You're welcome! Thanks to Tom and Daisy, really - I'm merely the messenger!

Tom was asking about end pin dimensions for the electronics / end graft the other day. If I'd spotted his ear stud before, I could've simply said to use that!

Isn't it just!!! Of course, my selection of ovangkol (more on which later) was based on purely on tonal and environmental considerations. Or so I'd like to pretend... I really am a sucker for the pretty stuff.

Hey Tom - good to virtually meet you on here. Or rather, good to meet you virtually on here! Glad you're enjoying the ride. There's much more to come - just struggling to find time to post it all, but the momentum is building!

Have you had any thoughts on the specs on your L?

Model L specs
 

Thoughts? There is not a single day passing where I don't think about it! It is my first custom order so the excitement is growing - living a bit through your experience currently :)

Ergonomically, I'll go as well with the wedge and both bevels. I want to make that big guitar as easy to play as possible. Looking forward to get your feedback once you receive your instrument (expected date?). I thought about fan fret as well as I play mostly in open tunings - is it something you've considered?

Regarding woods, I've been extremely impressed by Tom's #15 model (Swiss, Malaysian Blackwood), which was played by Jonny Mosco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCV0f2d2Wbw) and I'm tempted to go that route.
I'll definitely opt for the Swiss spruce top, but B&S is still up for debate. But likely in the RW family.

Keep these pictures coming, and thanks for these precious information!

Cheers,
Tom

Likewise - there is not a single day passing where I don't think about this build! This is my second commission - the other being my Kostal MDC. And my first baritone commission (having lusted after a custom baritone for over a decade now). So I'm similarly super excited. Particularly as the build is progressing fast now (I'm a behind on pics and posting here - but will try to catch up!).

Sounds like yours'll be a fantastic L and along very similar lines to this one - save for the scale lengths.

This one's going to be multi-scale, given the range of tunings its going to have to handle. More details on that to follow...

Looking awesome! I can't wait to meet this one in the flesh.

Cheers,
David

You're not the only one! Looking forward to catching up again soon David!

I mentioned there'd be a cutaway, right...?

The sides (like the linings) are triple (!) laminated for extra rigidity: ovangkol; sapele; dyed maple. We went with a black dye as this should tie in nicely with the other things we're planning.

As I understand it, the thinking it that you want a lively and responsive top and back. The more rigid the sides, the more efficient the energy transfer from top to back, as less energy is wasted in dissipating from the sides flexing.

Tom talks about his triple laminations (and the baritone makes an appearance) in this 1 min video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Dbm-tJIZs):



... and this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbTNkuWzB8c) ...



On to the pics...

http://i67.tinypic.com/260txea.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/25gdw92.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/osy41t.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/21nld92.jpg

Exciting build...Tom has a wonderful series of videos

Indeed! I think there'll be a few more to come!

I mentioned earlier that I'm a bit of a tree hugger - at (/not!) least in that I sort of wrap myself around my guitar:

http://i67.tinypic.com/14nl8n7.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/29ws2z7.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2ly61jm.jpg

As the L is a Large beast (MD size), I decided to go all in and get a Manzer wedge and an arm and rib bevel to make it as comfortable as possible.

Tom and I discussed this extensively - including the functionality and appearance. I marked out my preferred bevel positions and sizes on my Kostal MD using blue painters' tape and sent photos to Tom to use as a reference. A truly tailored guitar, to fit like a glove. Well, at least, to fit like a very comfortable guitar. ("To fit like a Strat...?")

Here's Tom cutting the poplar (a nice and light wood, so as to minimise its impact on tone and weight) for the rib bevel:

http://i68.tinypic.com/1zf5u76.jpg

Rim assembly complete, with triple laminated sides. Shaping the rib bevel to fit the guitar. Not an easy challenge, due to all the compound curves, what with the Manzer wedge, back radius, etc.

http://i63.tinypic.com/lyvj8.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/33fclza.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/jv4t9h.jpg

Doubtless a "helpful" social media interaction with yours truly … “What Dan…!?!? You DIDN’T want a cutaway or any bevels? And you want a Floyd Rose…! Hmmmmm….” Clients, eh...?

http://i64.tinypic.com/x1nclw.jpg

Back to work...

http://i63.tinypic.com/oa14r5.jpg

And what mighty tidy work too. Here's a shot of the sides and bevel slotted to receive the back bracing. It also shows off the triple sides (ovangkol/sapaele/dyed maple) in all their multicoloured glory!

http://i67.tinypic.com/vdffw2.jpg

Apologies if I've missed this info somewhere, but are there restrictions on the body size when it comes building baritones?
I understand the scale length is different, but does the body size need to be larger to accommodate, or produce the added bass sound? Could a significant enough bass sound be produced from a body of a 000/OM sized body?

I don’t think it has been mentioned in this thread, but I do recall it coming up in another thread in past few months. The person that started that thread was contemplating having a luthier friend rework a damaged standard guitar as a baritone.

As an example of dimensions, my baritone has 16 inch lower bout (not so big!), and a 4.75 inch depth at heel. The sound is very different to a standard guitar, even when playing notes that are easily played on a standard guitar.

Col

Good question!

My understanding is that the size of the body affects the lowest frequency that it can generate. On that basis alone, the logic is that a larger body can support the generation of lower frequencies because of the lower air and body resonance. I think most of this is down to volume, but the size of the primary vibrating plates (back and especially top – and so the top plate fundamental), together with the size of the soundhole (which determines the Helmhotz frequency) are also relevant.

If you think of bowed stringed instruments, a double bass has a larger and deeper body compared to, say, a violin, viola or cello. Part of that is to support the longer scale length, but my guess is that the depth (which is deeper on a double bass than it need be/isn’t relevant to scale length) helps too for the above reasons (i.e. the volume is increased).

Of course, this all has to be balanced against projection, comfort, etc.

There are builders that make smaller bodied – e.g. OM sized (I’ve even seen some smaller ones) - baritones. (FWIW, my Montgomery palour, whilst not a baritone, has fan frets which are 25.59 – 26.77” and copes well with low tunings, despite the tiny body and so high lowest fundamental). Indeed I’ve heard some people suggest this – i.e. a smaller bodied baritone - works better (I forget the reasoning, but I can see it might project better and avoid muddiness). But the general consensus in terms of what builders are making (whatever the justification, and whether valid or not) is that most acoustic baritone guitars are large (e.g. jumbos).

Related to this is an interesting psycho-acoustics point. Whilst the bigger the instrument, the lower the fundamental, even a large bodied guitar like the baritone Tom’s building for me isn’t going to be able to generate a fundamental frequency for the notes I’ll be playing on it (which will be as low as a low A at 55Hz or a low G at 49 Hz). Indeed, you’re heading into the territory of being below what many hifis etc can reproduce (or at least, they’re rolling off quite substantially at this point, unless you’ve a sub, transmission line, a large cabinet or woofer, etc). But if you play, say, an A1 at 55Hz, it has a unique set of harmonics:



Partial no. Frequency (Hz) Note name Octave ¢ dev. from 12TET Microtone

1 55 A 1 0

2 110 A 2 0

3 165 E 3 2

4 220 A 3 0

5 275 C# 4 -14

6 330 E 4 2

7 385 G 4 -31 -1/4

8 440 A 4 0

9 495 B 4 4

10 550 C# 5 -14

11 605 Eb 5 -49 -1/4

12 660 E 5 2

13 715 F 5 41 +1/4

14 770 G 5 -31 -1/4

15 825 Ab 5 -12

16 880 A 5 0



Whist the fundamental of this A1 (55hz) would be missing if played on this baritone (or indeed, any acoustic guitar baritone) in any substantive way, the overtones produced imply a fundamental frequency (despite it not being present in the sound generated by the instrument). So the brain perceives/hears the pitch as being the low A – it fills in the missing fundamental based on the harmonics. So the missing fundamental in acoustic guitars isn't generally perceptible. So body size isn't inherently crucial - but bigger will be bassier (which may or may not suit, depending on taste).

It’s worth noting that the harmonic series of an A2 (110Hz) is different, so you wouldn’t mistake A2 for A1:

Partial no. Frequency (Hz) Note name Octave ¢ dev. from 12TET Microtone

1 110 A 2 0

2 220 A 3 0

3 330 E 4 2

4 440 A 4 0

5 550 C# 5 -14

6 660 E 5 2

7 770 G 5 -31 -1/4

8 880 A 5 0

9 990 B 5 4

10 1100 C# 6 -14

11 1210 Eb 6 -49 -1/4

12 1320 E 6 2

13 1430 F 6 41 +1/4

14 1540 G 6 -31 -1/4

15 1650 Ab 6 -12

16 1760 A 6 0



I think (and I may be wrong – happy to be corrected) that what happens in the acoustic baritone example is that the string does actually generate the lowest fundamental, but the body isn’t capable of supporting it. If that’s correct, a magnetic soundhole pickup (if it has the appropriate frequency response) could take that low note for electronic amplification. So I think it’s theoretically possible to play the baritone amplified with those otherwise acoustically missing fundamentals intact. Or get yourself a Boss OC3 ;)

Been following this thread from the peanut gallery. Major eyewash, nobo, congrats.

You need a baritone Deft!
You could go to Tom, or I'm sure Mike would do you a super meridian as a bari if you asked him (and you'd have the only full set of Baraniks on the planet :))

An interesting (well, I thought it was interesting! YMMV!) post-script to my post above. Having dug around after my post I came across this:

"It is not observed, however, for classical guitars or flat-top steel-string acoustic guitars or for similar instruments where the strings are anchored in the soundboard. For these instruments, the fundamental frequency is missing – the lowest frequency observed is the first harmonic.

It turns out that this is caused by the way the strings excite the soundboard. A guitar string vibrating by itself produces almost no audible sound – one can sit next to someone playing an unplugged electric guitar and not hear it. The sound of a guitar – heard by the ear or measured by a laboratory instrument – almost all comes from the soundboard, the “top” of the guitar, which serves to amplify the vibrations of the strings, matching the acoustic impedance of the instrument to the “free space” of the room in which the guitar is being played.

For a guitar in which the strings are anchored to the soundboard itself – the invariable design for classical guitars, including all of my guitarmasterworks guitars, and the usual design for flat-top steel-string acoustic guitars like the RainSong – the soundboard is excited not directly by the lateral vibration of the strings but by the periodic variations of string tension created by those vibrations. And this variation in string tension occurs at twice the fundamental frequency -- a tension maxima occurs for each of the two lateral excursion maxima per vibration period.

Hence, the fundamental is not excited for classical & steel-string acoustic guitars."

From:
Guitar Acoustics 101
From a talk to the Seattle University Physics Club,
February 22, 2007
Dr. John A. Decker, Jr.
RainSong Graphite Guitars & guitarmasterworks
https://www.guitarmasterworks.com/about-guitar-acoustics-101.html


So the missing fundamental on the low notes on a baritone acoustic guitar would not appear to make any difference, since all (unamplified) notes are missing the fundamental. I don't think that leads to a different conclusion in relation to body size - which would seem to be down to a matter of personal tonal and ergonomic preference.