Please define "overbuilt" and "underbuilt"

[justjes]

Like Howard said, I don't think I've really heard those terms used in a non-negative context. For example, I think I've heard Gallaghers described as being, generally, overbuilt. But, I've heard a few really nice sounding Gallaghers.

On the other hand, I think I've heard lightly built/constructed and heavily built/constructed used to describe whether or not you can reasonably put medium or heavier strings on a guitar. In those cases, I didn't get a feeling of negativity or judgement, so much as a statement of conditions.

As usual, I'm not sure I've added anything

[wthurman]

A guitar built heavily but is responsive/plays well is not overbuilt. It is built correctly. A guitar built lightly that doesn't lack structural integrity and is responsive/plays well is not underbuilt.

Overbuilt refers to guitars whose sound and/or response suffer from being built too heavily.

Underbuilt refers to guitars whose sound, response and/or structural integrity suffer from being built too lightly.

It's that simple. Or, another way of putting it for both cases: poorly designed and/or executed.

[surfoxy]

Originally Posted by wthurman

A guitar built heavily but is responsive/plays well is not overbuilt. It is built correctly. A guitar built lightly that doesn't lack structural integrity and is responsive/plays well is not underbuilt.

Overbuilt refers to guitars whose sound and/or response suffer from being built too heavily.

Underbuilt refers to guitars whose sound, response and/or structural integrity suffer from being built too lightly.

It's that simple. Or, another way of putting it for both cases: poorly designed and/or executed.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[crikey]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

I never heard either of these terms used in a way that was not a negative criticism.

Since these kinds of opinions or statements are so subjective, I view it as negative only for that person and his/her playing style/technique. I don't view them as insults because my mileage of course, may (and often times does) vary.

[Tim McKnight]

Neither phrase seems to shed much positive light on how a stringed musical instrument functions or performs for an individual player. If we are honest, I think most of us share a desire for a guitar that responds to [our own] individual playing style and string attack. We want the top to deflect its maximum amount under our comfort level of input and to do so the top must be supple enough to respond. If the top is heavily braced and our input is extremely light then the top is not going to respond or deflect to it fullest potential. If the top is very lightly braced and you attack the strings VERY aggressively then the top will deflect so much that the tone will break up and distort.

When shopping for a guitar it becomes really important to play several guitars to determine which one responds the most efficiently for your style of play and to find one that pleases your ear. One of the benefits of ordering a custom guitar from a builder is they should have a full understanding of the different modes that the top oscillates ... and ... how to manipulate each of these modes to bring out its maximum voice potential for you.

Here is a test:
Each of you can get a general idea of how supple (or not) your top is braced. Hold the guitar in its natural playing position. Take which ever hand you normally strum the strings with and push inward (towards your stomach) and watch how much the bridge moves inward (or not). It will take very little pressure to move the bridge inward on a guitar that is lightly braced. Some guitars are so stiff that it is nearly impossible to deflect the bridge even with a lot of effort. These stiffly braced guitars often have a bright or even a thin sound. Lightly braced tops are usually much louder and often have more bass response.

Its fun to walk into a guitar center and try this test on several guitars. You will get some strange looks from the sale staff too After you have found a couple that are very stiff and a couple that are less stiff, play them and make some mental comparisons of what you hear verses what you saw by deflecting the bridge (or not).

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by crikey

Since these kinds of opinions or statements are so subjective, I view it as negative only for that person and his/her playing style/technique. I don't view them as insults because my mileage of course, may (and often times does) vary.

This leads to the conclusion that no guitar objectively sounds better or is a better instrument than any other guitar. I don't accept that. I think there is a community of educated players, builders, listeners, etc. whose consensus establishes objective standards. If you listen to what people say when they praise or criticize guitars, they are not usually intending to only express their subjective assessment. What I hear people say about guitars (e.g., "Somogyis sound great;" "Estebans suck") seems to me to pretty clearly make reference to objective standards. I agree that these can be relativized to different styles of play, but I think not to individual subjectivity.

Of course, it is not necessary to consider a negative critique to be an insult.

[1cubilindo]

I don't accept that. I think there is a community of educated players, builders, listeners, etc. whose consensus establishes objective standards.

I know what you are trying to say, but I have yet to really see a consensus of true objective values on this or any other forum....seems like we would have to establish a benchmark for sound and tone, unless we are considering guitars on the extreme fringes.

[Buck62]

Here's an example on an overbuilt guitar....

[Buck62]

A big guitar needs a BIG pick!!

[66strummer]

Originally Posted by Buck62

Here's an example on an overbuilt guitar....

Bet it takes weeks to dehumidify that 1 and keeping it in tune is murder

.

Originally Posted by Buck62

A big guitar needs a BIG pick!!

And fingerpicking......forget it!

[crikey]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

This leads to the conclusion that no guitar objectively sounds better or is a better instrument than any other guitar. I don't accept that. I think there is a community of educated players, builders, listeners, etc. whose consensus establishes objective standards.

What I said most certainly does not lead to any conclusions other than for myself, which was that I view it [negative opinions or statements] as negative only for that person and his/her playing style/technique and that my mileage varies often from others, including the 'consensus'. "YMMV"

I disagree with any blanket notion of consensus and "established objective standards" when it comes to music and guitars. That doesn't mean I won't have the same opinion as the consensus once in a while or even maybe quite often. But too many people around so many music forums state subjective things as fact when in truth it's only the fact for them, their style, their ears, their hands. One man's trash is another man's treasure, no matter the "consensus of established objective standards."

And what the heck is in this list of "established objective standards" anyway? Has the ToneRite answer been standardized yet? What about sound ports? What about double tops? Composite materials? Plastic bracing? What is the consensus? And the biggie - what is the established standard of what constitutes an overbuilt guitar vs. an underbuilt guitar?

[justjes]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Here is a test:
Each of you can get a general idea of how supple (or not) your top is braced. Hold the guitar in its natural playing position. Take which ever hand you normally strum the strings with and push inward (towards your stomach) and watch how much the bridge moves inward (or not). It will take very little pressure to move the bridge inward on a guitar that is lightly braced. Some guitars are so stiff that it is nearly impossible to deflect the bridge even with a lot of effort. These stiffly braced guitars often have a bright or even a thin sound. Lightly braced tops are usually much louder and often have more bass response.

Tim,

Just to make sure I understand. You're saying to push on the bridge? Not on the lower bout or belly, correct?

Regards,

Jesse

[66strummer]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Here is a test:
Each of you can get a general idea of how supple (or not) your top is braced. Hold the guitar in its natural playing position. Take which ever hand you normally strum the strings with and push inward (towards your stomach) and watch how much the bridge moves inward (or not). It will take very little pressure to move the bridge inward on a guitar that is lightly braced. Some guitars are so stiff that it is nearly impossible to deflect the bridge even with a lot of effort. These stiffly braced guitars often have a bright or even a thin sound. Lightly braced tops are usually much louder and often have more bass response.

Its fun to walk into a guitar center and try this test on several guitars. You will get some strange looks from the sale staff too After you have found a couple that are very stiff and a couple that are less stiff, play them and make some mental comparisons of what you hear verses what you saw by deflecting the bridge (or not).

That's very useful stuff. Thanks for the info..... I'm going to try that out .

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by crikey

What I said most certainly does not lead to any conclusions other than for myself, which was that I view it [negative opinions or statements] as negative only for that person and his/her playing style/technique and that my mileage varies often from others, including the 'consensus'. "YMMV"

I disagree with any blanket notion of consensus and "established objective standards" when it comes to music and guitars. That doesn't mean I won't have the same opinion as the consensus once in a while or even maybe quite often. But too many people around so many music forums state subjective things as fact when in truth it's only the fact for them, their style, their ears, their hands. One man's trash is another man's treasure, no matter the "consensus of established objective standards."

And what the heck is in this list of "established objective standards" anyway? Has the ToneRite answer been standardized yet? What about sound ports? What about double tops? Composite materials? Plastic bracing? What is the consensus? And the biggie - what is the established standard of what constitutes an overbuilt guitar vs. an underbuilt guitar?

If you want to say that in your opinion there are no objective standards, I have no problem with that.

[crikey]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

If you want to say that in your opinion there are no objective standards, I have no problem with that.

I'm sure you wouldn't because you're putting your words in my mouth. I said as a blanket notion, I don't buy this "consensus of established objective standards" when it comes to music and guitars. Nice try, but I don't want to say what someone wants me to say for the sake of reaching "consensus." But if you want to say that there is definitely "consensus of established objective standards," I would like you to expound on that (see questions in my above post).