

I don't think there's any doubt that there's a great deal of difference in a $300 factory entry level and a $12000 Olson(can't say I've ever played the latter.) And I'm sure that anyone who has a $12000 Olson, or something comparable, would say there is no comparison between it and my Taylor 814, which is my best and favorite guitar, and may well be the most expensive guitar I will ever have. (Don't hold me to that, though!) And my $300 Seagull doesn't compare to the Taylor, but it is a good travel/camping guitar that still has good tone and is comfortable to play. My Holden GS mini falls somewhere between the two. Certainly well above the Seagull, but not on par with the 814. Still, I love it's voice and it is a joy to play.

Point being, there are thousands of guitars out there, of various price points, that sound good and play well. Granted, some better, even much better, than others. But for those who can't afford $12000 or even $3000 there are still many choices that are sound good and can be set up to play well. Whatever we play, we would all be much better off putting more energy into playing the guitar(s) we have rather than worrying about what we can't afford.

[Earwitness]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Within limits I adapt my playing technique (and ears) to the guitar at hand. After that the difference between a "good" versus "great" guitar becomes fuzzier.

And this is a funny irony about the quality of guitars: the best players are less affected by the quality of the guitar for just this reason. I'm at a level (lower) where the quality of the guitar makes more of a difference to me--both in that a better guitar plays better, sweeter, etc. and also the psychological effect of constantly trying to play at the level of the instrument. If/when I play something just right and it is so incredibly beautiful, I lock that ideal in my mind and go after it over and over again. Anything less, and I know it's my own fault, because the instrument can sound amazing at every fret, string, style or volume. The accomplished players are pulling something beautiful (or at least musically effective) out of whatever they play just about every time, so the guitar becomes more of a tool for them. Kind of that phrase, not playing a guitar but just playing music.

[ocmcook]

Originally Posted by Bowie

I'll say this as respectfully as possible; there are thousands of people who can't hear the difference. But, for those of us who do, there are talented builders making fine guitars. They just don't come cheap.

i generally can hear the difference but not enough to justify the extra cost. like i said earlier in a post i am not good enough to notice those differences in the music i play, simple chords and picking in bluegrass/country style.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Earwitness

And this is a funny irony about the quality of guitars: the best players are less affected by the quality of the guitar for just this reason.

Not quite true, and relates to the point I made upthread: a great player can make any guitar that supports their playing sound great. So a good guitar can easily suffice.

But a great guitar helps you hear and feels things and take risks and explore, because those guitars sound great and give "better" feedback on some level - better defined by your ears, hands, eyes and body.

Figuring out how this works for you can be a very fun thing - it has been for me, and I have ended up with some amazing guitars that have stood the test of time for me. But ultimately, different folks need and value a great vs. good guitar differently - so it goes.

Originally Posted by billgennaro

And here is yet something else to think about from a completely different angle. As energy producers, acoustic guitars are terribly inefficient. I've heard from a few luthiers that as little as 5% of the string's initial energy is transmitted into sound by the guitar (this figure is probably up for debate, but the point is well taken). If this is so, then the construction of the guitar, in every aspect, becomes incredibly important. If an instrument that can only reproduce 5% of the initial energy pumped into it happens to lose another 1% of efficiency due to over-building or less than perfect coupling of parts, then the overall loss equates to 20% of the instrument's total energy budget. When looked at in this light it is easy to see how important the mastery of the luthier is.

This makes a whole lot of sense. The same fresh ingredients taste differently if the dish was cranked out at a chain restaurant vs. prepared by a great cook with love.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by ikravchik

Thanks for all your great replies. I think a lot of you have answered my question about the difference between an all solid wood mass produced guitar and an all solid wood luthier crafted one. The explanations about tuning the top etc. are very helpful.

Hi ik...

Ervin Somogyi - who has built amazing guitars for decades, and helped dozens of high end builders to build even better guitars (he holds periodic live-in intensives) finally published a paper on the differences as he sees them.

Ervin's Article - CliCk

It accumulated and consolidated a lot of information which had been floating about in the guitar building community, and he's delivered this as informal lectures, and discussed it on an individual level with people.

His article opens the door and provides one with the information he/she needs to understand what kind of acoustic guitars exist.

The best guitar I ever played was a Somogyi OM (Brazilian Rosewood/German Spruce 2005 Healdsburg). To that point I'd played a lot of hand built guitars, and that Healdsburg expanded my ability to finally get hands on extended time with guitars built by Kathy Wingert, Gerald Sheppard, Brian Applegate, and several up-n-coming builders as well as some well established (Fox, Maul, Hoffman, Sexauer). My opinion at that point was there were low, middle, high end manufactured guitars, and learning luthiers who turned out better-than-factory guitars, and seasoned luthiers who turned out world class guitars.

I had no idea a guitar could be better than what I'd been exposed to. That little OM changed my mind. What a discovery. I didn't know the price of it till later, and it didn't shock me. The line to play it was 12 people deep when I finally looked up from the time I'd spent with it, so I surrendered it to the next guy. And it made as strong an impression on me as an Olson at Jim's shop had nearly 20 years previously. I have not (nor do I plan to) bought a Somogyi.

I played my first Tim McKnight guitar at Healdsburg 2005, and two years later my wife and I spent 3 days with the McKnights at their home in Ohio. He had in the meantime gone to Ervin's school/intensive, and the difference was night and day. Whatever Ervin triggered in Tim, it took off and his guitars since are some amazing instruments.

My personal 2004 built Bashkin was on display at that Healdsburg and Michael had attended Ervin's school too, and I've since played dozens of Michaels guitars pre-post Ervin, and again the post-Ervin guitars are amazingly better.

Ervin's ideas are not the only ideas which work to build world class guitars. Others are turning out some amazing instruments, but Ervin Somogyi could have continued turning out all the $30,000 instruments he cares to make (there is always a buyer's waiting list).

Instead he has chosen to give back to the luthier community, insuring a supply for the next half decade of quality world class builders who have accelerated what they are doing and are improving on what they know.