Total Redesign of the Acoustic Guitar?

[Sugar Bear]

The guitars we're playing are the offspring of designs not much changed in well over at least a century. There is no serious innovation to be had. Sure, you can buy a McPherson, or a Ryan with flutes or an Ergo or whatever. But they're still the children of things that Torres or someone designed long ago.

How about a complete, from-the-ground-up redesign of the acoustic guitar? Let's look at materials, strings, efficiency, ergonomics, everything!

We want to play a six stringed instrument that tunes EADGBe, strictly with acoustic power, how do we best and most efficiently accomplish this?

The Acoustics department at MIT should assign this to a team and get with it. I want to follow their progress in Technology Review.

Thoughts? Discussion?

Sugar Bear

[gray]

You've posted an interesting proposition. I've always wondered if the "waist" in an acoustic guitar was there because it influenced the sound, or because it helped keep the guitar from sliding off the knee.

How would the sound of a rectangularly shaped body differ from that of the traditionally shaped body?

[Desperado]

Originally Posted by Sugar Bear

How about a complete, from-the-ground-up redesign of the acoustic guitar? Let's look at materials, strings, efficiency, ergonomics, everything!

...snip...

Sugar Bear

It seems some folks are doing just that in England. Have a look see here: http://www.coolacoustics.com/index2.html

However, I wouldn't get your hopes up; looks like the Ikea of the guitar world.

[RustyAxe]

I can't help thinking about the violin which has changed little in 250 years. Innovations have come in materials and design, but the violin is what what it is ... in large part because of the materials and design, and the majority of instruments are little different from their distant ancestors. I think the same is true of modern acoustic guitars.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sugar Bear

...There is no serious innovation to be had. ...
Thoughts? Discussion?
Sugar Bear

I consider the NT neck to be a significant innovation.

Given that guitars have evolved over centuries, well at least the classical guitar has, I would expect science to vindicate the basic design. Steel-string guitars, being newer, may have room for more improvement as in the case of Bob Taylor's redesign of the traditional steel-string neck.

The Ovation guitar was the result of some scientific research but its design doesn't appear to be a meaningful improvement. So, I anticipate incremental improvements, as in the changes to accommodate the finger style of playing but I doubt that the basic design of acoustic guitar will be replaced by something radically different.

[Sugar Bear]

How about a nice "Smooth Talker" from Mervyn Davis in South Africa? Has Merv taken the redesign idea far enough?

Davis Smooth Talker

You can buy one at Gruhn's Guitars in Nashville.

More Mervyn Davis creations

That's about as far as I've seen it taken. I want a ground-up redesign by non-guitarist physicists. Preferrably people who have never even seen a guitar. But Merv's gettin' wiggy...

Sugar Bear

[wthurman]

There is something else to consider - would it really be a guitar if it was completely redesigned? I don't think the tuning or having six strings would be all there is to the defining factor... after all, there are plenty of people who have tenor guitars, play only in alternate tunings, have 7 string guitars, etc.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Sugar Bear

...There is no serious innovation to be had.
...Thoughts? Discussion?

Hi SB...
Double tops, double backs, doubled sides, asymmetrical body design, building tops with one half Cedar the other half Spruce (or a double top with Cedar outside and spruce inside), fanned frets, multi-pieced bridges, etc. These seem like innovations...

Our guitar designs go further back than the 19th century. Current models are reflections of instruments built in the 1600-1700s...and their ancestors were being built 100 years earlier than that.







Thought...
Not sure I want a group of digitally geared scientists designing my analog instruments...unless they are competent players and own some great guitars.

Thought...
What would these scientists use as their model? I know three luthiers who build with double tops and three who build with fanned frets, yet all their designs are significantly different from the others (they are not working with the same set of plans).

Thought...
What makes us sure experiments have not been done (or are not being done) to improve the guitar?

Thought...
We probably have arrived at current acoustic guitar designs by trial-and-error, and the current designs work well configured such as they are because experiments were performed and the best parts were carried forward.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Sugar Bear

...I want a ground-up redesign by non-guitarist physicists. Preferrably people who have never even seen a guitar.

Hi SB...
Well, it seems you don't want the guitar redesigned, but instead you want a new breed of instruments invented who owe little or no allegiance to the guitar.

[Sugar Bear]

Good point, Wade! Would it still be a guitar? Or would it be a new thing?

Very cool pics and some good insights and history, LJ, thanks! This could get quite interesting before this thread runs out...

Sugar Bear

[Carbonius]

I think it's a balance between innovation and marketability. Read through this forum and see how many guys won't play a Mcpherson simply because of how it looks. Others say Mcpherson's sound good, but it's too weird for them. So the innovations means nothing for some if it doesn't look traditional.

Sure, there are always guys who WANT to be the strange duck playing THAT guitar...but they by no means will support a companies extensive research and development costs as well as producing jigs and machines to make such unique guitars.

http://www.doolinguitars.com/ Doolin internally got rid of the need for the waist on his. His design is still pretty traditional looking...unless you are a purest who says cutaways are blasphemous let alone what Doolin does.

http://www.compositeacoustics.com/about.html These guys have done an amazing thing with guitars and there is a market for it. Again though, aknowledging the desire for a somewhat traditional looking instrument surely has helped marketability. In fact, if one bought a solid black Bluegrass CA (non-cutaway dread), no one would ever know it wasn't wood unless you told them...and I think that's the idea. Many on this forum also argue the wood vs carbon issue. I'm on the fence myself...I like both for different reasons.

There are some serious inovators out there, some who have been around a LONG time making some bizzare instruments. Why aren't they in the forefront?? I can only conclude that the changes didn't equal incredilbe tonal changes so few went with it. Doolin and others have shown that you can push against traditionalism and win, if your product can speak for itself. And that's the point. If the inovation equals an instrument that people can't live without, than they won't.

[banpreso]

you can design whatever, but most poeple just won't buy stuff that doesn't look right or familiar. if no market, no motivation to design

[billgennaro]

i personally would be up for any new technology that could make the guitar even greater than it already is. why not? interesting thought.

but i think we've seen more innovation in the past decade then ever before. and its not likely to stop. this is a great time to be a player and it looks as if its gonna get even better. slowly though.

[Acoustic Rick]

That's kind of like trying to re-invent the iron skillet. CF Martin gave us the pattern and they've perfected it.

[Matt Mustapick]

Lattice bracing is causing a revolution in classical guitar making. I predict we'll see of it coming into the steel string world.