View Single Post
  #44  
Old 08-11-2017, 04:08 PM
dekutree64 dekutree64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,263
Default

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! That is actually a fair design choice for guitars using extra light bracing, but it certainly is uncommon.

I wish I knew more about the history of that plan. Was it drawn from a particular guitar, or is it copied from the source material that many guitars were built from? Because if it was made from a particular old guitar, it's possible that the strings were originally higher, and it had warped over time until there was almost no saddle left, and then someone shaved the bridge thinner instead of doing a neck reset like they should have.

According to my grand theory of guitar design, the string height should be proportional to the soundbox size. Low strings for small guitars to reduce torque on the soundboard so you can lighten up the bracing and lower the resonant frequencies. High strings on large guitars because they can do with a bit stiffer bracing to raise the resonant frequencies, and then the soundboard can support more torque to get more brightness that way as well.

So such low height on a dreadnought goes against my philosophy. If I knew it was the original designer's intent and not just an artifact of an inexperienced plan-maker, then I'd say stick to the plan. But since it's unknown, I'll join redir in recommending that you change it to 1/2" string height.

You are doing X bracing, right? That looks like maybe a ladder brace in front of the bridge on the plan, and in that case I would recommend the lower string height, because ladder bracing relies much more on the stiffness of the soundboard itself rather than the braces, and large guitars need the soundboard as thin as possible to keep the mass down, which of course lowers the stiffness along with it.
Reply With Quote