Cool Concept in Guitar building

[robj144]

Originally Posted by SouthpawJeff

So if your transferring the tension from the bridge to the tailpiece... why not just run the strings right to the tailpiece like on an arch top? What does this design add, besides complexity? I’m sure it’s different, I’m just not understanding it?

Jeff

From the link:

"You may be saying, “Yeah, I’ve seen that on an archtop” or maybe on a very old Gibson. While the Reverse Tension strings going to the tail of the guitar may look familiar, you actually have not ever seen this before. On those other guitars the playing strings extend over the saddle and continue to a tailpiece that holds the strings in place. This is really not a friend of tone. Much of the energy in the vibrating strings is not forced into the top and continues traveling to the tailpiece adding no tonal value to the instrument.

Our playing strings terminate right behind the saddle, just like most other acoustic guitars. You can use any standard guitar strings you prefer. The separate Reverse Tension strings start in front of and continue over the saddle to the tail. Tightening our Reverse Tension tail strings to relieve the pressure of the playing strings frees the top and also applies more down pressure on the saddle. The string energy is forced into the top more efficiently. More string energy and less bracing = Volume, Sustain, Balance and Tone. There are several potential warranty issues solved by the Reverse Tension system as the top of the instrument has been stabilized and cannot pull up nor can the bridge pull off the instrument as has happened to many guitars from the past after years of the 170 to 200 pounds of forward pull from the playing strings."

[Jambi]

Originally Posted by robj144

From the link:

"You may be saying, “Yeah, I’ve seen that on an archtop” or maybe on a very old Gibson. While the Reverse Tension strings going to the tail of the guitar may look familiar, you actually have not ever seen this before. On those other guitars the playing strings extend over the saddle and continue to a tailpiece that holds the strings in place. This is really not a friend of tone. Much of the energy in the vibrating strings is not forced into the top and continues traveling to the tailpiece adding no tonal value to the instrument.

Our playing strings terminate right behind the saddle, just like most other acoustic guitars. You can use any standard guitar strings you prefer. The separate Reverse Tension strings start in front of and continue over the saddle to the tail. Tightening our Reverse Tension tail strings to relieve the pressure of the playing strings frees the top and also applies more down pressure on the saddle. The string energy is forced into the top more efficiently. More string energy and less bracing = Volume, Sustain, Balance and Tone. There are several potential warranty issues solved by the Reverse Tension system as the top of the instrument has been stabilized and cannot pull up nor can the bridge pull off the instrument as has happened to many guitars from the past after years of the 170 to 200 pounds of forward pull from the playing strings."

Don't they vibrate sympathetically?
Can you tune the strings? Like to the key of your song?
Are they 'playable' in any context?
Do you need special strings?
Or do you have to buy two sets of strings each time you change strings?

[printer2]

Won't go anywhere for one good reason, it is ugly with the tuning shafts sticking out the back of the guitar. Would have been better if they could incorporate it into a tailpiece.


I am sure Bob and Andy will pick up on that.

[stormin1155]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Solution for a problem that does not exist.

The problem does exist... it's the 150+ pounds of constant pressure pulling the bridge and neck together that deforms the body and often eventually requires a neck reset.

So what this does is shift the pressure from the bridge to the rear of the body.... still the same pressure, only distributed differently. It may allow for lighter top bracing, but you still have to support that pressure somehow.

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by stormin1155

The problem does exist... it's the 150+ pounds of constant pressure pulling the bridge and neck together that deforms the body and often eventually requires a neck reset.

So what this does is shift the pressure from the bridge to the rear of the body.... still the same pressure, only distributed differently. It may allow for lighter top bracing, but you still have to support that pressure somehow.

And the "reverse tension" bridge would have zero effect on that 150+ pound tension on the neck. The neck would still be pulled forward by that 150+ lbs so I don't see how this would solve the problem of the need for neck resets.

[littlewing1208]

Ditto ^^^

Image reverse tension strings coming from the back of the headstock to the body near the heel. It would be a ridiculously complex (and ugly) monstrosity.

[Shuksan]

I was curious and looked up patents related to this idea. A patent was granted in July last year (#9,704,457) for the reverse tension bridge idea that was in the original post, but it was as a retro fit to an existing guitar.


Separately, a patent was also granted to the same inventor in 2014 for this creative arrangement:

[IMG][/IMG]

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

And the "reverse tension" bridge would have zero effect on that 150+ pound tension on the neck. The neck would still be pulled forward by that 150+ lbs so I don't see how this would solve the problem of the need for neck resets.

It seems to work like the tent ropes piling up and keeping up a tent. The back strings counter the pull of the conventional strings on the bridge and thus keep the bridge from torquing forward.

The info given by the inventor on how it improves the conventional bridge seems to limit the scope of improvements to the bridge and he doesn't seem to claim that it will address the issues of the neck block.

I wonder if a carbon fiber rod from the neck block to the tail block will help address this Inn the same way as the Maurer guitars with their similar steel rods, as was done by a dehradun guitar features on agf a couple of years ago.

[stormin1155]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

And the "reverse tension" bridge would have zero effect on that 150+ pound tension on the neck. The neck would still be pulled forward by that 150+ lbs so I don't see how this would solve the problem of the need for neck resets.

Back in the '60s Fender put a steel bar that ran from the neck block to the tail block on their Kingman acoustics. I think it caused more problems than it solved, which could be the reason you don't see many around anymore. ...that, and they sounded like a tub full of water. ...but Elvis liked them.

Anyway, my point is that there have been attempts at solving this problem for a long time, but so far we really haven't been very successful at overcoming basic laws of physics.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by stormin1155

The problem does exist... it's the 150+ pounds of constant pressure pulling the bridge and neck together that deforms the body and often eventually requires a neck reset.

So what this does is shift the pressure from the bridge to the rear of the body.... still the same pressure, only distributed differently. It may allow for lighter top bracing, but you still have to support that pressure somehow.

Archtops need neck resets also. This should do it.

[bostosh]

Todd Yates wrote:
"Flattop guitars depends on tension near the center top, anchored at the bridge." disagree. From all I've been able to find out static torque on the bridge is nothing but trouble structurally. The 'tension change' signal does affect the timbre of the guitar, but doesn't produce significant power.

Interesting thoughts appreciate your expertise.
thanks. i am researching this soundboard problem.

Quick story,
I don't make acoustic guitars and was handed a zillion $$ rare 100yr old martin.
The top soundboard was wavy the new guitars are wavy, steel strings......

So i have a soundboard from billet aluminum that doesn't have waves yet has a 1/16 rise side to side across the lower bout from the tension of the strings. it is 1mm thick in areas and 2mm around the perimeter. braces are in the dread pattern .10mmhigh and 1.5mm thick, etc.perfect top contour.
it's not wood, but at the player level they don't know it is aluminum,
Note, this is not the any of the prior patented soundboard designs that are searchable.

I think i may have solved this problem. but it is heresy to do it this way

[robj144]

Originally Posted by bostosh

Todd Yates wrote:
"Flattop guitars depends on tension near the center top, anchored at the bridge." disagree. From all I've been able to find out static torque on the bridge is nothing but trouble structurally. The 'tension change' signal does affect the timbre of the guitar, but doesn't produce significant power.

Interesting thoughts appreciate your expertise.
thanks. i am researching this soundboard problem.

Quick story,
I don't make acoustic guitars and was handed a zillion $$ rare 100yr old martin.
The top soundboard was wavy the new guitars are wavy, steel strings......

So i have a soundboard from billet aluminum that doesn't have waves yet has a 1/16 rise side to side across the lower bout from the tension of the strings. it is 1mm thick in areas and 2mm around the perimeter. braces are in the dread pattern .10mmhigh and 1.5mm thick, etc.perfect top contour.
it's not wood, but at the player level they don't know it is aluminum,
Note, this is not the any of the prior patented soundboard designs that are searchable.

I think i may have solved this problem. but it is heresy to do it this way

I got lost when you said the soundboard is "wavy". What does that mean?

[bostosh]

Wavy means to me "out of true contour" as this scan of a 200yr old cello shows.
I see the light reflections across the soundboards on all the guitars on the wall
First pict is the raw point data Thick white curve is true, second pict is the whole scan mathematically smoothed,

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zy...ojwkSj9XUS5fg9

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-6...giQRd3dXdv9j5W

[Montesdad]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any details about the reverse tension strings and how they are set up.

What are those strings?
What gauge are they?
Where would you get a set?
Are they ball end and have to be installed from inside the guitar?
How are they tensioned?
How do you know when they are at proper tension?
Does the desired tension depend on the gauge of the real strings?

It also seems that this arrangement would eliminate one of the bridge motions of a typical flat top that contributes somewhat to the overall sound of the guitar.

Unless that system does something dramatically good for the tone of the guitar compared to conventional guitars, it seems like gratuitous complexity.

All good questions - also, wonder if there would be a way to accomplish zero'ing out the tension with just say two strings on either side of the bridge that are top adjustable and not all six as built.
Just curious

[Kitkatjoe]

Originally Posted by Athens

If I'm reading the article correctly, what it does is transfers the tension from the bridge area to the tailpiece, reducing the bracing that's needed to support the top and allowing it to vibrate more freely.

Kinda like what the JLD Truss system does without cluttering up the top of your guitar? ( sorry, couldn't resist )

Anything that allows the top to move more freely is obviously a good thing. I just question if there's a cleaner way of doing it.

Also, Babicz guitars have used a similar approach that has the strings fanned out to take the tension out to the edges of the soundboard.

My concern with either approach is that you get those lengths of strings vibrating at harmonics that you don't want.

Cool proof of concept though, I'll give him that.

Jld Truss system is on one of my guitars. It seems to do what this person is doing also.