Enhance the bass of 000 size?

[Alan Carruth]

Finish is a necessary evil. The wood needs to be protected against dirt and grease and moisture, but any finish adds weight and stiffness, which cuts down on sound. Less is generally better. Some finishes also add damping, and you especially want to avoid too much of that. In short, there is no 'good' finish, in the sense of making an unfinished guitar 'better', but some are less bad than others. Makers choose the finish that gives them features that they need or want, and has the smallest number of drawbacks from their point of view. Note that what's best for a large factory may be quite different from what's best for a small shop or individual, and what's best for the guitar in terms of sound, durability, and so on, could be quite another thing. That's why there are so many different finishes in use. Personally, I think nitro is one of the worst, but I can understand why factories stuck with it for so long.

[Henning]

This guitar has a gloss finish. I suppose it is nitro, some two component and thick it is, about 1 mm or more exactly 0,90 mm (or 0.0354").
Guitar makers claim: "Many purists and luthiers therefore believe that a nitro finish allows a guitar's wood to breathe, yielding a more open sound and greater sustain".
(I stick to the difference between guitar makers and luthiers. The previous considered as mass producers.)

A 0,90 mm layer of lacquer adds a lot of mass to the top. What will happen to the bass if it is removed please?
Assumingly the guitar will loose some of its sustain.

(The bass will be lessened in relation to the mid range and treble?
Am I assuming wrong?
The stiffness of the top will decrease but, as well as the mass too. But the ratio mass/stiffness? )

I don´t hate gloss as a finish for guitar. But if it comes to choose between a gloss finish that dampens the sound and a classic finish, like cellulose lacquer or French polish, I´d prefer the latter.

Regards

[Mbroady]

Not sure it was mentioned, but where do you hit the strings. Closer to the bridge gives you a brighter tone. Closer to the sound hole/neck will give warmer and perhaps a perceived larger bass response.

In regards to those folks saying a dread will give you more bass, true. However, there are Smaller guitars that I have played that have an amazing low end presence. My MJ Franks OM is one. So much so that I had to switch from phosphor bronze to 80/20 strings to tame the lower end.

I would not alter the guitar you have. Just start playing as many smaller guitars as you can, and judge for your self. Eventually you will find a smaller guitar that has the sound your looking for, and start saving now. Took me over a decade to find “the one”

[Henning]

Hello, if the lacquer is removed, considering that the thickness of the lacquer is 0,9 mm and the total thickness of the top and lacquer (measured at the soundhole) is 3,50 mm which would be 0.138", does the lacquer have any stabilizing effect to the top?
Is there any bigger risk that the top may collapse if the lacquer is replaced with cellulose or French polish please?

(The top is already bulging slightly below the bridge.)

Kind regards

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

It's possible that your 'main air' and 'main top' resonant modes are both very close to G, an octave apart. The guitar converts string energy into sound very effectively at those resonant pitches, so you can get notes that are twice a powerful for half as long. Twice as powerful is just 3 dB louder, a barely noticeable difference, but you pick up on the lack of sustain.

Blocking part of the sound hole, say with a piece of cardboard, will drop the pitch of the 'air' resonance. You can do much the same for the 'top' resonance by adding some mass to the bridge. Try temporary changes at first to see what the effects are, and how little you can get away with to make the issue livable. Poster adhesive ('Blu-Tac' or 'Fun-Tack'), cardboard, and tape are your friends for this. If you decide to go to less temporary changes you can add mass with heavier bridge pins, or use a sleeve in the hole to drop the 'air' pitch. That way, if the instrument changes over time you can always back off.

Yep, very close to G2/G3 using the simplest test, and adding a dozen grams to the bridge shifted the top resonance by 1/2 step. Not too surprisingly, it also cuts into the overall tone, very notable the open E.

I need to get a little more precise, driving it with a speaker and signal generator. That's not too hard to do and also not something I have time for soon, so I'm filing it away for when I get a couple spare hours.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by Henning

Hello, if the lacquer is removed, considering that the thickness of the lacquer is 0,9 mm and the total thickness of the top and lacquer (measured at the soundhole) is 3,50 mm which would be 0.138", does the lacquer have any stabilizing effect to the top?
Is there any bigger risk that the top may collapse if the lacquer is replaced with cellulose or French polish please?

(The top is already bulging slightly below the bridge.)

Kind regards

I'd be surprised that 1/4 of the top thickness was lacquer, and while films can play a part in stiffness and even result in pre-loading, it's nowhere near the properties of the wood.

[Alan Carruth]

The only guitars I've seen with finishes anywhere near a millimeter thick were Ovations, and that was epoxy. A film finish like that adds stiffness across the grain on the top, and at that thickness maybe even along the grain. Most of that effect seems to come in with the first few coats; say .1 mm or so. The added mass of the thick finish certainly doesn't help things, however. It's unusual to see a lacquer finish much more than about .2mm thick, and 'better' guitars tend to have thinner finishes. French polish can be .05mm thick or less.

[Henning]

Possibly the thickness of the lacquer at the top is thinner. But, I compared the thickness of the lacquer (with the corresponding feeler gauge) at a small piece of the side that I cut out. If the thickness of the lacquer at the side is 0,9 mm, could it still be that the thickness of the lacquer at the top is 0,2 mm?

[Sadie-f]

Yes, the back and sides definitely have heavier lacquer. They don't move anywhere near as much (really the sides barely move). So heavier & therefor more protective finish is best for those areas.

[Henning]

Do you think such a big difference as 0,2 mm for the top and 0,9 mm layer of lacquer for the sides and back, is likely to be?

[Koda]

Not sure if anyone already suggested this but pick size and material can make a big difference.

I just tried a Dunlop Ultex 1.14 triangle and it made a very nice tonal difference on an OM. I wouldn't necessarily say bassier but fuller overall with more warmth.

and....it's an inexpensive experiment.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

It's possible that your 'main air' and 'main top' resonant modes are both very close to G, an octave apart. The guitar converts string energy into sound very effectively at those resonant pitches, so you can get notes that are twice a powerful for half as long. Twice as powerful is just 3 dB louder, a barely noticeable difference, but you pick up on the lack of sustain.

Blocking part of the sound hole, say with a piece of cardboard, will drop the pitch of the 'air' resonance. You can do much the same for the 'top' resonance by adding some mass to the bridge. Try temporary changes at first to see what the effects are, and how little you can get away with to make the issue livable. Poster adhesive ('Blu-Tac' or 'Fun-Tack'), cardboard, and tape are your friends for this. If you decide to go to less temporary changes you can add mass with heavier bridge pins, or use a sleeve in the hole to drop the 'air' pitch. That way, if the instrument changes over time you can always back off.

Alan, sorry to be quoting you yet again in this thread, here's where I've progressed, and I'd be glad to hear your, and of course anyone's take on this.



I've placed neodymium magnets using beeswax as a temporary and easy to clean means for some adhesion; being magnetic, it's easy to add/remove mass.

A similar total mass added to the bridge helped response at G2 at the expense of negative effects on lots of other tones. However placing the same total weight as shown, is enhancing G, while not so much affecting the rest of the guitar's range.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Henning

What i do find, the sound of the low tones of the A string is satisfying. But the sound of the low E string is not quite so.

I'm going to assume that you also like the sound of the D and higher strings, since you don't want to change strings.

I can relate to not liking the sound of a steel low E string; overall I much prefer the deeper and richer (and less "tensely focussed") nature of wound nylon bass strings and that difference is biggest with the low E.

I'm also going to assume you're using phosphor-bronze (PB) strings as that's what most people use. I'd suggest you try a different low E string. Personally I have yet to find a better sounding one that the one from the Thomastik Plectrum sets, and these are sold as individual strings too. If you use 12s, get the AC056 (56 gauge) from the AC112 set or the AC050 for 11s. These are brass (80/20) wound; this alloy will sound a bit brighter than PB initially (not so noticeable on the low E) but will mellow out more than PB will ever do, and the silk-and-steel design adds additional mellowness that you'll hear as a deeper/richer bass. Yet it will sound livelier higher up the fretboard than any PB wound string, in my experience.
They also last forever, so this is a cheap and reversible experiment.

[Henning]

I think the bass has turned better after the adjustments I´ve made. Not only that, the mid range and treble seems a little softer too, which wasn´t really a quality wished for.
I don´t really consider this guitar ready and done. I believe there is still some more lowering of the back side bracing to be done. But it will wait some time.
Thanks for your encouragements and advices!

[Henning]

The back has two braces below the sound hole. I´ve reworked the one closest to the sound hole. I now make attempts in removing mass from the inner brace. I start to wonder. How close may I let the tap-tones (of the top and the back) be without risking any negative effects to the tone of the guitar?
As it is now, the top has a lower tap tone frequency then the back. I intend to rather keep the top unaltered.
Please, cheers and regards!
/Henning

Originally Posted by Henning

I think the bass has turned better after the adjustments I´ve made. Not only that, the mid range and treble seems a little softer too, which wasn´t really a quality wished for.
I don´t really consider this guitar ready and done. I believe there is still some more lowering of the back side bracing to be done. But it will wait some time.
Thanks for your encouragements and advices!