I want to attempt to build an acoustic...

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by printer2

And yet many people find the pine to be resonant and a makes for a sweet sounding guitar.

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/guitar-ow...ster-club.html

I believe Michael DeTemple had been offering Ponderosa Pine Strats and Teles for years now. Never played one, but the clips I've heard sounded really good. In the early 80s Grover Jackson made a Charvel Strat for Allan Holdsworth, out of a solid spuce billet, and he wasn't too thrilled with it, opting for basswood instead. Probably one reason is that Allan plays jazz-fusion, and the rapid-fire notes would mush up together with a resonant body; Allan also uses the bridge pickup a lot so the basswood does help attenuate some of the string brightness.

Point is, most builders would pick woods for their potential sonic properties first, and maybe as a function of economy second. If economy comes first, then you have to deal with the limited cloices at hand and its sonic implications. If economy is the only concern, then there can no expectation as far as sound is concerned (unless you have years of experience), since you're locked in to the materials at hand.

This is not a knock, as all woods have certain qualities that would be beneficial to certain styles of music. And for most save for the lucky few, economics does play a big role. And the workmanship on your guitar looks very good indeed, probably better than the first efforts of most others, including myself. My point on this is that if you put the time and effort into pallet wood and have the means to machine backs sides and tops from it, imagine what you could have done putting same said effort even into basic woods at a hardwood lumber yard, where you can more safely predict the tonal outcome? If you can resaw the wood yourself, you'd be surprised how inexpensive a back/side set can be!

I like to experiment myself. not as much with the materials, but with different construction methods. I don't need to make a Martin clone since there are hunderds of builders out there that do exactly that. But one can get too radical and end up with a unique, though not so musical, voice; and that's also very dependent on the individual.

[Jackknifegypsy]

....is a strong dose humility.

Already your approach is designed to yield an instrument far inferior to your abilities . That's kinda tragic.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I believe Michael DeTemple had been offering Ponderosa Pine Strats and Teles for years now. Never played one, but the clips I've heard sounded really good. In the early 80s Grover Jackson made a Charvel Strat for Allan Holdsworth, out of a solid spuce billet, and he wasn't too thrilled with it, opting for basswood instead. Probably one reason is that Allan plays jazz-fusion, and the rapid-fire notes would mush up together with a resonant body; Allan also uses the bridge pickup a lot so the basswood does help attenuate some of the string brightness.

Point is, most builders would pick woods for their potential sonic properties first, and maybe as a function of economy second. If economy comes first, then you have to deal with the limited cloices at hand and its sonic implications. If economy is the only concern, then there can no expectation as far as sound is concerned (unless you have years of experience), since you're locked in to the materials at hand.

This is not a knock, as all woods have certain qualities that would be beneficial to certain styles of music. And for most save for the lucky few, economics does play a big role. And the workmanship on your guitar looks very good indeed, probably better than the first efforts of most others, including myself. My point on this is that if you put the time and effort into pallet wood and have the means to machine backs sides and tops from it, imagine what you could have done putting same said effort even into basic woods at a hardwood lumber yard, where you can more safely predict the tonal outcome? If you can resaw the wood yourself, you'd be surprised how inexpensive a back/side set can be!

I like to experiment myself. not as much with the materials, but with different construction methods. I don't need to make a Martin clone since there are hunderds of builders out there that do exactly that. But one can get too radical and end up with a unique, though not so musical, voice; and that's also very dependent on the individual.

And I already have cut up and surfaced hardwood bought for the same size guitar. Yes I am using inferior materials but in part to find out how much it matters. I just thought it would be better to use the inferior materials on the first copy and any mistakes made hopefully will not end up on the second. Then I can compare the sound of the two guitars. It is to satisfy my curiosity how they will sound. I Googled to see is anyone has made a guitar using the same type of materials and came up empty handed. Lots of Martin copies as you said. It is not like I am only going to make one guitar and be stuck with my inferior guitar.

By the second guitar I should have most of the tooling to build a guitar without reaching for a tool and making do with some makeshift method. These first ones are intended as being learning experiences, I have a guitar grade top and Honduran Mahogany waiting to be my third.


And thanks for the workmanship comment, I would prefer if I took less care and just make a rough version and move on to guitar #2, not like making the guitar look good will change the sound all that much. But better to learn how to do things right with this one and improve on each one after.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

....is a strong dose humility.

Already your approach is designed to yield an instrument far inferior to your abilities . That's kinda tragic.

To each his own I guess.

[Viking]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

....is a strong dose humility.

Already your approach is designed to yield an instrument far inferior to your abilities . That's kinda tragic.

I'm curious... to whom are you speaking?