|
|
#1
09-21-2021, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Heavily vs Lightly Built
I’m wondering how many reasons/factors there might be that differentiate a heavily built guitar from a lightly built guitar and what those terms actually mean. And even more importantly, is there anything a non luthier can do to turn a heavily built guitar into a more lightly built guitar?
My desire to do so of course is all predicated on the assumption that it will alter the sound in a way I find desirable. For example, a Santa Cruz guitar has always felt and sounded very lightly built, while my recording king feels like it is built like a tank. Assuming I’m fine with some level of risk and potentially destroying my instrument, how could I determine why my guitar is heavily built and and what can I do about it, if anything? I realize my recording king will never sound like a Santa Cruz, but… Thanks, Robert 
|
|
#2
09-21-2021, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Those terms have two meanings though. One is literally the weight of the instrument while the other is the 'weight' of the tone so to speak. IOW the top of both guitars could have the same weight physically speaking but one could be 'lightly' braced while the other is 'heavily' braced. The heavy braced top would have more headroom, high end and be harder to drive. The light braced top would be more balanced, better responsiveness and so on.
The RK is probably built like a tank relatively speaking in compared to the SC. The heaviest braced tops I have ever seen were made by Guild some years ago. The X-Brace had no taper or scallop, just straight all the way to the end when it dished to zero and it had THREE lower tone bar braces that were huge. The top sounded like a solid body instrument. No response at all. The solution? Shave the braces or even remove on of those tone bars. If you truly don't care about the guitar and want to have fun experimenting with it then start by shaving the lower back braces first if they are already full height. You would be surprised how much a difference that can make. Then go to shaving the top braces but VERY carefully. Make some shavings then let it sit for a week, using a Tonerite helps here, then see how it sounds. I even make recordings of each brace shaving session before and after and also take tap tones and notes. It would be wise to measure bridge rotation too as you progress. You don't want to go past 2deg rotation.
|
|
#3
09-21-2021, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is a general duality in guitar construction. The traditional, or vintage method, is a lightly built structure which resonates as a whole, and the “modern” system is to isolate the top from the rest of the guitar to keep its energy locally and theoretically more focused. Both systems have their fans, and many builders hybridize the concepts. The first minimizes the weight of the guitar, and successful renditions often weigh under 4 pounds. The second system cares little for the weight of the whole, and may even use additional weight to keep the non-top parts from resonating. These guitars often weigh over 5 pounds. Many modern Martin’s, traditionally in the first camp, are now hybrids and typically weigh 4 1/2 pounds plus.
The guitar is a complete system, and trying to move it from one conceptual whole to another is most often a fools errand. It is virtually always wiser to leave it alone and find an instrument more suited to one’s developing needs. IMO, of course.
|
|
#4
09-22-2021, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Bruce’s observation interesting and wise. In the end, you are much better choosing the guitar that rings your bell rather than one that weighs more or less.
I recently played knee to knee with a friend plying an excellent Froggy M against my own 17 year old Martin OM 42 and we traded back and forth. The Froggy seemed lighter but sounded quite different and Froggy’s have a reputation for being light weight guitars in their build. But guitars are all just individual creatures and you have to find the one that speaks to you. There was a disagreement between this Froggy owner and a local repairman who was selling one and described it as lightly built (like pre-war Martins) and requiring light gauge strings and care overall. The Froggy owner said that Froggy’s are robust as long as they have “responsible owners”. I would describe myself as a fairly “responsible owner” and I have a big crack in my Martin’s top. So who knows? The lightest guitar I have is a 1936 Kalamazoo KG-14 which is a small ladder braced guitar. Just because it is light does not make it sound better than any of the other guitars. Each one is individual, so just pick the one you love (I know people who love their massively built Guilds).
__________________
2003 Martin OM-42, K&K's 1932 National Style O, K&K's 1930 National Style 1 tricone Square-neck 1951 Rickenbacker Panda lap steel 2014 Gibson Roy Smeck Stage Deluxe Ltd, Custom Shop, K&K's 1957 Kay K-27 X-braced jumbo, K&K's 1967 Gretsch 6120 Chet Atkins Nashville 2014 Gold Tone WL-250, Whyte Lade banjo 2024 Mahogany Weissenborn, Jack Stepick Ear Trumpet Labs Edwina Tonedexter
|
|
#5
09-22-2021, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce,
I am so in two minds about weight and resonance! I have only made dulcimers and fretted zithers (not guitars) and have built my recent zithers quite heavy (well, VERY heavy) and they resonate admirably. A lot of old zithers (and the designs I build) are also for table playing. And if you place a fretted zither on a solid oak bar room table the volume fills the room. That solid thick and heavy oak table becomes a remarkable soundboard. And I'm really not sure why or how that happens? So I'm not too sure if making heavier backs and sides for a guitar, say out of plywood, actually does isolate the top; or if there's more to it than that? I do wonder if getting the vibrations right around the instrument, and particularly from the neck end of the strings (nut or frets) back into the sound box is the key aspect? A loose brace or a loose fret can kill a guitar's resonance, and a drop of superglue on either restore it - so I wonder if concentrating on how the physical vibrations move around a guitar would be a good subject for a luthier to study? All I can say is that I knocked up a Tenessee music box in a morning out of 3/4" birch plywood and roofing batons and the darn thing really rang out loud!  So when I think about the question of heavy vs light build I just come away with more questions as what I think should happen (light build being more resonant) doesn't always seem to be the case. Like I said, I think that there is just so much more going on, but I have no idea what!!!!!!
__________________
I'm learning to flatpick and fingerpick guitar to accompany songs. I've played and studied traditional noter/drone mountain dulcimer for many years. And I used to play dobro in a bluegrass band. Last edited by Robin, Wales; 09-22-2021 at 12:30 PM.
|
|
#6
09-22-2021, 04:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It may be important to note that I am firmly ensconced in the light/resonant end of the lutherie spectrum. While I acknowledge that the other end of the spectrum seems to work, to me it appears overly technical and not a lot of fun.
There is a writer/builder named Trevor Gore who champions the other POV. He has many disciples. I recommend looking up his work if it seems interesting to you. Personally, I am very happy working to expand the capabilities of the traditional form. My current results make it seem obvious to me that there is room to grow here. A quick test to tell which philosophy is behind your personal guitar is to tap on the center lower bout of the top as though it were a drum, and then do the same to the back. On a traditional (light) guitar both sides will be similarly lively, while on the modern style (heavy) the top will be lively, but the back will sound more like a board.
|
|
#7
09-22-2021, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Bruce for the education. Are there other reasons that some guitars may be heavily built?
For example, Is it likely that the majority of inexpensive guitars (e.g., <$500) are heavily built because they are more durable and less costly to build that way? One reason I ask is that it seems extremely rare that I find an inexpensive, lightly built, resonant guitar. In my experience the vast majority of inexpensive guitars are very heavily built. (Of course that’s not to be confused with the reverse, namely that as you pointed out great guitars can be from either school of thought regarding heavily vs lightly built). One assumption /question i’ve had is whether cost cutting measures prevent cheap builds from becoming good builds because the labor involved of lightening the build are prohibitive. This is what prompted my first question, could a cheap, heavily built guitar be improved by “lightening” the build? Another way of asking the question might be, is it common that less expensive guitars are heavily built primarily or solely due to cost saving measures as opposed to the fact that they adhere to the modern build philosophy? And if so, is it reasonable to assume that there’s an increased likelihood that these guitars would become more resonant with shaved braces, etc.? Last edited by sprucetophere; 09-22-2021 at 05:57 PM. Reason: C
|
|
#8
09-22-2021, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I bought a Martin D18 brand new circa 1967. Sometime in the 70's I got the braces shaved. The general feeling back then was that the current batch of Martins were indeed heavily built and by shaving (scalloping) the braces you would allow the top to vibrate more. It might have made it a bit louder, but it was hard to tell. All I know is that it voided my warranty.
I'm pretty sure this practice was discontinued.
|
|
#9
09-22-2021, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap guitars are made of plywood. The added thickness as long with heavier braces will give the guitar greater strength and it will take more abuse without falling apart. You get less warranty claims. So reduced cost in warranty claims is worth more than a little weight in the guitar. Building the guitar is another place more mass helps out (as long as you can bend the sides) as the structure can take a little rough handling.
I have a guitar I bought for the case, the guitar is a throw-away. I could not see torturing anyone with it. Instead of throwing it away I did some body modification and while I was at it I shaved down the heaviest braces I have seen on a guitar. It allowed the back to vibrate and gave the guitar more bass. But, I have made a few guitars and kind of got to know how much I can get away with. A person with no experience? That worries me with any guitar that costs more than $50. I would say pick up a junker and practice on it first.
__________________
Fred
|
|
#10
09-23-2021, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm learning to flatpick and fingerpick guitar to accompany songs. I've played and studied traditional noter/drone mountain dulcimer for many years. And I used to play dobro in a bluegrass band.
|
|
#11
09-23-2021, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is often said that building acoustic instruments is a process of walking a tightrope between building instruments that can withstand the ravages of time and creating lighter weight instruments that are reactive to the physical stimulus in a way that efficiently changes that stimulus to audible sound.
One example I've recently observed is the Farida brand as carried by Elderly. These generally get good user reviews as far as playability and sound. When I personally observed them I thought they might be a bit too lightly built to ensure longevity. That observation may or may not be true, and only time will prove that out. It does demonstrate the balance that manufacturers must reach, and all within the confines or budgetary constraints. The bottom line for most builders who use wood will most likely continue to be a balancing act between producing responsive and resonant instruments and building instruments that are highly resistant to change over time and varying environmental conditions.
|
|
#12
09-23-2021, 09:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A philosophically live backed guitar can still be heavy, there are many places to put extra weight.
|
|
#13
09-24-2021, 08:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes factory guitars are over built so that they can last a longer period of time and survive the warranty period. The better factory guitars have figured out how to balance that act so that they make good sounding guitars that stand the test of time. They will get more warranty repairs in but that's part of the trade off.
The other thing though is the finishes they put on these guitars. I think it was Trever Gore who once consulted for a large factory guitar company putting out $5-1k level guitars with solid tops and so on that should have sounded decent and well enough but were dead in tone. They looked great though! And that was part of the problem. Fit and finish is a very important thing to factory guitars because they know people buy with their eyes. So they slather on the finish real thick so that when it cures and gets sent of to the wet sanding and buffing department the factory employee doesn't burn through the finish and it has to be sent back. So once they identified the thick finish as the problem with the guitars tone they thinned it out and greatly improved the tone and response of the instruments.
|
|
#14
09-24-2021, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm learning to flatpick and fingerpick guitar to accompany songs. I've played and studied traditional noter/drone mountain dulcimer for many years. And I used to play dobro in a bluegrass band.
|
|
#15
09-24-2021, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Fred
|
