Articles and Blogs -
You must scroll down to find the article. Some day when I have a ton of time, I will work on links here and also on the Technical Data page. Since I did not plan for it in the beginning, this is not so simple as it might first appear. I never dreamed I'd end up with so much material.
The Polys, by Tim McKnight
Voicing the Steel String Guitar, by John Greven, 2011
Considerations When Selecting Wood by Roland Vinyard
Wood - A Brief Education, by Bruce Petros
Tonewoods in Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi, 2010
Tapping Tonewoods, by Dana Bourgeois
The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin
Alternative to What?, J. Chris Herrod, with Luthier's Merchantile Int'l, 2004
The World of Fine Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Montreal Guitar Show, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
My Instrumental Hegira Starts, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Torrified Tops, from John Greven
Custom Baritone Guitar, by Roland Vinyard, 2007
Guitar Voicings & Building a New Instrument, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Some Thoughts on the Difference Between Handmade & Factory Made Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi
Martin Versus Luthier-Made Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Stainless Steel Fretwire, by Steven Marchione
Finishing Guitars, by JJ Donohue
Aromatic Instruments, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Martin Myths, by John Greven
Like Little-Bodied Guitars?, by Roland Vinyard, 2011
Dry House Syndrome, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Tereminology, by James Goodall
George Gruhn Said, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Blazing Guitar, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
The Lacey Act and How It Affects You, by Chuck Erikson (Duke of Pearl), 2012
The Lacey Act and How It Affected Me, by Chuck Erikson (Duke of Pearl)
A Guide to Figure in Woods, by Don Savoie
What Is the Function of the Back & Sides? Trevor Gore & Alan Carruth
Grain Orientation, by Dana Bourgeois
(Scroll down to visit each article or blog.)
"LOVE your site. I am a semi - retired professional who is now turning my attention to producing very custom , one off guitar bodies and related products. I have been a home luthier for 10+ years having sold hundreds of bodies on eBay but am now developing my own site." Mark
The Polys
Tim McKnight (quoted from Acoustic Guitar Forum)
...When you mention "Poly", it can refer to straight Polyurethane (the solvent evaporative air dried version), Catalyzed Polyurethane (the chemically cured version), Catalyzed Polyester (chemically cured) and UV Polyester (Ultraviolet light cured).
Air dried polyurethane is typically the slowest drying and the softest version much akin to flexibility of oil based varnishes. It typically takes 14-30 days to reach its full cure before it can be buffed without shrinkage.
Chemically cured polyurethane is much faster drying but still takes 2-14 days to reach full hardness. Its not any harder or less flexible than the air dried version but can be buffed much sooner with less risk of the finish shrinking.
Chemically cured Polyester dries much faster than PU, usually to a full cure hardness in 12-24 hours.
UV cured Polyester is fully cured in 30-60 seconds! It can be buffed almost immediately after cooling and sanding. Both versions of Polyesters are THEE hardest of the finishes typically used on guitars. These polyester finishes are the ones I believe you may be referring to when you mention "Poly".
Polyester is most often used in large scale production shops and factories though its not uncommon for small one man shops to dabble in it as well. Both versions of PE have the steepest learning curve to properly apply because it has a much higher solids content of the professional finishes. Because of the high solids content it takes a while to learn how NOT to apply it too thick.
PE can be found on most production Asian guitars and also on the Alvarez that Alan mentioned earlier. A final film thickness of .010" - .030" is certainly NOT uncommon. The downside to PE is film thickness control and when the film builds so does mass and especially added stiffness to all the vibrating surfaces. This added stiffness can add unwanted brightness, shrillness and a loss in bass response. The upside to PE is its like steel armor plating your musical instrument. The added hardness and stiffness of PE finish resists dents, scratches and ANY chemical known to man. There is NO paint stripper on the planet that will remove it!
With the right skill set one can learn (speaking from personal experience) to apply PE pretty thin but its VERY difficult to do. As a disclaimer I no longer use PE for various reasons.
As I grow wiser, through experience, I find myself gravitating to softer finishes. I think ... a host of other seasoned veteran builders would also concur. A softer finish adds warmth and sweetness to the tone that is so difficult to describe or put into words. I think we share a common desire that we want the completed instrument to sound its best, with the most natural, woody, unencumbered voice. When we tap on a guitar, in the white [prior to finish], that is the voice we want to hear after its finished. Using too much finish or even the wrong finish can significantly change that voice. Its such a fine line that we walk.
Finishing a guitar or any musical instrument, is a complex subject and task. There are hundreds, if not thousands of finish products on the market and I have yet to find the one perfect finish, without its own unique set of quirks or challenges. But be informed that finish is yet one more important component, that contributes to the sum of the parts of the completed instrument that positively or negatively influences the final tonal envelope of the instrument.
Voicing the Steel String Guitar (A talk given to the Guild of American Luthiers) John Greven
I spent four months writing and rewriting this in an effort to keep it simple, but also as complete as I could come up with. All this has directly influenced my building over my 55 year career, but really has only become a prime focus over the last decade. After 2200+ guitars, much of what I do is instinctive rather than deliberative, so I rarely stop and think about a choice I am making, I let the wood "speak" to me. Taking the time to actually articulate what I do and why I do it was quite a task, but well worth it. During the 3 1/2 hour talk/demo at GAL, I was constantly amazed at how few builders in the audience had thought about the basics like this, even stuff that seems so obvious to me.
Basic Maxims
The top IS the voice, choose it with care and treat with the respect it deserves. Keep top construction mass to a minimum sufficient to maintain stability, do not overbuild it. Think of it as if you were building the guitar like a model airplane, make it to fly.
Everything about the guitar has some effect on both tone and responsiveness, to a greater or lesser degree. The single most important tone/power element is the top itself. Second is the brace mass and lastly the brace placement.
The back and side materials color the sound but they are not the voice itself. The back and sides affect bass response to some degree and sustain (dense woods increase sustain, soft reduce it). The also create reflective or absorptive effects depending on density and stiffness and can, in some cases add power back into the overall sound envelope via the "trampoline" effect.
The essence of the great guitar over the average guitar lies in its relative level of efficiency; its ability to take the energy of the string in motion and turn it into the maximum in singing tone quality and amplification of sound. Guitars work at about 5% optimum efficiency as a mechanical device. Even a small addition of overly massive elements in the build or other impediments to the motion of the plates will reduce the efficiency and thus the output. A I% loss in the overall efficiency of the box is actually a20o/o loss relative to the maximum possible.
The Vocabulary of Tone - how a guitar sounds
Power: referred to as Headroom, the ability of a guitar to respond to heavy playing pressures with huge but a musical voice.This has to do with its Dynamic Range (the ability of the guitar to be soft or loud while maintaining the full complexity of its voice).
Responsiveness: The ability of the guitar to respond to any player pressure with immediacy and a full voice. (a matter of efficiency)
Projection: How well the guitar throws its sound at a distance, also a matter of efficiency
Tone: The vocal qualities of the instrument, how the elements come together to make the voice.
Articulation: how crisp and distinct the notes are. The range: Mushy/dulI to crisp/normal to edgy/overly bright.
Tone Color: (how woody and complex or thin, metallic, and stringy the notes are. The range: Very warm and woody to balance wood and string to minimally woody, bright.
Depth of tone: whether the notes are full and complex or thin with little wood motion audible. The range: thin, mostly string sound to piano-like solidity of tone with obvious woodiness.
Sustain: how long the notes ring after striking them. The range; Quick decay to Moderate to Long sustain.
Choosing the Top: The top is the most important element in the construction of the guitar, it IS the voice.
Raw tops: oversize and over thick plates changes ping tone and flex test results, skewing data to the positive side with cleaner ping tone and more sustain, also stiffer flex.
Top Grading: Best stops are not necessarily Master Grade and often not AAA. These tops are rare and nearly perfect cosmetically, thus expensive and pretty, however they are often softer with a less articulate voice due to overall fiber density. Talk to your wood dealer in depth about grading and what you are looking for. The best sounding tops often feature wider grain, uneven growth rings and color changes,etc. The only way to tell true quality is to physically handle the tops to determine their worth Best to buy at least 6 tops of a specific grade to test them, often you can return unused ones. Know your sources, they have the best information about the wood they sell. Know what you want in a top before ordering and tell the dealer your criteria in detail. You absolutely cannot tell the quality of a top by looking at it, appearance is no measure of worth.
Testing the Top
This is the single most important step in the guitar building process; it will determine the degree of success of the build more so than any other component. First, know what your target sound envelope is, talk to your customer in depth. Take back and side material and neck materials into account as they will color the sound Match tops to back and side woods in a way that will get you closer to your target voice Choose your species and physical properties to best approach the target voice. Every species of top material has its own vocal characteristics. All samples of a given species will have similar tonal properties even when they differ in stiffness and grain count. The essential cellular structure and amount of lignin* in the winter and summer growth is a relative constant and determined by the genetics of the species. Only the microclimate growing conditions may vary somewhat.
*Lignin: A complex polymer, the chief noncarbohydrate constituent of wood, that binds to cellulose fibers and hardens and strengthens the cell walls of plants.
If two samples of a species where one is less stiff than the other which is stiffer are made into guitars (sic), the voices will have the same characteristics except for a slightly higher level of articulation and sustain in the stiffer of the two. Engelmann will always sound like Engelmann, Sitka like Sitka, German like German etc. It is a fundamental structural issue with each species. There are groupings of species that exhibit very similar tonal properties because they are also similar in the structures within their wood makeup.
Hardness refers to the density and physical hardness of the wood. Stiffness refers to the dynamic resistance to deflection of the wood.
Soft Woods
As a good rule of thumb, softer woods are less articulate (warmer, fuzzier) than harder woods. The same holds true for stiffness: stiffer means brighter and more articulate, less stiff means softer sound. Softer tops will have more bass response, stiff tops stronger treble response. Soft tops work better on small footprint boxes where the tighter perimeter stiffens the top. Stiff tops work better on larger boxes where the longer span acts to minimize additional stiffening.
Almost all modern Adi is softer than the old growth Adi Martin and Gibson used prior to 1939. It has the headroom of the old stock, but the tone is more diffuse, often muddy and inarticulate. Lutz is the only top wood that has the tone quality of the vintage Adi along with the headroom.
Ping Testing of Tops
Look for clarity, complexity, and sustain in initial test of half plates. Ping half tops holding by the middle of one side tapping middle of the plate. Final test is for the power quotient. Looking for the ability of the top to hold a clean ping tone and push large amounts of air. The strong fundamental should be very sonorous and substantive. Pinging should evoke lots of top motion and a clear sense of the air moving away from the top. A top which lacks a musical quality to this fundamental note should be avoided.
The Ping Test: The three things to listen for with the ping test are clarity, complexity and sustain. It is not the frequency that matters. Frequency is a function of size and thickness of the plate. The important aspect to listen for is the character and quality of the ping and the sustain. A dull ping tone: with short decay indicates a soft or very fibrous top/lots of internal damping. Leaving only the fundamental audible in the finished guitar, guitar will be muddy, with no high end. Decently crisp ping tone: most tops fall into this range, a safe choice.
Look for good sustain as well, balance from bass to treble, good partials mix, very crisp. ringing ping tone. This top will make a very bright, articulate voice. It might benefit from softer bracing to even it out, could be percussive. Tonal spectrum sifted hard to the high mids and highs, sparkly and intense.
The second test of the raw plate is the power quotient test. When listening to the ping tone, look for a strong fundamental as well as overtones, clarity, and sustain. These elements will show up in the final voice of the guitar (assuming you do not overbuild the top structure). The quality and amount of the above characteristics are inherent in the top material and are the building blocks of the voice to come.
These basic elements of the voice can be modified through choice of brace stock, bracing mass and location, choice of back and side materials (and their relative mass) and the materials of the neck In addition, how the top is arched or not arched can alter the top's voice significantly.
Testing the glued plates as a unit: It is at this stage that the true character of the top is revealed, when the plates are joined and sanded to rough thickness. I take my tops to .135" to start with a finish around .125-.130".
Top Arching: arching the top to a 30-36 ft. arc raises fundamental and shifts the tonal spectrum to the treble register losing depth of bass response. Arching the top increases top tension and rigidity. Think eggshell effect. Great for neck set, higher bridge and saddle, easier setups, prevents S curve in top, reduces bridge torque and top motion as well as tonal depth and power. It is impossible to achieve anything approaching the vintage tone with an arched top.
Remember that EVERY top is different, even within a flitch from the same round of a tree. It must be treated as having its own unique tonal envelope and adjusted as to thickness and bracing accordingly. It is equally true that every piece of wood involved with the guitar structure is unique and must be tested and evaluated for its effect on the final sound.
Top thickness: Historically. guitar tops were generally thinner than today. The Adirondack materials were much harder and stiffer than their modern counterpart. Martin tops were .095-.110" with small bracing. Gibson tops were .095-.130, showing their materials varied more than Martin's.
I thin my tops to a starting thickness of .135 and the usual final thickness will be between .100 and .125. It all depends on how hard and stiff the top material is. Obviously stiff stock can go thinner than soft, but the tonal trade offs there as well. The thinner and stiffer the top, the brighter the tone, to the point of being shrill. Soft top materials work best at about .125". Too thick and the tone will be dull. Much thinner and there will be a loss of depth to the sound. I let my tops do about 60% of the structural work and the bracing about 40%, but this will vary with top stiffness. I rarely use soft top material even if it has a good ping tone.
Bracing the top: The most problematic part of the build, how to brace the top. Think VOICE first, then remember the ping tone of the selected top as well as its stiffness. Choose a bracing material to compliment, enhance or alter the basic voice of the top wood.
Basic concepts: A softer brace material and one that is less stiff will fatten and sweeten the tone, take off the edge. It also increases bass response because it allows longer waves of the low frequencies to move the top more easily. A harder brace material will increase top stiffness also increasing treble response but reduce bass.
Bracing: Width/Height/Shape
Shape: The shape of the brace matters for both tone and structure. The old "knife" style Gibson bracing sounds totally different than the Martin parabolic shape on the same body size and top material. I have tested this repeatedly. The knife brace imparts a percussive and nasty quality to the tone along with lots of raw power. The more massive parabolic shape adds woodiness and warmth to the tone. The narrower the brace footprint, the brighter the tone. The wider the brace footprint, the less bright the tone. The more parabolic shaped brace like Martin uses has the same strength for its height, but adds mass to the sides of the brace, leading to a woodier tone quality. Both of these brace types had minimal footprints of .250 - .270”.
Footprint: A wide brace is not stronger than a narrow brace for the same height but greater width significantly reduces overall top motion and output. The width of the footprint impacts the overall motion or mobility of the top. The greater the percentage of bracing footprint on the top the less the top can move and the converse is also true. The brace sitting on the top creates a null zones of minimal motion. Increase the null zones, reduce top motion, reduce null zones, increase top motion.
Height: The shorter the brace, the more it can flex, the higher the amplitude of the top in motion The taller the brace, the tighter the top, lower amplitude, reduced bass response. It is a non-linear function, so small increments of height change make large changes in stiffness. The height measured at the center of the brace is the primary strength factor. Mass added to the sides of the brace do not significantly increase strength vertically, but do alter the tone audibly.
Important data point: Remember that increasing the height of a brace by 2O% increases its rigidity by 50% and conversely, reducing a brace height by 20% REDUCES its rigidity by 50%. Scalloping braces radically reduces its overall brace rigidity and allows greater top motion.
To X or not to X: The X braced top has become the defacto standard in the American guitar industry and a majority of the hand builder arena. It has a long tested history of success both structurally and tonally. There is no question that many of the very best acoustic guitars ever made use the X bracing system. It is relatively easy to work with to alter to adjust the voice of the top wood. By changing size or location of the various components, the tonal spectrum and power can be shifted to suit the goal of the builder.
Since I build exclusively with the X brace system now and have for many decades (although not early on in my career), I will start there and explain my thinking process for working with it on a top. I think of the top as having two primary regions: the area above the sound hole and the lower bout. The upper bout region is heavily braced and does not have much tonal impact. The lower bout is like a speaker cone and does 95% of the work of the guitar.
When I brace the upper bout, I am thinking neck rotational pressure and structure, structure…. I concentrate on the area from the sound hole to the end block or the lower bout for adjusting the voice of the guitar with bracing. Structure is essential here also to prevent collapse of the top, but we underestimate the strength of the top plate combined with its bracing and tend to way overbuild this critical element of tone.
Remember - if the guitar is only 5% efficient and you add lots of unnecessary mass to the underside of the top, you have greatly reduced the top's ability to move and greatly reduced available string energy to drive the top. Excess mass increases loss of transfer or damping. It acts like a sonic heat sink, drawing available string energy into the mass rather than transferring it to the top and the air chamber where it can be converted to sound.
There is already internal damping going on in the top itself, the goal with the bracing is to speed and direct the movement of energy through the top without adding to that damping effect.
Bracing Patterns: I use the vintage X after having tried a number of more exotic forms and rejecting them. The sound they produced lacked character, they were even toned to the point of being boring. I personally find variations of fan bracing, radial bracing (like Kasha) and hybrid radial bracing patterns all sound way too even and uninteresting. They also lack a wide enough dynamic range for my taste. Even with Adi tops, they lack headroom. The top moves in a more uniform fashion rather than with lots of asymmetry. The X bracing adds the asymmetric component to the top motion that also gives it the punch and power.
Tuning tops is an impossible task. All tops of all species exhibit a singular pitch for each body size (footprint) within a half step of F#. It has much more to do with size and mass of the top plate than anything else. I will stay with what I know works and has worked for over 200 years of successful guitar making, the X brace system.
The ways I like to change the sound of the top are as follows, but not limited to these adjustments.
The Splay of the X: Actually, the splay of the X varies with the body size and shape to the degree necessary to cross the ends of the bridge feet with the tails of the X. This is both a structural and a tonal consideration. If you want a hard number, most D models are 102 degrees on the wide side. Smaller body guitars are closer to but never equal to a 90 degree angle. Allowing greater or lesser motion of the bridge by increasing or decreasing the amount of the bridge sitting on top of the X tails changes the motion of the top and either allows for more motion or restricts it. The effect is dramatic.
The so called "advanced" X that Martin employed for decades prior to 1940 kept the center of the X closer to the sound hole (about I 1/4 inches on a 4 inch sound hole) and minimal crossing of the bridge feet. This loosens the top and increases its amplitude and power. The downside of this configuration is that you must have a strong and relatively stiff top to minimize the S curve or partial top collapse that will inevitably take place under string tension. A soft top will distort too much and not bear the bridge torque.
Since the Adi top material used when these advanced X braced guitars were built was very stiff, hard and longitudinally strong, it was not so much of an issue. Modem Adi tops must be left thicker or arched more heavily to allow for light forward shifted bracing to be used. Both structural changes degrade tone quality.
One critical data point about my tops and all vintage Martins (as well as most other modern vintage guitar maker's tops) is that the arching is approximately a 50 foot arc which translates into a 1/8 gap at the ends of the 17 inch X brace when it is set down on a flat surface. Modern Martins have a 36 foot arc and follow the more modern building scheme. This is one reason the modern Martin does not sound like its historic counterparts.
Tone Bars: I always use 2 tone bars on all guitars larger than the 00 size; including all 000, D, J,and PS models. I vary the angle they attach to the X tails and tuck them under the tails, but I honestly have not found their placement to have much impact on the tone of the guitar. I keep them light to allow this part of the top easy motion while helping to prevent excessive top pull behind the bridge. Sometimes I use a different material for the tone bars, usually Adi, to sweeten the tone on a very stiff top. The softer and less stiff Adi works well to add woodiness to the sound.
Finger Braces: I discovered by chance that smaller bodies like the 000 and 00 work well with just one finger brace, rather than the traditional 2 on either side of the bridge plate. It is a work in progress.
The Bridge Plate: I am a traditionalist in this aspect, I use a small, thin, hard maple bridge plate. My thinking is that it worked for Martin for 140 years and made many of the best sounding guitars I have ever played; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The primary purpose of this plate is to prevent premature wearing out of the top from the ball ends of the strings. It also prevents the possibility of the bridge ripping up the spruce if and when it comes partially or completely loose. It was a common sense structural element on Martin's part.
If you look back at Martin and Gibson guitars over the decades prior to 1940, each and every structural change that was made was in response to a problem having come along that brought guitars back for service. At both Martin and Gibson they were, as a small and highly skilled work force, simple woodworkers at heart and came up with simple, logical woodworking solutions to the many little structural issues arising over time.
It was the sudden availability of new and better materials (like the advent of pattern grade Honduran mahogany in l9l6 allowing Martin to stop using Spanish cedar and the famous "bird's beak" complex neck joint) that led to production changes. Most of the small bracing changes were to correct for customers using too heavy a string-set on delicately built instruments causing top and bridge failures.
Scalloping: In years past,I glued my braces to the top as rectangular pieces and then shaped them with chisels and sandpaper. Now and for the last fifteen years or so I pre-shape the bracing and glue to the top. I like pre-shaping them. It allows me to test the brace for stiffness as I thin it or scallop it and I feel it affords me greater control over the final structure of the top.
I scallop or not depending on both the target sound and the specific physical properties of the top itself, adjusting the stiffness and sizing of the braces to suit the structural needs of the top and to make changes to the overall sound of the finished guitar. Since I do both Martin and Gibson style builds, I use very different brace shapes and patterns to achieve the vintage tone of each type.
Testing the finished top: It may seem odd, but I rarely tap a finished braced top other than to make sure there are no loose braces. By the time I have made and glued the braces down, I already know what to expect from the finished guitar. It is a matter of having built so many guitars and played with hundreds and hundreds of tops over the years.
Because my total build time averages 22 hours over a two week span, I can still hear in my mind's ear the tap tone of the unbraced top and feel its flex, so my build data points are still fresh. My memory for sound is very acute and it serves me well in this voicing process. It has become totally intuitive after nearly 50 years of day in and day out guitar making.
I find that tapping a finished top yields little information. Some builders are now using the Chladni frequency generator sand test for their tops with good results. Allen Carruth uses this method and has an excellent four hour video of the process if you are interested.
I do tap and flex the top when the box is ready for binding. While I can still see the top thickness around the edges, I tap the top to hear its response and tone, and I flex the top in the sweet spot for stiffness (the sweet spot lies on the lower right bout between the tail of the X and the lower tone bar. I adjust the thickness by sanding the perimeter to alter both the tap tone and the flex.
NOTE: There are all kinds of scientific tests on guitars on-line to look at. I have read most of them and find them utterly useless. It is important to remember that every top is different, there is no absolute uniformity. Data from one guitar will only hint at how to treat the next guitar. One experiment I saw used a 1968 Gibson Dove as their test bed. I'm surprised the plates moved at all! That data is highly suspect.
Making the Box (How the back and sides impact sound and tone):
The back and sides form the air chamber of a guitar and impart their physical properties into the tonal mix of the finished instrument. Thus choice of body woods is important to tone.
To keep it simple, I think of all woods in terms of their density, hardness, and elasticity.
These qualities along with how the woods are thinned and braced add or take away tonal qualities from the whole, but in relatively subtle ways. The top is still the voice and it is the dominant tone generator.
Here is a rough graph of various common guitar woods grouped by the three characteristics I list.
Low Density Medium Density Very Dense
Palo Escrito Indian Rosewood Pau Fero Light Braz. Madagascar Dark Braz. Hond. Coco Af.Blkwd
Madagascar Madagascar Braz.
Khaya Walnut Hond. Mahog. Cuban Mahog. BL Maple Sugar Maple
Lacewood Hond. Mahog
Spanish Cedar Koa Koa
Density and hardness are similar for these species with the following differences:
Very Soft Medium Soft/Hard Hard Very Hard
Spanish Cedar Red/Silver maple BL Maple Sugar Maple
Black Walnut Claro Walnut English Walnut
Cuban Mahog. Hond. Mahog. Khaya
Pao Fero Indian RW Braz. RW Mad RW Hond. RW
Lacewood Af. Blackwood
Ebony
The Elasticity Graph
Very Elastic Moderately Elastic Inelastic (rigid)
Spanish Cedar Hond Mahog. Madagascar RW
Indian RW Braz. RW Braz.RW Hond. RW
soft maple BL Maple Sugar Maple African BW
Lacewood Cocobolo
Myrtle Walnut Aust. BW Ebony
These three qualities of back and side woods do the following to the sound of the guitar:
Density: Less dense materials make for greater liveliness in the response and an increase in the power quotient. They also reduce the strength of the high partials, softening the tone. The higher density materials add to the sparkle and sustain by increasing the available mass. They also tend to be rigid, which has an even greater impact on thinning the tone quality, less depth.
Hardness: The physical hardness of a back and side material affects the wood's ability to either absorb or reflect sound waves moving about the box (actually a combination of absorption and reflection). The more absorption the wood provides, the fatter and sweeter the tone quality, possibly too much so. Using soft woods here can make it difficult to achieve a good balance between warmth and clarity as the high frequency range is damped significantly.
Highly reflective woods are also dense and tend to be inelastic. They reflect the majority of the sound waves and cause the tone to take on a brittle, metallic, thin quality, There is a noticeable loss of tonal depth with very dense, hard woods so it is important to choose a top that will add warmth back into the mix rather than choosing a screamingly bright and stiff top.
Elasticity: I think this is one of the most important and interesting of the three characteristics and one I have discovered late in my career. The ease or difficulty of setting a plate in motion determines, in part, how much depth and power the guitar will have and how much sting energy will be lost in the process. The air chamber and back act to reinforce the motion of the top, or not, and the elasticity of the back, in particular, can greatly effect the efficiency of the guitar as a whole.
For this reason, I prefer to use woods that move easily, even the rosewoods that are quite dense, either by choosing a mobile species or by thinning out the more rigid material to where it can flex a bit. This may entail cutting a back down to as little as .070" as in the case of African Blackwood and Cocobolo. Scary process, but worth the risk for the better tone and power produced.
For many years I thought that really nice Madagascar Rosewood was not particularly different from Brazilian Rosewood in how it behaved structurally and thus, tonally. After building dozens of guitars of similar sizes using both materials as well as the same top species, it became painfully obvious that this was simply not true. I had been seduced by the similarity in ping tones and appearances of the two rosewoods to think they sounded alike as well.
Even when thinned heavily, Madagascar Rosewood remains very stiff, stiffer than a Brazilian back at the same thickness. Brazilian and Pauo Escrito, for example, are far more similar in their elasticity than Madagascar and Brazllian, which only look similar. Brazilian has what I call a trampoline effect on the sound, pushing it out of the box with greater force, thus projecting well.
Body Design
Size Matters: The footprint of a guitar body and the depth of the air chamber all impact the tone of the finished instrument. I know from experience that my rounded 16 inch J model (like a J-l85 Gibson) never sounds or behaves like my 000 or D or the J-35 or any other guitar I make. It defies any changes in woods or tops and will not move away from the basic tone of that box shape. It has an almost annoyingly even tone quality and lacks the headroom of any other box I build, again, regardless of the top material. There is something about the shape of the body that effects the way sound moves through the system and it seems immutable.
Here is my take on body shapes and depths. The most efficient guitars are small guitars, like the 00-12 fret and the 15 inch 000. Larger than that, the sound becomes more airy and the bass starts to take over the vocal register. Making the air chamber shallower on a larger box helps to balance out the bass, mids and highs as well as making the pumping of the air chamber air less audible, the blowing over the coke bottle effect. The wider top has its own effect on the balance of the voice and the sound often seems to wallow inside the box rather than projecting from it efficiently.
Small boxes throw the sound much better than larger boxes. It is a mechanical advantage they have, not a function of specific design elements.
Sound Holes and Ports: In the Martin history book there is a picture of a piece of paper from C.F.'s office circa 1885 that shows a complete listing of every model they were making at the time and the different sound hole size for each. So even early on, Martin had figured out the effect of hole size to air chamber frequency. This is the Helmholz frequency we all talk about. Smaller boxes use smaller sound holes to increase the bass response of an otherwise treble strong instrument.
I am a traditionalist and use only two sizes of standard sound holes, a 3 3/4 for the small boxes and a 4 inch for the D and larger boxes. I don't do Ports, that's for you modern guys. I would not have thought large side ports or small top ports was a good idea, but I have played enough really fine modern guitars with these features to know that they can work well.
The Neck:
There are a zillion theories about the neck, its effect on sound and feel, how it behaves with the motion of the body, etc, etc. Here is my very unscientific take on it based on my 50 years of experience and well over 1000 guitars under my belt. I could be wrong… I approach the neck from two points of view: structure and tonal effect.
Structure: I want the neck to be strong and stable. I prefer an adjustable truss rod for service. I would build with a non-adjustable rigid system, but I don't trust it over time. My next iteration is to go back to the very sensitive, but light weight Gibson style single rod. I currently use a single action double rod.
Ebony fingerboards are harder, more rigid, and wear better than rosewood. I suspect they also add a little to the sustain of the box, but subtly. Rosewood is lighter and less rigid and wears relatively quickly, but seems to add a bit of liveliness to the response of the instrument. I use mostly ebony.
I only do the old fashioned wood to wood dovetail neck joint. It works, it is relatively simple to make and fit, it adds no extra mass to the guitar beyond what was already there. If the goal is to build lightly, the handy dandy bolt-on neck assembly needs to go bye-bye.
So much for structure.
Tonal Effects: The mass of the neck material seems to do two things to the sound of the guitar.
Light neck (Spanish cedar, light mahogany): increases responsiveness of the guitar, adds warmth to the tone, draws less energy from the box
Medium neck (Honduran mahogany or similar): the standard, works well, hard to tell what effect it has on tone
Dense neck: (hard maple, heavy mahogany, rosewood, etc.) Definitely adds noticeably to the sustain of the instrument. Adds sparkle with accent on higher partials audible. Reduces the headroom of the instrument by drawing string energy from the box
The Scale Length: Basic rules of physics to keep in mind here: 1) The longer the scale, the higher the string tension for a given pitch. 2) It is a non-linear, exponential relationship. 3)A small change in scale length has a relatively large change in tension.
The longer the scale, the plainer and less complex the string motion and thus the less interesting the tone quality. Fewer small harmonic nodes form on the tighter string. The shorter the scale the greater the complexity of the string motion creating a more interesting tone.
I prefer the 24.9'6 Martin/Gibson short scale as is found on the 000 and many of the early Gibson flat tops of all sizes. I also use the slightly longer 25.4 * D scale for my larger guitars. I have done scales as long as26.25 but do not like the tone I get from them regardless of box size and wood choices. I find guitars with these longer scale to be dull and boring as well as underpowered..
The Baritone Thing: It is my belief that the current Baritone and Semi-baritone building frenzy is misguided. Rather than doing the wholly logical thing and make everything bigger and scales longer to increase bass response, why not take the MOST EFFICIENT guitar box and turn it into a low tuned instrument? Remember, the bigger the box, the more mass and the less efficient it is. The longer the scale, the plainer the sound, why not go with something more complex as well.
Basic rule of thumb: If you need a longer scale to make the guitar have a bigger sound, it is probably overbuilt. A smaller box with a short scale can easily sound every bit as powerful and have a more complex voice than the bigger box with the longer scale.
The Bridge: Again, mass is important as is how the bridge feet interact with the supporting bracing. Other than that, it is pretty much up to you to decide on design. The top is doing 90% of the work of the guitar, anything you add to it, either under it or on top of it can impact both tone and power. Less is more.
I use both the belly bridge and the slimmer, longer pyramid bridge because it fits my style of build. I have little data on other bridge types and their effects on the resulting sound. I do know for certain that the Tune-o-matic is not a good idea! Keep it simple.
The height of the bridge and corresponding saddle height is important because the height above the top determines the angle of the fulcrum for the string/top motion and thus the ability of the bridge to "load" the top.
Top "loading" is a mechanical term meaning how much torque is applied to the top by the bridge rotating with the string pull. The higher the point of rotation, the greater the force applied, the more top torque or loading.
Industry standards are a bridge height in the middle of 5116 " and an additional saddle height of at least 3/16 ", although depending on the geometry of the top itself, an ll8 to 5132" saddle will work as well.
Bridge materials: The bridge should be tough and hard. Ebony is a good and standard choice. I prefer African Blackwood for its greater toughness and resistance to cracking. It also polishes really nicely and has some grain character to it. Using a Rosewood bridge will brighten the sound but has the trade off of being prone to cracking and it is not as tough or durable a material..
The Nut and Saddle: You can alter the tone quality of a guitar by using different nut and saddle materials. More so with the saddle than the nut. How hard of soft these two components are effects the level of brightness of the tone. A muddy toned guitar will benefit from a really hard nut and saddle material (like fossil ivory), whereas an already bright or overly bright guitar can be tamed by using Micarta or similar soft materials. Corian actually works well in this case. I use bone or ivory exclusively as I choose tops that will already have the crispness I seek.
Strings: Like it or not, not all strings are created equal. Every brand seems to have its own voice. I look for clarity and durability as well as easy left hand feel, even with mediums. I string mostly with light gauge J-16 D'Addario. They do the job and are cost effective. I use their mediums for the flat picking crowd, the J-l7's. I also use Nanowebs sometimes for their longevity. They don't sound as good, but the don't sound as good for a lot longer.
My feeling is, if you have to use mediums along with a long scale on your guitar in order for it to sound good, the guitar is overbuilt. Any guitar should sound almost as powerful and full voiced with lights as it does with mediums. One test of a really good guitar is how it sounds with old, worn out strings. If it still has power and clarity and tonal depth with year old strings, it is either a vintage guitar or a very good modern one. Few guitars meet the challenge.
Finish: Every guitar maker's nightmare is applying the finish, regardless of the materials used. It takes as mach time to finish a guitar as it does to build it (rule of thumb). Finish Matters. The best finish is a thin finish, on the order of 3-5 mils, regardless of material used. Thin means it will protect the raw wood but still be flexible and allow full motion of the parts. Each finish has its own degree of elasticity (here we go again with elasticity...it is important).
The old work horse material like French polish (shellac and variants) and nitrocellulose are more similar than different in their physical properties. Both for quite hard, rigid, brittle thin films. Any finish overbuilt is going to case-harden the guitar and impede the motion of the wood. Modern catalyzed finishes have flexibility by virtue of their molecular structures, long interlocking chains of complex acryls and esters along with some very nasty solvents and catalys agents. The only finish I would avoid at all cost is the non-UV cured polyesters. They do not stick well to any substrate, so they chip and delaminate easily. They also retain an odd softness which deadens the tone of the guitar like wrapping it in a thin rubber blanket. I can't speak to the UV cured polyester, but I suspect it can be applied so thin that it minimizes the tonal downside. Poly is the only truly bullet-proof finish I know of, but I would never use it or advocate others use it.
Varnish of various flavors is being reinstated as a guitar finish after almost a century after it was last used on production instruments (primarily Gibson). It is a challenge to work with but in capable hands produces a lovely, warm, slightly soft but very tough finish.
I actually use a waterborne, self catalyzing acrylic lacquer from Target Coatings, EM 6000. It has the burn in, high solids, quick build, fast cure-to-buff, easy touch up and most of the physical properties of the old nitro. It takes several weeks to fully de-solvate and harden, but it is a very forgiving finish to work with and safe enough to shoot without venting to the outside air. It can be sanded after 30 minutes and buffed after 24 hours, cutting down finish time significantly.
Final Thoughts to Leave With:
1) The top IS the voice, choose it wisely and work it with care.
2) Do not overbuild; lighter is much better than heavier. You would be surprised at how lightly you can build the structure of a guitar and still have it work without imploding.
3) Arching the top increases top tension and rigidity. It is an exponential function, not linear, whereby a small amount of arch significantly increases both top tension and rigidity. The top at rest or without arching will have a fundamental as much as 2 whole tones lower than a top with a 36 foot arc. Arching shifts the overall responsiveness of that top from bass-mids-highs to mids- highs and highest partials. The resulting tone becomes less deep and woody and brighter, stringy sound and greater playing noise.
4) Fit and finish is important, but keeping the structure light and responsive is paramount for success. A flawlessly executed bit of fancy woodworking is not the same as a great guitar. It can be, but one aspect does not automatically follow the other. Just because you can do, does not mean you should.
5) Don’t be seduced by fancy modern tooling into thinking you are a great guitar maker all of a sudden. Tools designed for production remove the direct human to wood contact so necessary for understanding the various materials intimately. Tooling can take away the sheer tactile joy from the build process. A sharp chisel in the hand is far more satisfying than turning on a CNC machine. Besides, how many guitars are you trying to make in a year? Hone your hand skills first.
6) Experience really does count Build and play lots of guitars and pay attention. Educate your ears. Get your hands on as many vintage and modern guitars as you can, play them, listen closely to them and learn.
7) Use the internet as an information resource with great caution. There is much nonsense and misinformation contained therein. Be skeptical of all information unless you know the source well and trust it.Remember when reading on-line scientific research abstracts about guitars that a late 60's Gibson Dove was the data source for one such study. Keep a sense of humor about all of this and take it with a grain of salt. A Gibson Dove? Really?
8) Hide glue does not sound any different than LMI white guitar glue, sorry about that. However, it is much more fun to use.
Relax, none of us really know what we are doing. We are all flying blind with only occasional glimpses of the ground through the fog of unknowing. Enjoy the process. It does get easier over time.
Considerations When Selecting Wood, by Roland Vinyard
When researching wood for a build, here is what I consider, in addition to the appearance, all in no particular order.
1) Does it split easily? Is it brittle? Will it be structurally sound for the size and style guitar I am making?
2) How hard is it to work with? To bend (extra important on cutaways)? Does it take finish easily? Does it glue well?
3) Does it have an odor? If so, does this persist? Do I like it? Hate it?
4) What are the luthier’s preferences, likes and dislikes? How about his experiences with these different woods? Take his advice and experience very seriously.
5) Could there be legal difficulties down the road (meaning CITES and the Lacey Act regulations and so forth - as well as my own concerns about rare and endangered species)?
6) How stable is the wood? How affected is it by changes in humidity?
7) Need the luthier be concerned about the toxicity of the dust?
8) Is it heavy or lightweight?
9) How resistant to marring?
10) And, of course, how likely is any particular wood to affect the sound of the finished product? Can I expect it to give me the sound I am looking for?
And that's why we are here today.
Woods – A Brief Education, by Bruce Petros www.petrosguitars.com
...We start with master-grade tone woods that have only the best, proven track records for producing good sound in acoustic, steel strung guitars. We then classify these exceptional woods on a hardness/density scale (see chart to the right). We have placed the different woods on a scale from lightest and softest to heaviest and hardest and have suggested pairings of tops and backs. The harder the back wood is, the less energy it absorbs and so the less it vibrates. The less it vibrates, the more it projects. The cost of great projection is reduced tonal color as contributed by that wood. Conversely, softer woods vibrate more and produce great tonal color, but project less well.
So, hard back tone woods:
The Guitar Top – Heart of the Instrument: The top is the heart of the instrument. It “makes or breaks” the sound of a guitar, regardless of what back wood is employed. ... Slightly arching the top creates stability and wonderful overtones, while the graduating of the top’s thickness creates big, deep basses. This remains consistent regardless of the back and side woods we employ. Yet, while the overall volume, weight and timbre changes, just as a gold flute will sound different than a silver one, one is not superior to another. They are just different.
.... The different wood combinations used contribute to the production of a pleasing array of variations in timbre and volume. The Petros techniques for building the guitar top are far more important than the difference, for example, between Sitka and Adirondack top woods. Adirondack is harder so the top is made thinner than a Sitka top would be. (This has a tendency to make Petros Adirondack guitars a bit louder.)
Cedar and Redwood are very much alike and are softer than Sitka and Red Spruce. Being softer woods, they need to be made a bit thicker. While less loud than the harder tops, these lighter woods make for very responsive, delicate sounding Fingerstyle instruments that produce warm tones and are favored for their expressiveness. Englemann and Italian Spruce fall between Cedar and Sitka.
A Word on Top Development Over Time: The Cedars and Redwoods do not develop dramatically over time like the Spruces. This is primarily because the Spruces contain resins that continue to dry and harden over many years. Cedar and Redwood don’t have resins and sound pretty well developed right off the bench. All guitars will break in and develop regardless of resin content by virtue of playing and vibration through some magical realignment and relaxing of the wood fibers and molecules. All very scientific!
Commonly Available Back & Side Woods From softest & lightest to hardest & heaviest.
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity Recommended top pairings (see below, Top Woods)
Alaskan Yellow Cedar 29/.38 1 – 4
Mahogany 35/.54 1 – 5
Koa 37/.57 1 – 5
Sapele 41/.58 1 – 5
Claro Walnut 40/.55 1 – 5
Bolivian Rosewood 42/.70 1 – 7
Ziricote 53/.66 1 – 7
E Indian Rosewood 53/.77 1 – 7
Brazilian Rosewood 53/.77 1 – 7
African Rosewood (Bubinga) 56/.88 1 – 7
Ceylon Satinwood 62/.88 1 – 7
Ebony (Macassar or Malaysian) 54/1.01 1 – 7
Cocobolo 63/1.02 1 – 7
Cambodian Rosewood 72/.97 1 – 7
Less Common Woods
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity Recommended top pairings
Shedua 37/.46 1 – 5
Zebra Wood 47/.55 1 – 7
Wenge 54/.83 1 – 7
Madagascar Rosewood 58/.47 1 – 7
Paua Rosa 68/.67 1 – 7
Bois De Rose 58/.47 1 – 7
Top Woods from softest & lightest to hardest & heaviest
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity
1 Western Red Cedar 24/.33
2 Redwood 25/.38
3 Engelmann 26/.34
4 Italian Spruce 26/.35
5 Sitka Spruce 27/.36
6 Adirondack Spruce 28/.37
7 Alaskan Yellow Cedar 29/.38 ....
Deciding on Back Wood and Top Combinations: In my experience, the softer the back, the softer the top should be. A softer back with an Adirondack top will absorb too much energy to efficiently drive that top. Generally speaking, if you want a softer back, go with a softer top – Cedar, Redwood or Englemann. If you are a more aggressive player and really want maximum volume and lots of headroom, we suggest a harder back and a harder top. A hard back and any top, even the softest, will completely utilize that top. If your style is more delicate and you play with more nuance and subtlety, you would naturally lean toward the softer, lighter weight woods. A good, in-between compromise is Indian Rosewood and Sitka … both in the middle of the hardness scale. They are an excellent pairing and therefore very popular. Bottom line, you can pick the woods you like best for any of a number of reasons – visual appeal, for example – and Petros Guitars will do what it takes to make it superbly well balanced.
Tonewoods in Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi, 2010 www.esomogyi.com
Behind everything that has ever been said or written about the guitar, it is in fact nothing more nor less than an air pump. As such, the air pumping efficiency of its design and materials are the most important factors a maker needs to consider in his work. Everything else -- the guitar’s history, its design aesthetic, its looks, the romance, the art, the techniques of its construction, its noble materials, the fame of its makers, or even its beauty -- is secondary.
Structurally, the guitar consists of a vibrating top and a vibrating back which are separated by a set of non-vibrating sides, and a non-sound-producing neck. Because the top and the back are the only two acoustically active parts of the guitar, the choices of top and backwood are the most important ones to be made in the selection of guitar tonewoods. Tonewoods are called such because they really make tone, or are capable of making tone, compared to more normal woods which are useful for making things like buildings, boats or furniture. Tonewoods can ring when you strike them, just like a bell or a piece of glass. Can you imagine a wood that rings to a musical note when struck? Brazilian rosewood can: it’s the material marimbas have been traditionally made of, and, even in guitar form, such wood can ring like a gong. Good quality face wood also can ring like crystal. Such materials, when studied by scientists or acousticians, are said to have a high degree of liveness, or "Q" [which stands for "quality"], and Brazilian rosewood is only one of many tonewoods that have high "Q".
Because of the dynamics of the guitar, tonewoods for faces need to be different than tonewoods for backs, if the instrument is to have the best and most even sound. The best guitar faces are made of high quality musical instrument grade softwoods such as spruce and cedar. The best guitar backs are made of high quality hardwoods such as rosewood, ebony, maple, walnut, koa, mahogany or any of a number of other suitable body woods. The consensus among luthiers is that face and backwoods need to be chosen from woods of differing densities because the resonant frequency of the back needs to be higher than the resonant frequency of the face, by at least a tone. The best wisdom on this matter is that if there is too great or too small a gap separating the fundamental resonant frequencies of the top and the back, then guitars have an uneven tone. That is, the sound becomes an uneven mixture of loud and quiet notes. Likewise, if the face and the back are most active at the same frequency or frequencies they’ll act in tandem to reinforce certain notes, but leave others weak. It does not matter what the sides are made out of, except that guitars in which the back and side woods don’t match are considered to look too strange and generally won’t be salable: backs and sides need to match for aesthetic reasons.
How does one choose tone woods? Well, it depends on what the guitar is expected to sound like and how the face is expected to behave.
SPRUCES AND CEDARS
As far as top woods go, European spruce, on account of its cellular structure, is more brittle than American Sitka spruce: it cracks and splinters somewhat easily when sufficiently bent or stressed. Sitka spruce, in comparison, has superior tensile strength: it will bend a lot before it breaks. Because of these factors ships’ masts and airplane propellers -- which need to put up with lots of stresses -- are made from Sitka spruce. Before the advent of space-age materials, its stiffness-to-weight ratio even made it ideal for making airplane fuselages out of. On the other hand, no one uses European spruce for ships’ masts or airplane propellers: they’d snap from hard use. Nonetheless because of this internal brittleness, and when made into a guitar face, European spruce makes a beautiful sound rich in overtones -- a sound that is limpid, focused and full of nuance and tone color. Fingerpickers tend to like this sound, which is a little like having a choir of singing voices inside your guitar, or like listening to the clear fundamental and harmonics of a church bell. In comparison American spruce is supple and springy (in a ropy way) rather than brittle, as a function of its cellular structure. Because of these qualities, when it is made into guitar tops, it makes a sound that is not so much in focus as the European spruce is. Its sound is heard as not being so cleanly defined but, instead, as warmer, more fundamental, and largely free of overtones. It’s a good, solid sound and bluegrass flatpickers and folk-musicians tend to like it a lot. These are, of course, rules of thumb with many exceptions, because there is so much innate variability from sample to sample.
Cedars, as a vibrating material, sometimes have a better stiffness-to-weight ratio than spruces. Accordingly, the sound these can make is more quick and loud and, because it is so immediate, brighter and sharper than a spruce sound -- but without the European spruce overtone component. Because of its inner structure cedar is also a somewhat weaker wood than spruce, and it is more subject to cracking and fracturing. I recommend being a bit more careful in the care and handling of a cedar top guitar than a spruce one. These are also rules of thumb, with many exceptions.
Engelmann spruce has been brought into instrument making in the last few years, and is different from the above woods in several characteristic ways. First, it is very white. European spruce is white at first, but oxidizes and darkens over time so that after ten or so years a European spruce guitar face takes on a lovely and warm honey color which gives it a naturally aged look. If repair work needs to be done on such a face and the repairman sands some of this wood off it reveals a lighter color which won’t match the surrounding surface and needs tinting. Engelmann spruce seems to resist oxidation, and, in my experience, stays white for a longer time.
A second, and much more important, difference is in the nature of its cellular structure. Sitka and European spruce and cedars tend to have dark grain lines which are hard; that is, they are areas of dense cellulose concentration. It is precisely this cellulose concentration which gives softwoods woods their longitudinal stiffness and strength: the white grain lines in between are mostly thin walled cells full of air (think styrofoam). It’s the dark material that does the work. Engelmann spruce seems to have dark grain that is less differentially concentrated from its own white grain. That is, it’s not all that much harder a material than the white grain next to it, like it is in the other woods. You can test this out yourself next time you’re in a position to compare these woods: dig your thumbnail into a few dark grain lines to see how hard they are. Or aren’t. The differences are pretty obvious. In consequence, because this concentration of linear "cellulose rebar" is decreased in Engelmann spruce I believe it is a softer and weaker wood in general. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad wood, but it does mean that it has to be worked differently than the other spruces. I should add that I have noticed quite a range of this quality in Engelmann spruce, and some of it compares favorably in cellulose structure to the European and American -- but most of it is not like that, in my experience. Therefore, because it’s so varied a wood and there are so many exceptions to any general description of its quality, I’m inclined to believe that one has to be choosier in using it. Thus, saying that a particular top is Engelmann spruce becomes less meaningful than saying European or American spruce. To the extent that Engelmann is generally weaker and softer I’d expect that one would have to use it in thicker plates to work it with confidence; otherwise it would correspond, structurally, to the use of exceptionally thin (and correspondingly weaker) European and American spruces. And having a consistently thicker top would have to create some consistent, characteristic, difference in sound. But all in all, I’m not sufficiently experienced with this wood at this time to say anything more about it.
ROSEWOOD
Rosewoods are more consistent from sample to sample than spruces and cedars and one piece is much more like another in behavior, if not appearance. Of the rosewoods used in guitar making, Brazilian rosewood has traditionally been the best wood of choice. This is partly due to tradition and partly due to its phenomenal "Q", which makes it a very acoustically active material. When struck, a properly cut sample rings like a plate of glass. This quality contributes to sustain and projection in a guitar, because those are the chief functions of the back. Sustain, because it rings a long time; and projection, because the back’s movement can be coupled in vibrating activity to the movements of the face, boosting the directional power of the activity of the guitar. Because of its high "Q", Brazilian rosewood is both vitreous and brittle, and therefore prone to cracking and checking. East Indian rosewood, the alternate wood of choice, is comparable to Brazilian rosewood but simply not as beautiful nor as "live", by a factor of some 10% to 20%. This is not a huge difference, and there are plenty of excellent sounding East Indian rosewood guitars around. Also, East Indian rosewood is an attractive choice because it is much less prone to cracking and therefore generally less problematic to work with. Other rosewood-like woods which have a high "Q" are wenge and padauk (both of which crack very easily) and certain Asian and Central American rosewoods, which do not have the beauty of Brazilian or East Indian. While I haven’t worked with all these woods I’d expect them all to be brittle in direct proportion to their liveness and be prone to the same mechanical failures. Removing their brittleness would in fact remove the factor that is responsible for their characteristic tone.
MAHOGANY AND KOA
Mahoganies and koas are very variable in physical properties. That is, whereas one piece of rosewood is much like another in this regard, these woods range from light to dense, and stiff to loose, while all looking the same. Accordingly, they will behave differently as tonewoods as they exhibit different degrees of "Q" and a guitar’s sound will be colored by the specific selection of koa or mahogany used. The denser and more brittle the wood, the more it will ring; the lighter and looser the wood is, the more it will be an acoustically passive part of the guitar. Heavy koa, mahogany and walnut are all comparable in their tone. Everything else being equal, it is generally recognized that mahogany and koa will produce a "warmer" sound in a guitar than the more brittle rosewoods can.
MAPLE
Maples usually have a low "Q" and tend to make passive backs in that they don’t ring, sustain, or further the vibrational activity of the face very much. In fact, they help to absorb the vibrational energies of the face and kill them. As an extreme example, consider the sound you’d get in tapping a guitar back made of cardboard. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however. Besides being beautiful, maples help to create a sound which is damped and short-lived and which is perfect for jazz style playing. The jazz musician will play many notes, and the music is such that it is not desirable for any of the notes to linger in the air. Such music does not need the sustain of Brazilian rosewood. For jazz, one wants quick notes that come out and then disappear -- because there are many more notes coming. This quality is also desirable for certain parts of the modern classical guitar repertoire, which has at this point somewhat abandoned the lush, dark and expressive tonalities so much appreciated in the Romantic classical repertoire. Again, there are exceptions to all these statements; but, as rules of thumb, these descriptions are accurate.
SPANISH CYPRESS
"Spanish" cypress is the traditional wood of choice for flamenco guitars. It’s a formerly cheap and plentifully available Mediterranean wood which is wonderfully aromatic and easy to work. For much of the Spanish guitar’s early life this cypress was the poor man’s wood for backs and sides; it was the most common default material for anyone who could not afford the more expensive rosewood. For all its humble origins, though, and in spite of its comparative lack of density, properly cut and selected Spanish Cypress has at least as good a "Q" as East Indian rosewood and a much better one than maple. Even though it isn’t used for making steel string guitars, I know of no reason at all why it wouldn’t work very well on them.
CELEBRITY WOOD AND EXOTICS
From time to time a new wood surfaces that captures everyone’s imagination as being "superior" in one way or another. It’s an interesting phenomenon that is part and parcel of the guitar making community’s cyclic attempts to find The Holy Grail. It has its counterparts in many other departments of human endeavor such as the search for a better President, the best athlete or athletic team, the ultimate racing-boat design, the best next actor/actress, the surefire cure for cancer or urban decay, etc. In lutherie, as an example, African blackwood has emerged as a popular alternative to Brazilian rosewood in the last few years: it’s a perfectly good wood, and getting quite pricey as demand for it rises. Likewise, Adirondack and red spruces have been getting a lot of press lately on the strength of their having been the "original" spruces used by the Martin Company. I sometimes wonder what African or Asian wood will be discovered next year as the answer to my acoustical problems -- both those continents being so well known for their long and rich traditions of guitar making. The fact is that the use of celebrity wood -- that is, simply because it’s popular all of a sudden -- is always driven as much by marketing and wishful thinking as by experience and the laws of acoustics. I want to underline the obvious: namely, that one can overbuild or under build with celebrity wood as easily as with anything else: just using it will not be a guarantee of anything.
Parenthetically, the corollary to the myth of "the best wood" is the myth of bad wood. The fact is that, within reason [for instance, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for a balsa wood guitar], there aren’t many really "bad" woods: one simply has to know how to work with the materials. Personally, I prefer the stiffest and most lightweight tonewoods woods to work with. But perfectly good guitars have been made with stiff woods, floppy woods, heavy woods, lightweight woods, tightly-grained woods, widely-grained woods, domed woods, flat woods, quarter sawn woods, off-quartersawn woods, etc. etc.; you get the idea. It’s very largely in what one does with them....
And as far as exotic woods go, keep in mind that one man’s exotic is another man’s boring domestic product. Today, many American guitar players and makers believe that European spruce is the best guitar top wood: European spruce comes, of course, from Europe. Prominent Swedish luthier Michael Sanden reports that he has great demand for Sitka spruce on his guitars; Sitka spruce is, of course, a Northwestern American and Canadian (and Alaskan) wood, and Sanden’s clients consider this wood superior. Each group of end-users considers its preferred wood to be an exotic.
TONAL POTENTIAL AND TONE CHANGES OVER TIME
It is common knowledge that wooden string instruments -- whether they be pianos, mandolins, lutes, or guitars -- benefit from being "played in". Older instruments have tonal qualities of mellowness and smoothness that newer ones lack, the latter often sounding somewhat brittle and harsh in comparison. The analogy of making a stew is often used to describe the quality of transition of a sound which is initially a bit rough, "green" and unsubtle but which gradually blends its elements into something more integrated and smoothly pleasing. In the guitar, also, different woods take different amounts of time for getting "played in". Why this is so is not fully known but, obviously, it has to do with changes in the cellular and fibrous structures of the woods over time.
Some of these changes have to do with the adaptation of the woods to the stresses of being strung, after possibly centuries of being unencumbered by such forces. A main physical indicator of these changes is seen in the doming in the area behind the bridge which almost all older guitar tops show, but which new ones won’t yet have. Extreme distortion is problematic, but a merely visible amount of it is absolutely normal and even desirable; in fact, guitars which are so overbuilt (through thicknessing, doming, bracing, etc.) or understrung that this distortion of the wood is prevented will never manage to have the developed sound every player wants. The act of actually playing on a guitar, over and above simply stringing and stressing it, seems to have a decisive and accelerating effect on this blending; as with muscles, stretching and "warming up" seems to loosen things up significantly. I make my guitars yielding enough to have some top pull-up, and tell my clients to play them a lot for at least the first few weeks.
Finally, all of the woods described above have a certain tonal potential rather than a fixed quantity of tone. That is, they can be worked with to enhance or suppress certain portions of their potential response spectrum. However, like a plank of wood that can only yield usable pieces shorter than itself when it is cut, and never a longer piece, guitar making woods benefit from the outset only in having the most and best potential tone for their intended use. You can work with any wood to make it sound a lot worse than its potential; but you can only work with it to make it a little, if any, better. Once you’ve figured out what you want your next guitar to sound like, go out and buy the best wood you can find for it.
Tapping Tonewoods, by Dana Bourgeois
How the Selection of Species Helps Define the Sound of Your Guitar
Acoustic Guitar Magazine, March/April 1994
Why is it that different woods are used for acoustic guitars, and how do these woods affect the sound of the instrument? In the past, there was less opportunity for confusion on this issue, since most guitars were made of mahogany, rosewood, maple, ebony, and spruce. But with the dwindling availability of traditional tonewoods, particularly those cut from old-growth forests, major manufacturers and smaller luthiers have been compelled to consider the use of alternative species of tonewoods - some of them common and others decidedly uncommon. This article looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the woods most commonly used today for tops, backs and sides, fretboards, and bridges.
Evaluating Tonewoods
Differences between woods can be as mysterious and complex as differences between people. Even within a species, no two pieces of wood are exactly alike. Environmental conditions, genetics, the age of the tree, annular growth patterns, grain orientation, curing conditions, and so on all have an effect on the tonal properties of a piece of wood. In addition, tonewoods respond differently in the hands of different makers. They can also take on different characteristics when used in different models of guitars-even those built by the same maker. And whether a particular wood sounds good or bad depends partially upon who’s doing the listening. So any attempt to sort out distinctions between tonewoods can only be offered from a relatively subjective point of view.
When evaluating tonewoods, luthiers must take into account a wide variety of factors, some of which can be inscrutably subtle, and most of which are likely to vary in priority from one luthier to another. I tend to place a good deal of importance on a couple of elements that, when viewed together, illuminate much of my own understanding of tonewoods.
Velocity of sound refers to the speed at which a material transmits received energy. Simply described, plucked guitar strings transmit energy to the bridge. The bridge in return oscillates one surface of a ported enclosure, setting up sound pressure waves that eventually reach the eardrum. In order to contain this chain reaction, one must design an efficient ported enclosure and then make it out of materials that facilitate the transmission of the vibrational energy. Lively materials-those with a high velocity of sound, or low internal dampening-make the best facilitators.
There are a number of ways in which luthiers judge the sound velocity of wood. The most common method is to hold the wood at a nodal point, tap it, and then listen for the response. (Nodal points are analogous to the locations on a guitar string where natural harmonics can be played.) The difference between a high and a low velocity of sound can often be so apparent that one demonstration is usually sufficient to teach an apprentice how to select most of the good sets out of a given stack of wood. Sometimes a piece of wood is so lively that it doesn’t seem to matter where you tap it or where you hold it. I remember going through a large stack of aged Brazilian rosewood from which I was able to make my selection the moment I lifted a piece off the top of the pile; rubbing one piece of wood against another was enough to make the best sets ring!
In addition to testing for velocity of sound, luthiers also make use of the tapping technique to listen for harmonic content. Like a string, a piece of wood is capable of producing a fundamental tone and an array of harmonics. Though the presence and strengths of individual harmonics are distinctly influenced by changes in the geometry and mass of the piece of wood, elements such as clarity of tone, relative harmonic complexity, and high, low, or mid bias can readily be discovered by holding and tapping a piece of wood in a variety of ways.
Topwoods
Each part of the guitar seems to play a role, be it significant or subtle, in determining the tonal characteristics of the instrument. In very general terms, the top, or soundboard, seems to affect the guitar’s responsiveness, the quickness of its attack, its sustain, some of its overtone coloration, and the strength and quality of each note’s fundamental tone. Most luthiers (but not all) believe that the wood chosen for the top is the single overriding variable that determines the quality of tone of a finished instrument.
Spruce is the standard material for soundboards. These days the most commonly used species is Sitka, due to its availability and to the high yield from its characteristically large-diameter logs. Quartersawn Sitka is quite stiff along and across the grain; high stiffness, combined with the relatively light weight characteristics of most softwoods, is a recipe for high velocity of sound. A strong fundamental-to-overtone ratio gives Sitka a powerful, direct tone that is capable of retaining its clarity when played forcefully. Sitka is an excellent choice of top wood, then, for players whose style demands a wide dynamic response and a robust, meaty tone. On the other side of the balance sheet, the lack of a strong overtone component can result in a "thin" tone when played with a relatively light touch-depending, of course, upon the design of the guitar and the other woods used in its construction. The break-in period for a new Sitka guitar can also be longer than that of other spruces.
The most common alternative to Sitka is Engelmann spruce, another domestic western species. Engelmann is often more expensive than Sitka due to the lower yield from its smaller logs and because most logs have a spiral-grained structure that renders them unsuitable for proper quarter-sawing. Engelmann is considerably lighter in color than Sitka spruce, lighter in weight, and usually less stiff, resulting in a slightly lower velocity of sound. Engelmann also tends to exhibit a weaker fundamental tone, although it produces a noticeably broader and stronger overtone component. It is therefore a good choice for players who require a richer, more complex tone than can be obtained from most Sitka tops, particularly when the instrument is played softly. The downside is that Engelmann tops can have lower "headroom" than Sitka tops, which is to say that clarity and definition are often sacrificed when the guitar is played loudly.
European or silver spruce, the spruce of choice for makers of classical guitars, shares a number of characteristics with Engelmann spruce, including color, lightness of weight, harmonic complexity, and fullness at the lower end of the dynamic range. Because of its visual similarity and significantly higher cost, its name has been affixed more than once to a piece of Engelmann spruce by unscrupulous (or uninformed) wood dealers and luthiers. European spruce differs from Engelmann in its potentially quicker response and greater headroom. The availability of anything better than mediocre European spruce (which is easily exceeded in quality by the better grades of Engelmann - a commodity that is still readily obtainable) is sharply limited, unless the boards are selected at the source in Europe.
Eastern red spruce, also known as Adirondack or Appalachian spruce, was the primary top wood used by American manufacturers before World War II. Its use was all but discontinued due to over-harvesting of the resource but has recently been reintroduced thanks to 50 years of regeneration and to the legendary status that this traditional tonewood has attained. The small size of most logs and a shortage of wood conforming to market preference for even color and regularity of grain conspire to keep the price of red spruce extremely high.
Red spruce is relatively heavy, has a high velocity of sound, and has the highest stiffness across and along the grain of all the top woods. Like Sitka, it has strong fundamentals, but it also exhibits a more complex overtone content. Tops made out of red spruce have the highest volume ceiling of any species, yet they also have a rich fullness of tone that retains clarity at all dynamic levels. In short, red spruce may very well be the Holy Grail of top woods for the steel-string guitar. If players and builders were able to overcome phobias about unevenness of color, grain irregularity, minor knots, and four-piece tops, many more great-sounding guitars could be produced while the supply of potentially usable red spruce is still available. Old-growth woods are disappearing so fast that such an attitude change will need to be scheduled sometime in the near future, unless the majority of new guitars are to be made of synthetic materials.
Before leaving the spruces, I should mention bearclaw figure, or hazelficte-a delightful pattern in the grain occasionally occurring in all species of spruce. Bearclaw, like the curl in curly maple, is a rippling of the longitudinal fibers, which divides the surface of the wood into shimmering patterns. Unlike the even waves that usually occur in maple, bearclaw usually appears on asymmetrical or randomly broken patterns. This phenomenon almost always occurs in older trees that have dense, stiff grain structure and high sound velocity. Thus bearclaw is usually a reliable indicator of the better examples of tonewoods within any given species of spruce.
Western red cedar ranges in color from honey brown to light chocolate. It has a quickness of sound that exceeds any of the spruces, a higher overtone content, lower fundamental content, and lower stiffness along the grain. Additionally, cedar tops require a significantly shorter break-in period than spruce tops, a phenomenon that a few dealers of new guitars are beginning to pick up on.
Since World War II, cedar has been used extensively by makers of classical guitars. Cedar-topped guitars are characteristically lush, dark-toned, and bursting with flavor. They are often less powerful in projection than their spruce cousins, however, and they tend to lose clarity near the top of their dynamic range. Having enough bottom end is never a problem for a cedar guitar, although preventing the sound from getting muddy sometimes is. Because of its pronounced weakness along the grain, I find cedar to be used to its best advantage in smaller-bodied guitars or with non-scalloped braces. Redwood is usually darker in color than cedar and often displays the same general tonal characteristics, leaning slightly toward darker tones, less definition in the bass, and lower velocity of sound.
Koa and mahogany have been used for soundboards since the ‘20s, and makers have recently begun to use maple. These hardwoods have in common a relatively low velocity of sound (as compared to softwood tops), considerable density, and a low overtone content. They therefore tend to produce a solid tone-though not an especially rich one-and respond best at the upper end of the dynamic range. Mahogany-topped guitars exhibit a strong "punchy" tone that is well-suited to country blues playing. Koa has a somewhat more midrangy tone that works well for rhythm and truly shines in guitars made for Hawaiian-style slide playing. Maple, in particular, having the lowest velocity of sound of the three, can be downright flat-sounding-a blessing in disguise when a guitar is amplified at high sound-pressure levels.
Back and Sides
Besides serving to form the enclosure of the soundbox, the back and sides of the guitar also act as a sympathetic resonator whose oscillations contribute greatly to the harmonic mix. When judiciously selected (with due consideration given to design criteria and the other tonewoods used in the instrument), the back and sides can have a tremendous effect on the overall tone of the instrument.
Brazilian and Indian rosewood have an extremely high velocity of sound and a broad range of overtones. The rosewoods, as well as their various rain forest cousins - cocobolo, kingwood, morado, and the like-have strongly pronounced low overtones, usually the lowest resonating frequencies in the entire guitar. These lows help to create a complex bottom end and to impart an overall darkness of tone to the instrument. Strong mids and highs serve to reinforce overtones generated by the top, contributing to a fatness of tone on the upper registers. Guitars made of rosewood also have a pronounced "reverby" tone, caused by a strong, clear set of sympathetic harmonics with a delayed onset and slow decay.
I’ve found that Brazilian rosewood has everything that Indian rosewood has, only more. I say this with great trepidation in light of that species’ likelihood of extinction within a couple of generations. An international embargo on trade on Brazilian rosewood products guarantees that the relatively few sets remaining in this country, which may be used only on domestically sold guitars, will continue to spiral in price as the supply dwindles.
Mahogany and koa have relatively high velocities of sound when considered as materials for backs and sides and thus contribute much to overtone coloration. Lacking the low-end frequencies of the rosewoods and also their sustaining reverberation, these woods have an altogether different sound. Where rosewood guitars can be thought of as having a "metallic" sound, mahogany and koa guitars are better described as sounding "woody, although the harder, more dense examples of these woods can take on some of the characteristics of the rosewoods. Between the two, koa seems to have a little more fullness in the midrange, while mahogany tends to favor the bass (to some extent) and the treble.
Maple and walnut tend to be more acoustically transparent than other tonewoods, due to a low velocity of sound and a high degree of internal damping. That is to say that they allow tonal characteristics of the top to be heard without the addition of extraneous coloration and may even serve to attenuate some of the overtones emanating from the top. The harder, denser examples of these woods, such as sugar maple and black walnut- particularly quarter sawn examples-tend to lean slightly more toward the tonal direction of mahogany, while softer examples, such as bigleaf maple and claro walnut, tend toward greater tonal transparency. Curly, quilted, or bird’s-eye figures do not seem to have much effect on the tone of the wood, but they can be used, like bearclaw, as an indicator of other properties. Quilted figure, for example, occurs most often in softer species and is best displayed when the wood is flat sawn-two characteristics that tend to produce higher damping properties.
Fretboards and Bridges
Players of electric guitars with bolt-on necks have long been hip to the fact that neck and fretboard materials can have a significant bearing on tone. Maple necks can impart a bright, poppy tone that can do much to reinforce the top end of a large-bodied guitar, while mahogany necks help push the overall palette into a warmer, more woody tonal range.
Fretboard materials also exert an influence on overall tone, although they probably act more as icing on the cake than as a layer of the cake itself. Brazilian rosewood fretboards and their denser rainforest counterparts add sparkle and ring, and Indian rosewood fretboards can help fatten up the midrange. Wenge, a dense, dark-colored African hardwood unrelated to the rosewoods, has tonal properties remarkably similar to those of Brazilian rosewood. Ebony, the traditional fingerboard material found on violins, classical guitars, and high-end steel strings, has the lowest velocity of sound of all the woods commonly used in lutherie and has definite damping characteristics. This may not prove to be much of a problem for large-bodied guitars made out of red spruce or Brazilian rosewood, but it may be something to consider when designing smaller guitars, particularly those using some of the less resonant woods for tops and backs.
Bridge materials, like fretboards, cannot make or break an instrument, but they serve to enhance or edit the tonal contributions of other materials found on the guitar. The woods discussed above-ebony, Brazilian rosewood, and Indian rosewood-contribute similar tonal qualities when they are used as bridge materials as when they are used for fretboards.
It is important to remember that wood, when considered generically, can be responsible only for certain aspects of the tone of any guitar. Equally important are the design of the guitar, the skill of the maker, and the quality of the individual pieces of wood from which the guitar is made. Species selection can, however, be a determining factor in the creation of a very special guitar or a guitar designed for a specific purpose.
The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods,
by John Calkin
This article first appeared in American Lutherie #69. American Lutherie is the official publication of the Guild of American Luthiers.
Why do we even need alternative wood species for musical instruments? That's a perfectly valid question, and the answer is that we don't. Rosewood, mahogany and maple have served us well for centuries , we know what to expect of them. First of all (and speaking from a steel string guitar perspective), let's discard the notion that some species of wood make good instruments and that others don't. The concept of tonewood is a hoax. Guitars sound like guitars. No matter how poorly or bizarrely they are made, you'll never confuse the natural sound of an acoustic guitar with that of a banjo, a mandolin, a drum or a flute. Obviously, not all guitars sound alike. The tone of a guitar lies more in the hands of the builder than in the materials from which it is constructed. With increased experience, the level of craftsmanship increases. Psychoacoustics plays such a large role in this matter that it's difficult to discuss tone objectively. ( I think that it's called psychoacoustics because trying to figure out stringed instruments will make you psycho.) We hear what we expect to hear.
So if the type of wood doesn't matter to the instrument, and if we can't get good money for instruments made of alternative wood, why bother with them? I like them because I need a certain amount of variety in my life. Curiosity has often been a stronger task master than the buck, I guess. I've tried as many types of alternative woods as anyone I know, which is what led to my conclusions about tonewood. Alternative species will eventually become more acceptable as standard species go the way of Brazilian rosewood. Alternative wood can also be cheaper and more accessible than standard tonewood. This can especially be an important factor to beginning luthiers. If your favorite wood should become accepted by the industry, you'll notice an astonishing price increase as the orders fly in.
Perhaps I should briefly describe my experiences with conventional wood species, just so you have a gauge for my opinions about the alternatives.
Mahogany is a lovely wood to work with. Old-timers maintain that the quality of mahogany isn't what it used to be, and I am forced to believe them. Supplies today vary widely in hardness and density. Some mahogany is stiffer and heavier than other samples.
Indian rosewood is much harder, heavier, and stronger than mahogany. Guitar sets seldom show much figure, but we're all accustomed to looking at it that Indian rosewood just looks "right". Sanding this wood clean takes more effort than mahogany.
The most trying wood that I have used to any extent is Brazilian rosewood. The stuff loves to warp while it is sitting on the shelf, and, once installed in a bender, is capable of almost anything.
The makers of other instruments are probably glad that not many flattop guitars are made of maple, which leaves the supply of good stuff for them. Maple sort of proves my point about tonewood. Quilted maple is soft and floppy. Bird's-eye maple is very hard.
Before you start daydreaming about having all the cheap wood you want, remember that some tonewood companies will join backs and sand sets to usable thickness for you (for a fee, of course), thus saving you the cost of a large band saw and a thickness sander. Some species are easier to deal with than others. For luthiers, this is primarily a matter of bending the sides. Hand bending is the cheapest way to go, and learning the process with mahogany will make the process the most bearable. Instruments can be designed to make bending easier. Dreadnoughts are the easiest to bend. Tight waists make life more difficult for the hand bender, but not for the blanket-equipped. Tight cutaways always present some risk.
About the author: John Calkin is a contributing editor to American Lutherie, the official publication of the Guild of American Luthiers (GAL). A professional luthier since 1980, he has made over 300 instruments. He began working for Huss & Dalton in 1995.
Alternative to What? by J. Chris Herrod, with Luthier's Merchantile, Int'l, 2004 www.lmii.com
About Chris Herrod: As sales manager for Luthiers Mercantile, Int'l. for many years, Chris Herrod has enjoyed the friendship and advice of scores of the world's finest string instrument makers. In his spare time he records and performs as a solo singer/songwriter and is also known to make a huge racket on the electric guitar in various local improv combos.
We hear the term alternative tonewood bandied about quite often and are fond of it ourselves, but what exactly does it mean? If you walk into a guitar store, chances are you'll see a variety of wood grains on the instruments displayed there. The first thing we need to do here is to establish our bias against the majority of cheap, often imported guitars that use veneers instead. Typically, the veneers used are made from (or made to look like) a traditional tonewood, though occasionally you'll see some rather outrageous synthetic veneers where the grain patterns swirl around in nearly impossible ways! But for the serious player, there is no real substitute for solid wood. The main, immediate difference in sound one hears are the numerous subtle overtones, harmonics, or partials that color the basic tone. A solid wood guitar sounds richer, more colorful.
Function and Tradition
Some woods are better suited to guitar making than others and there are two main reasons for this- function and tradition. The physics of the guitar are rather delicate. The strings on a steel-string guitar exert a tremendous amount of tension on the soundboard. Other qualities determine whether a particular species of wood is suitable for guitar making, such as stability (most luthiers hope their instruments will last for many, many years without repair), workability and, of course, visual beauty.
Tradition is a factor that is somewhat subservient to function. For instance, the Martin guitar company established the American steel-string guitar as the instrument we all know today. Now, some may rightfully argue that traditions such as these are somewhat arbitrary as far as the value of an instrument is concerned, but guitars are cultural artifacts, and there is a lot more to them than just their functionality as music-making device.
So, when we say 'alternative tonewood' what we really mean is an alternative to the tradition of using certain woods in guitar making. The reasons a luthier would choose to depart from the traditional or familiar are many. Some luthiers have set out to carve a unique professional identity by using a particular alternative wood. Others seek a more environmentally responsible alternative.
Common Woods
Now, there are many parts on the guitar, but most agree that it is the soundboard (or top) and the back and sides (the latter typically made from the same type of wood) that have the most to do with the sound of an acoustic guitar...
Soundboards are usually constructed from one of two types of woods, cedar or spruce. It should be mentioned, however, that many guitars have been made from pine, fir and larch, though generally these woods are considered poor choices as far as tone is concerned. The soundboard is the main sound-producing component of the guitar and the choice of tonewood, along with the way the top is braced and thicknessed, has the greatest bearing on the overall tone of the guitar.
Where to Now?
As stated previously, there are many reasons why a musician might consider buying a guitar with so-called alternative tonewoods in its make-up. So, if a luthier is building a custom instrument for you, it's best to ask what he or she can suggest to help you meet your musical goals. Just remember that the craftsman will have a better idea of how to inject his or her gifts into the instrument.
The World of Fine Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
I received this email from a friend:
“I went to the Saratoga guitar show and played an instrument that I can't get out of my mind. It was the best sounding and playing guitar I ever laid my ears/hands on. I was going to ask you if you've heard or tried, but no matter what your opinion is, I LOVED it. Now I need to justify that I deserve such a fine guitar. Now I bet you're wondering who/what. Kim Griffin from Washington County, Greenwich, I believe. I found a review on the web and it was 10 stars in every category. He custom makes no more than 6 guitars each year. The one I am dreaming of was 3 grand, but he said he'd knock of a few hundred, heh. I'm thinking that folks spend that much for a factory made instrument . This is out of character for me.....I just bought a hundred dollar Chinese Epiphone and was proud that I could spend so little. Well, I wrote to you because you have some very good sounding, unique guitars. I'm guessing that these should increase in value just as an old Martin or Gibson, am I right? Is this a good investment aside from my desire factor?”
My reply -
I know well the phenomena of which you speak. My first insight happened when in high school and I played a far better quality sax than I ever owned. "Was this me playing? Wow! I sounded good." And I was playing better too. A fine instrument can do that - basically give you - and the listener - far more pleasure. Obviously, not everyone feels that way. There are some good players out there with not-that-good instruments, but I am seeing a slow trend with the better players having far better instruments. Those old days are disappearing. A good example of this is Leadbelly. He played a Stella 12 string, for which he is famous. Stella was sort of a Montgomery Wards kind of brand; mostly all very low end instruments with very few high end ones. My bet is that, if he could have afforded it and if handmade instruments were available to him, Leadbelly would have played as fine a guitar as he could get. It may be that his guitar was made before the company went cheaper and bigger.
It has been said that we are in the golden age of guitars. That may be true. More than ever, luthiers are experimenting and pushing the boundaries as they learn more about their craft. Forums (try "The 13th Fret" or "Acoustic Guitar") and guitar shows allow them to meet others and see what boundaries others are pushing. There are fine, fine tonewoods out there now and it is generally acknowledged that the supply is going to rapidly diminish. And there are just some incredibly skilled folks out there. Not all of them are the same. One guitar that tempted me was the second one made by a DuPont employee. Darned fine guitar. But I didn't buy it. Here's why.
The less well-known the maker is, the lower resale it may have or, at least, the harder it may be to sell, if you ever had to do that. It is the "Holiday Inn Syndrome". People tend to buy what they are familiar with, even through better alternatives may exist. I had the Martin thing for a while. They make good instruments (as does Taylor, Gibson and also Guild). And people know they are good. They don't know what a Griffin is, for example, so they will tend to discount them, even when they hear and play them. Sad fact, but still a fact.
There are 4 tiers of guitars, as I see it. At the bottom are the factory-made lower end instruments, serviceable and inexpensive. They are your biggest bang for the buck. Some, not most, Martins are in this category, cheap but still decent. That is one reason I don't consider them for purchases any longer. I think that in their attempt to reach a broader customer base, they have really cheapened the brand. Martin still sells high end instruments, but I feel they are significantly overpriced, betting on their name to bring the extra. The second tier are the well-made name brands listed in the above paragraph, solid quality that you can count on. A third tier are what I call "boutique guitars", finely made, by small firms such as Goodall (I own two of these), Huss and Dalton, Larrivee, Santa Cruz, Collings, Froggy Bottom.... You can go to certain stores and find them. There is one in the Capital District, Cathedral Music, over in Troy; others are where you find them, scattered far apart. These guitars sell for thousands, but may be cheaper than the finest of the Name Brands, when comparing quality. The last tier are luthier-made guitars. By this, I am referring basically to shops so small that one man (or woman) oversees the entire building of each instrument, doing most if not every step himself. Guitars made by these people are normally made on order only and each is one of a kind. The buyer gets to select the body style, the woods, the appointments, exactly how he wants them and the build is a collaborative process between luthier and buyer. A good builder will know what kind of music his customer plays and how he plays it. My most recent build saw the luthier ask for a CD of my playing so he could voice it to my attack and to my style. Once in a while luthiers will make one on spec, especially when he has ideas on the build process that he wants to try, ones for which no one has ever ordered.
It is a real high to finally receive a guitar that you ordered years ago, one that was created only for you, and was made just the way you proscribed. After all this time, you get to hold it, to play it, to hear it. And, yes, you also get to see if your trust in the builder was warranted. Normally, the owners are delighted and have done the homework ahead of time to assure their trust was not misplaced. Sometimes, though, they would have been better off to go to a boutique and first play the one they are going to buy. When you order, there is always a chance you will not be satisfied, because you can't play or see them until they are made. If you play enough by a particular maker, here and there, you begin to get ideas about what you like or what you don't. You may also forget what the ones you saw earlier were like.
Let me give an example of that. In 1978, I went to my first visit to the Martin factory. They have a neat little museum there and a guitar out that you can play. Of course, it is one of which they are especially proud and the acoustics in the museum are great. Naturally, I took hold of the one they had out. Omigod, I had to have one like it! I had no idea I could sound so good. So, that started a 3 month search. I was traveling around the US at that time and every single music store that I could find got a visit from me, looking for such a herringbone-braced Martin. I played a lot of them and what you might have expected happened. I kind of lost an exact memory of what the one in the museum felt and sounded like. So, I could never be sure when I had one in my hands if it was as good. I eventually bought one, but by then, I was forced to acknowledge that my scientific comparison was completely flawed. The next search came many years later and this time, I went to higher-end stores where I could play a bunch of fine instruments, put one down, then pick it up again. I went to Cathedral Music, Mandolin Brothers in Staten Island, Melody Music in Bryn Mawr, Pa, to mention a few. That was very helpful and I began to make some useful comparisons. I talked to other high end stores, all over the US, and read what I could on the internet, also useful.
What did I end up with? A radical departure for me. I ended up buying a Goodall - sight unseen, from Buffalo Brothers in California. Not a totally dumb move, I could have returned it if I was not happy - except I was happy. It is a truly great guitar. By the time I was ready to commit, I had made up my mind that a Goodall was going to be a contender, so buying one that I had never even seen was not quite so dumb as it might have sounded. That's only half the story. Another guitar came out of this search. At Cathedral, I played a used Kinnaird, one which had been made specifically for a fellow who later sold it. I loved that thing, but I didn't like its looks (too ornate for me). Curious, I went to Kinnaird's web site and learned that I could have one made specifically for me for the same price I had considered paying for a used one. So was it a Goodall right away or a wait for a Kinnaird? I did something totally out of character - I bought the Goodall AND ordered the Kinnaird, taking care to get different voicings on each. At home, the Goodall is used for faster pieces, as it is brighter-toned. The Kinnaird is used for more introspective pieces, as it has a slower decay and a more subtle and nuanced intonation. The Kinnaird happens to be the one you heard me play at the Moon & River, the one you liked the sound of so much.
To get a special instrument, there is another direction one can go - the vintage route. As a guitar is played, the vibrations in the wood are supposed to work on the resins and stuff therein and allow it to "open up". I am in a skeptical minority about this. But, more importantly, vintage instruments may have been built with better woods than are readily available today. With cheaper labor back then, more care may have been taken in the build and a better low or middle end (just maybe, maybe, even high end) instrument resulted. With a vintage instrument, you get all the mojo you could ever ask for and you don't have to worry about the first dings and blemishes; they were done for you decades ago. But, they come with their own worries - bending tops, curving necks, glue coming loose, body cracks, crappy tuners... And the vintage market can be very biased toward certain brands or models. For example Gibson banjos sell for top dollar. They are well-made, definitely yes, but yet they were not always thought to be a "top" brand when they were new.
Now, having said so much of a general nature, let me be more specific. If that guitar rings your bell, that's all you need to know. Are you happy with the looks, the workmanship, and the sound and playability? If so, what more can be asked? I have played a Griffin once and they are fine. The one I played wasn't what I particularly wanted, but that's OK. I have talked to a couple of Griffin owners and they were well satisfied. One fellow was trying to sell his. He had to drop the price several times before it sold. I have the same problem right now with my Moreira classical guitar. If you are really into classical guitars and their makers, you will know who Moreira is. But most people don't. I couldn't get squat for it on eBay. I tried. It is now consigned in North Carolina at Dream Guitars, who have other Moreiras. I have been trying to sell it for a while and had previously consigned it at a small classical-only shop in Philly, then at Cathedral and, later, at Mohawk Valley Guitars. I am re-making the same point I made earlier about re-selling them. But if you are happy, you will not be selling it, so it doesn't matter as much as my writing might make it seem. "Are you truly happy with it?" is the big question, the one besides which every other concern pales.
In general, reviews on the web seem to be positive, not matter what you are researching. That's why internet firms have them on their web sites. They provide useful knowledge, especially when you can read many of them. Then certain trends become apparent. I like to form a judgment of where the reviewer is coming from and what his experience is. Read a review for, say a Dean or a Johnson, and I'll bet they are good too, even thought they are not anywhere near the same category. Most reviews are made when the purchase was new and before things stared to go wrong with it (if they ever do). Incidentally, Harmony Central seem to have the most guitar reviews. It's a good resource, when taken with the usual grain of salt.
Most of the fine instruments out there are $3 grand - and up. I would be a bit suspicious of a $2000 handmade instrument and would wonder was it the fact that the luthier wasn't well-enough known to command a higher price, or was he not really as good as you think he is. My observations this summer at the Montreal Guitar Show (recommended!), which featured only handmade guitars from select luthiers, was that there were a lot more out there above $6000 than there were at $3000-3500. But there were ~$3000 guitars I played there that I liked as well or better than far more expensive ones. Price is not always an indicator of quality or of what you want. For instance, I thought Kinnaird was very reasonable, considering what he was turning out. And the asking price of any given guitar may be far different than what you end up paying. The one I just got, the baritone, was offered to me at a Professional's Discount, which amounted to several thousand dollars. I would have been crazy not to take it. Other luthiers did not make that kind of attractive offer to me and this maker's reputation for quality baritones was second to none. An easy choice to make. Yes, I love it.
At the Montreal show, I met a luthier with whom I had communicated in the past. Great guy. Heck, most of them are. I haven't met a luthier who I did not like and who did not really seem to put both his professionalism and his craft on a very high plane. You see this in certain professions once in a while. Anyway, this luthier and I carried on an enjoyable set of conversations on finer points of building in which I was interested. He knew I'd never buy anything from him, yet he wanted to help me. His guitars were priced closer to $10 grand than they were to $6 and I could not see that they were better for my uses than others which were cheaper. He based his price upon two things: his reputation, and the fact that folks were buying from him at the prices he asked. Others do too. Once, he suggested that a luthier in Maine ask far higher prices for his instruments (based upon their relative quality, his and the other fellow's), but the other fellow declined, saying that he thought his were expensive enough as it was (I agreed, but then I am a consumer). At $3000, no luthier is getting rich and no wife can quit her job. Maybe not at $6000 either. There is just too much work that goes into a handmade instrument. These guys are meticulous and professional. Each one they sell has to be a perfect as they can make it. They stand behind them, often with lifetime warranties. I joke, whose life, "theirs or mine?" Remember when they retire, if they do, the company does not continue and service will end for your instrument. You'll have to get any problem taken care of elsewhere, which is not hard to do.
A rule of thumb is that a used instrument in mint shape will bring 80% of the selling price when new. And, also, list price is greater than selling price (except with luthiers, who are more apt to not do the padding thing). I have seen fairly large price jumps in the time I have been following fine guitars. But that does not carry through to all brands/makers equally. Of course, "past performance is not an indicator of future value", or whatever it is that stockbrokers say. The Griffin or Goodall or Kinnaird that you buy today may or may not edge up in value along with the rate of inflation, and when if becomes vintage it will be like the "unknown makers" of a quality instrument, not highly sought after, but still well-regarded. Let's face it, one buys a fine guitar because you gotta have it, because it speaks to you and says "take me home" (the forums are full of references to "GIS" - Guitar Acquisition Syndrome). Most buyers intend to keep theirs for a very long time, so resale price should not really be much of a factor in one's decision. Let me give an example from the cow world. I asked a dairyman why he had all those expensive and fancy registered cows in his herd, ones that didn't make any extra money for him. He said that when he got up in the morning, he wanted something special out there in the barn, something to get him excited to start the day. That describes my guitars. I take real pleasure in owning, playing, hearing, just touching and seeing my guitars. And I like knowing that what I have is truly special. Yes, for 1/3 the price, I can get something 75% as good. But I don't want to settle for 75%.
As an aside, if you buy it, or any other one, be absolutely sure to get a guitar humidifier and to use it during the dry winter weather.
Montreal Guitar Show, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Cory (#1 Son) and I took a day+ off and skipped up to Montreal for the big guitar show there. I am so glad I went - and so was he, even though he doesn’t play much guitar. After a few hours, my brain went into guitar overload, not that I wanted to do or see anything else. Here’s some more information for you.
In North America, there are 3 guitar shows that eclipse all the others. One, in Healdsburg, California is held every other year. There is another near Miami and this one in Montreal. I’ll describe it and, by extension, the others.
It lasts 3 days. Admission is ridiculously cheap at $15/day (Canadian). Mainly, it is a showcase for luthiers who practice the very highest form of guitar-making. They have to be invited to attend. There were over 100 luthiers of just acoustic guitars alone who exhibited there. As you might expect, most were from the US and Canada, but about 10 countries were represented. And then there were luthiers of electric guitars as well. I did not pay any attention to them, except to notice that they were less numerous and had far fewer people milling around them.
But acoustics, oh my - there were flat tops, classicals, 12 strings, archtops, Macaferris, resonator guitars, baritones, Weissenbourns... of every shape and description there, made from more exotic woods than most folks could ever name and each one was a work of art in addition to being a wonderful handmade instrument. I of course focused on the the flattops - parlour guitars, dreadnoughts (very few, which is surprising since it is the best-selling guitar size), 000s, OMs, 00s, jumbos, concert-models... and many with proprietary sizes and shapes.
Since I am very interested in both tone woods and guitar design, it was a cornucopia for me. I got to see guitars built from woods, some of which I had only ever seen pictures of: pernambuco, ebony, maple, cypress, pau ferro, bubinga, sapele, ziracote, Bolivian cherry, lacewood, zebrawood, cocobolo, koa, black walnut, monkeypod... and every sort of rosewood and rosewood substitute you could think of. But there was not that much mahogany, which I found interesting, as it is the most basic tonewood used worldwide, and a darn good one despite its popularity.
And design - what a lot to see! Some guitars looked pretty normal, but incorporated radical interior design, others were built normally but were very different to look at. Of greater interest to me were many with innovations I have heard about but had never seen or played. I can’t say that any longer. If you asked, each luthier would let you play any of the instruments he had there on display, for as long as you wanted. Want to play a $25000 guitar? Go ahead (but be careful). Want to talk guitars? You will never find a more knowledgeable and friendly group of folks than were there, all willing to spend as much time with you as you needed.
As some of you know, I have a baritone ordered. It has been done for 6 weeks but has not been delivered yet, not sure why. Based upon the luthier’s recommendation, I had it built from spruce (top) and bubinga (back and sides). So yesterday, I got to see my first bubinga wood, what it looked like in person (my luthier has provided me with many photos) and hear how it sounded. I even saw a bubinga baritone, not nearly as nice wood as mine. It was merely beautiful and sounded fine, but I bet mine will sound far better. I did see another guitar built from bubinga. It was far different appearing than mine, a mixture of light and dark brown, not the reds I expected. It was truly beautiful and I spent a while playing it. From a luthier in the west, it had a unique system to quickly and easily adjust the neck angle and pitch. I am not sure that these things would ever need doing so much as to justify this. It also led to some compromises in appearance. But I liked playing the guitar. That is, I did until I went back after having played so many others that were better. The guy really wanted me to buy it, too. He was obviously willing to cut his price considerably to avoid taking it back home. But, the quality of workmanship, upon close examination, did not meet my new (higher) standards. And I certainly didn’t need it with 7 or so of them at home.
I played a beautiful cocobolo guitar with a black top that was really beautiful, despite that black top. It had a double top, very thin layers of spruce sandwiched between some space age honeycomb material. I was not at all impressed with the sound. That took me by surprise, as the luthier is quite renowned and naturally his offerings reflect that in the price.
Another innovation I wanted to learn more about were fan frets. I had my own ideas on these and found myself proved wrong. Fan frets are not parallel to each other, but are angled, each one different then the one next to it. They must be a nightmare to install. The idea is to have a longer vibrating section for the low strings and shorter for the higher-pitched ones. The benefits to this are supposedly better intonation up and down the neck and a better bass sound. To gain this, you get a, well a weird looking guitar with a bridge not parallel to the bottom and a nut not at right angles to the neck. Looking them over and mentally complaining about their very nontraditional looks, I saw one that was different than the others. It’s bridge was parallel to the bottom and the nut parallel to the top of the headstock. This was accomplished by doing two things. First the angles of the frets were more moderate, less jarring to see. Secondly the body was asymmetrical. The builder had shifted the upper and lower bouts until they have mirrored the frets. When you have lemons, make lemonade. I picked it up and started to play. Immediately I noticed that the body seemed further to my right side than it should be. That odd feeling lasted 15 seconds and after that it felt normal. The fan frets felt normal to play right from the start. Remember, this guitar’s frets were less angled than some others. And it had a great bass sound. As a matter of fact, I liked the way it felt and the way it played as well as what I was hearing and could probably happily live with its unusual looks. That is, IF I wanted another guitar. (0ne can never have too many!) On the other hand, I play traditional music and my audience expects to see something traditional in my hands. But, tempting.... It also had a cutaway, which I do not like, both for aesthetic reasons and since I don’t need a cutaway.
But it did have a sound port. This was something I had thought of having on the baritone I have ordered, then discarded the idea. That was a mistake, I should have had one put in. Perhaps it is not too late. What a sound port is, is a hole in the upper bout nearest the player’s face, a second sound hole. It acts like sort of a stage monitor. You can hear what you play much better and it sounds better to you. I played quite of few of these and each one sounded better than expected. Cover it up and you get less sound, less happiness. What the audience hears does not change. We did some experiments and, sure enough, I can find no downside to this one. Both of you get to hear it well, the audience and the player.
The last innovation I wanted to try out was the “Manzer Wedge”, invented by luthier Linda Manzer, who I met there. Many luthiers use this, not just her. What is it is an instrument that is narrower on the top than the bottom. That does just one thing - makes it more comfortable to play. The audience cannot tell by looking. I tried it and discovered two things. First, I think the sound is less than it should be. No doubt, others will ague about this; it's subjective. But I did not like the sound of the one that I played. Secondly, I am already comfortable with large guitar bodies - I don’t need it more comfortable.
We went to Montreal just for the day. If I were serious about getting a fine instrument, I would go for all three days, try out all sorts of guitars, take notes (there are so many there, you will not remember it all if you don’t), and then bargain for the one I want during the last minutes of the show. They have booths where you can take a prospective guitar and hear yourself play without the din of other playing, people talking and moving about. I didn’t do that as I was not serious about getting another guitar at this time.
I noticed that when I played, a crowd started to gather around me. Why was that? There were so many other players there who can blow me out of the water. Most of them, probably. But, I play fingerstyle, with a good bass beat and, with the song circles I play in, have learned to play a bit louder. Toes start to tap, then they walk over to see what is causing it, huddling around to listen until something else distracts them. An interesting discovery. I was of course far from the only one there who drew small crowds.
If you want to listen to music, there were free mini concerts each day long and into the late night. If I had gone for all three days, l would have heard more of these. Not subscribing to any of the guitar magazines and listening to mostly traditional music, unfortunately, I knew just about zero of the performers and the slick and colorful 54 page booklet that came with the admission ticket did little to explain what we would hear. A luther will hire or cajole a well-known (not by me, but by everyone else) performer to showcase his instruments and what can be done with them in the hands of the right person. We did take in a few mini concerts and and were treated to find music that we would not be likely to hear anywhere else. The two that impressed me the most were a duo of classical guitarists, women, who played simply exquisitely beautiful music. And there was one we saw just before we left. I have no idea how to categorize his music, maybe “rhythmic avant guarde”. He used lots of harmonics and percussive techniques both up on the strings and the body, flamenco stuff without a flamenco sound, pretty amazing. The crowd was wild over him.
I had ODed on guitars some hours before (but was still ready for more), but was reluctant to leave, it was so good. But it was late and I had my life to resume. And, the icing on the cake for many - this event coincides with the huge Montreal Jazz Festival. Everyone not associated with the show asked us if we were here for the jazz and were surprised to hear about the show. Even the huge hotel that hosted the free evening concerts didn’t seem to know about it. We had ask around quite a bit before we found where they were playing. And there were 100 in our audience!
My Instrumental Hegira Starts, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Back in 1960, I was at a Bible camp and what did the kids there do for fun - they sang in Hootenannies. (Remember those?) With my awful voice, I never had considered that singing could be fun, but that was where it was at. With so many folks singing, I could blend in and not be heard. So I did, what fun! In all that group, there were two who could play a stringed instrument. Well, I played sax at home and figured out that this was a way I could contribute. So when I returned, I petitioned my parents for a guitar. In due time, they made the 90 mile trek to Philadelphia (where all major family purchases were made) and returned home with one for me. A Kay archtop. My heart sank; that was not what I had in mind. Still, it was what I had, so with the help of a teach-yourself-guitar manual, I set out to learn. Progress proved to be excruciatingly slow, but I was stubborn and I learned.
Then a music store in town opened and I became friends with the son of the owner, who was talented but younger than I - which helped to lower the gap between us. Anyway, I decided I wanted a different guitar. My friend's father told me I should buy this old beatup though sound Martin that he had there. We are talking the '60's now and $50 was about all I could afford. I could get the Martin or a new Czech-made classical for the same money. Today, that would be a no-brainer. I now see the attraction of vintage instruments and accept flaws in them as part of their cachet. But this was not today and I was 17. Also keep in mind that in those days, players in many of the popular big name folk groups used classical guitars. Steel strings had not yet won that battle. So did Burl Ives. Nylon was as acceptable for folk music almost as much as a steel was. You guessed it, I bought the new one. My friends shrugged their shoulders and took my $50.
Five years later, I was out of college and working. I'd been introduced to old time music and was becoming knowledgeable about it and also about the suitability of my classical to play it. Now regretting the chance to buy a $50 Martin, I began to look at them in stores. They were all a LOT more than $50. Finally I found one that was much cheaper than the others. On a whim, with a paycheck in my pocket, I just up and bought it. How unlike me to just spend money without thinking forever about it first. Of course there was a reason this Martin was cheaper. It was a less valuable instrument and came in a el cheapo cardboard case. A 00-18 parlour model, it was still decent though subdued. I now believe it had a cedar top. When I bought it, I didn't care much for any fact other than its brand. Dumb, but true. I remember the wonderful smell every time I opened the case and after I replaced it with a better guitar, I noticed I no longer got the smell. I took very good care of it.
Another five years later and much water under the bridge, I had sold my farm and the classical guitar (to an employee, for what I had paid for it) and had gone to the Martin factory, a neat tour if you are ever near by. In their little museum, next to the historical models safely tucked behind glass, was a guitar for anyone to try. So I tried it - and was immediately converted. No, I was blown away. Wow, did it sound super (of course the acoustics were probably superlative too)! And my playing was immediately better, the enjoyment score way up, off the scale. I am sure Martin was very smart about picking this particular guitar for the public to play. They wouldn't sell it to me; I tried. Now I had gone there with no intention of getting another guitar, but suddenly I had to have one like it! That became the focus of my life now, even more important than jobs or women.
Having some cash from the farm sale as well as all the time I could ever want, I was touring the US on an extended and badly needed vacation. Slowly making my way west, every music shop I passed had me in there looking for another such instrument. None was the Holy Grail. I went into shops in many, many states and the inevitable happened soon enough. I could no longer exactly remember what that magical Martin had sounded like or even felt like when I played it. But still I persisted in my search for an instrument that would blow me away. In Colorado, I thought I found it (a Martin M38, to be exact). But I was not sure of anything any longer except that I was finally tired of looking. Being insecure about the purchase, I took an easy way out. I asked them to hold it for me over the weekend, while I could see if I could sell my own guitar (a 00 parlour model).
I was visiting friends at CSU in Colorado and put up a single 3x5 note card on a bulletin board there to fulfill my obligation to the music store. Wouldn't you know, the darn thing sold the next day! Later on, I discovered why. Yes, I got pack what I'd paid for it 5 years before, but I had never even considered appreciation. For some reason that model was now worth double my investment. Someone else knew a good buy when he saw it and took quick advantage of my unwitting generosity.
Money in hand, I returned to the store Monday and bought the M38, which I kept for well over 20 years. The irony was that when I sold it, it had never appreciated. During all that time, I knew I had a very well made instrument, but was slowly cognizant that it was not so special as I'd hoped. In the 20+ years it went not one but through 3 neck resets (there was no truss rod in it, as it was made when Martin maintained that their instruments were so good they did not need them). But the repairs were all covered under Martin's warranty. Steve Kovacik did the last reset, and it played noticeably better afterward - finally. But by then two things had happened. I was playing in quite a few song circles and was tired of not being able to hear my instrument (I don't use picks). I was more serious about my music and, being 20 years older, was no longer so impoverished as I had been. I decided to reward myself and get something I could really be proud of. That's when I started learning more about wood and construction - and builders, which is a whole 'nother story.
The Instrumental Hegira, Part 2
Fed up with my Martin M38's lack of assertiveness in unamplified groups, I began to think about replacing it. It was a finely made guitar, not that I didn't have certain problems with it over the years. So my next step had to be upward, not sideways. It seems the ante is always raised in these things.
By now, I had more money than when I was in my 20's and I was a more careful and astute shopper. I started looking at instruments that other good players had and quickly decided I didn't want most of them. That was a little surprise in and of itself. On the other hand, professional musicians are usually not very rich, so why should I have been surprised? So I went to the good old internet, trying to find what was out there in better instruments. Martin's recent entreprenurial advances made me leery of another Martin. I simply feel that they have cheapened their image with all the low end models they now make and they are coasting on their name now. Their high end instruments are very fine as they always have been, but I felt the name was adding $1000 in price - but not in value. For similar reasons, I was also leery of other mass-produced but quality guitars, Gibsons, Guild, Taylor and perhaps Guild. I have always liked to feel I was different anyhow. My internet search lead me to Santa Cruz, Hues and Dalton, Collings and Goodall, among others. Now to see them and play them. That took some travel. We are fortunate to have Cathedral Music not too far away, a store that specializes in the boutique guitars, high end small makers. I went there and also to Mandolin Brothers on Staten Island. Later on, I found occasion to spend an afternoon at Melody Music in Bryn Mawr. Between them, there were LOTS of great instruments to consider. Too many. I became confused and had difficulty drawing conclusions. Nothing blew me away, though some were obviously much better than others.
So I began to rely more upon what others had written. I tried to get a sense of who the writers were and where they were coming from to make sense of the various reviews and forums. I went back to the stores as the opportunities presented themselves. I was beginning to decide upon getting a Goodall when I played a guitar of an unknown (to me) maker named John Kinnaird. Dang that thing was nice, but too ornate to suit me. I looked him up on the internet and, lo and behold, I discovered I could get a new custom-made guitar for cheaper than the used one in the store. Conversations between me and Kinnaird ensued.
[I need to interject a bit here. Years before, I had a successful foray into custom-made instruments. I also play the autoharp, among other stringed instruments, and my original 'harp was literally self-destructing. I bought the best Schmidt available (there being no other brand better than Schmidt), a Centurion, and while it offered some great advantages over my old el cheapo, it didn't really sound that much better. I began to study what could improve it, did some modifications, and after a while I had some design ideas of my own. This all took some years. Then I searched out autoharp makers. There aren't many, but I used the phone and eventually managed to visit three in various states, none of them New York, where I live. I settled on Keith Young and he made me the one I use today. Rather experimental in several ways, but very traditional looking and sounding. It was a great collaboration and very fun for me. Now back to Goodall and Kinnaird.]
So while I was talking with Kinnaird, I still kept searching. Eventually I found a jumbo Goodall at Buffalo Brothers in California that had the most amazing mahogany back I have ever seen. Their man out there also claimed a similar sound. I could get it on trial and if I was unhappy, could return it. Now I had an enviable problem, Which one, the Goodall or a Kinnaird? I could not take forever to decide or the Goodall would be sold to someone else. I took the easy way out - I bought both. This is not as dumb as it may first appear. The Goodall would be the louder guitar I wanted, with most everything else I might want, but would be a tad bright. The Kinnaird I would have built would be smaller, with warmer sound and more overtones. Use them for different music for optimum results. And if one of them needed work sometime down the line, the other would be there to play. If I broke a string at a concert, I could just pick up the other one. What's more, the Goodall could be here in a week and it would take John over a year to create mine. More time to earn money, more time to learn more precisely exactly what I wanted. And yes, I did make an opportunity to visit Kinnaird, who lived in Georgia at the time.
To make it short, I have been very happy with both of them. The collaboration with Kinnaird proved much more ongoing and extensive than it had been with Keith Young, mostly thanks to the internet and digital photos. John was great to work with, receptive to my ideas, responsive, and shares a real enthusiasm for special wood. After playing the two guitars for 5 years or so now, I still can't tell which my favorite is. I ended up just taking one to an event since I drag along several other instruments anyhow. It seems I'll play one for a few weeks and then put it aside for the other. I tend to use the Kinnaird more on stage as it is more interesting for the audience to see from the front. The Goodall, with its Port Orford Cedar top, gets used more at events where weather may be more of a factor. I get lots of comments on them. Recently I came with my Goodall from a gig directly to a real estate showing. My customer, also a guitarist, knew I played and had to see the guitar before he saw the house. He was a very good player and I must say I was impressed by how good it sounded to me. I had never been in front of it before. Dang, it was nice. I may not have sold a home that day, but I just may have gained Goodall a customer.
The story is not over. These things get ahold of you. I began to attend the Montreal Guitar Festival, which has 100 luthiers exhibiting, a cornucopia of talking and playing guitar. I made forays every 3 weeks to certain forums to see what was new and of interest to me. Along the line, I got the notion that a baritone guitar would be a neat, useful yet unusual addition to the corral, so I began a search for them. At Mandolin Brothers, I was able to play a Santa Cruz and Goodall, side by side. To my ears and fingers, there was no contest, the Goodall was best... But maybe a luthier could make something better at a competitive price. I began to search out who had experience with baritones. Not many did. John Kinnaird was willing to try, but had never Tonewood Data Sourced one one before, nor had he ever played one. I ended up with another dilemma.
Because at the same time, two things happened. I found a Goodall baritone, used, and at the right price. And I came into contact with one of the very best luthiers who had baritone experience. He did the prototypes for Santa Cruz when he started out in the business and has since done quite a few others, utilizing more of his own ideas and techniques. And this fellow made me an offer I could not refuse. What did I do? Again, I bought both. I played the Goodall for a couple or three years while waiting for the other one to be done. That gave me experience which could be parlayed into an instrument that would be better for me. When the custom one finally arrived (after an excruciating series of delays and complete stoppages of communications from the maker), I sold the Goodall for my investment in it. The new one was, as promised, FAR better.
So, what is happening now? The luthier itch still has not yet subsided. I fear it may be permanent. At the last two outings to Montreal, I looked at 12 strings. Nothing excited me. I wasn't sure I wanted to pay that much even if one had excited. I just don't have that much use for a 12. Ten or fifteen years ago, I bought a 1967 Martin D12-20 and I loved it from the start. However, it had issues, cracks in the body that seems stable. So far that has been the case. However, as time wore on, the action got higher and higher and I saw it less frequently as it became less enjoyable to play. Finally, I bit the bullet and got the neck reset and new frets put in. It hasn't been the same since. I don't like the sound. Others tell me it is fine, but to my ears it no longer sounds very 12 stringish. Did they screw something up? Or did my standards change during the long period I rarely used it? I only know I am no longer satisfied with that Martin either and I have been watching eBay.
Recently I saw one for sale that was luthier-made and was offered very cheap. Cheap was more important than usual as my use for a 12 is limited, so it made sense to limit by budget accordingly. But I had never heard of the maker. That meant some quick investigation. He had no web site, but I uncovered an email address and that led to what has become a friendship. At the last couple minutes of the eBay auction, it tripled in price, going beyond what a new custom-made one would cost me from the same maker. Now, to actually see and play one of his instruments. That meant a trip to Maine, long but not impossible. One thing led to another, and 4 months later, I had a new 12 string, one which met my standards. It is also quite beautiful
This saga may not end until I can't play any longer.
Torrified Tops from John Greven
(I am quoting a private communication from John Greven which was posted by "mcduffnw".)
I have been experimenting with T'd woods for some time now thanks in part to fellow guitar maker Bob Thompson (who had gone entirely over to the "dark" side and doing ALL T'd woods), supplying me with materials and other resources.
There is too much in-the-weeds info to detail here, but on two points I would like to comment.
First, the cost. Depends on who does it and how it's done. Commercial kilns do box car loads of wood at one time because the process is complex and time consuming, not to mention energy consuming. The average run for a kiln at 386 degrees (the middle cook temp) is five days. The cost per piece using the large kilns is relatively small, less than $10 a top for small runs, less than $5 a top for larger runs. Neck stock is about $ 15 because of special handling issues in loading those parts into the kiln. I have no idea what a maker would charge for a T'd part, but it is not a major cost on their end at the start. I do not charge extra for my T'd woods.
Martin has opted to cook to the lower temp point of 286 degrees (or there abouts) which produces a light amber brown color on an Adi top. At the mid range temp of 386 degrees the color becomes a lovely cognac brown that very closely mimics a vintage top from the early 30's. Higher temps are not used for delicate guitar parts.
The wood itself is lighter in weight compared to its starting state, but not significantly so. It is stiffer, but, again, not radically so. It does ping much more clearly than the uncooked top and it is super stable in terms of changing shape with humidity and temperature (a nice feature to be sure).
This brings me to the second point. What is the down side?
I have worked with both tops of various species and mahogany neck blanks (which are the perfect color of the old necks, but not needing any stain to get there!) Two things stand out; it is definitely more brittle and it has, to some degree, lost the structural integrity of the summer wood growth. The hard winter growth rings become harder and less elastic while the summer wood is compromised to the point that when you tape binding on during the build, if the top is not first sealed, the tape pulls up a fine sheen of the top wood along with it, very similar to what the cedar tops do. I worry that it may lead to bridge failure down the road. I have also experienced finish de-lamination on one instrument.
My take on this material as I worked it is that while it has some excellent qualities, but it is untested over time for this particular application and I am very cautious about using it.
The last thing is tone. It is not old wood, it is cooked wood. Very different beasts, just ask T.J.Thompson. Tonally, I have not been at all impressed by it either on its own merits or compared to many of the fine old Martins I have played over the decades.
One of my tests was building two D-18's side by side with exactly the same back and sides and neck stocks and tops that were the same but with one natural and the other cooked. The bluegrass players loved the cooked top for its more fundamental voicing while the non-grassers (like me) preferred the natural top with its greater depth and complexity. Both were equally powerful, but distinctly different voicings.
So for the future, I will use the T'd woods sparingly and with caution and with no additional cost to the player.
One side note on the neck stock. The mahogany necks that were T'd are unlike any I have ever worked. They are a little bit brittle and must be handled with some care, but they work like a stick of frozen butter. No sense of grain to the cutting tool whatsoever. No hard/soft feel, no grain fiber orientation feel, just cuts easily and smoothly regardless of direction. It is fun and a little disturbing to hand shape one of these necks. It is nice not to have to stain them, however.
It makes sense that Martin is doing a series of variations on the lighter cook. It is a safe way to approach this new material. Much less compromise to the structure of the wood while adding to its overall stability. As to their being able to selectively "age" the wood, I think that is some very clever marketing not science. None of the woods that are T'd are the same as the real aged woods now residing on the great old guitars. Again, just ask TJ. T'd tops are merely different from un-T'd tops and different from the old tops.
John
__________________
http://www.grevenguitars.com/
Custom Baritone Guitar by Roland Vinyard, 2007
Let me tell you an amusing story.
I am having a baritone guitar custom made for me. The builder offered me a deal too good to pass up (he looked at my web site and obviously thought me a better musician than I am) - what I saved on the purchase just paid for that web site. Before I gave a final "yes", I did some due diligence. After all I still will have to pay him a sizable sum. I called various purveyors of fine, hand-crafted instruments to see what I could learn about this luthier. One company said that while they handled any instruments from him that they could get, they were not going to any longer. Why? "He doesn't communicate" was the first answer. Well, that wasn't too bad - he had been communicating reasonably well with me and his web site DID say that due to a move of his shop and residence to another state that he would be somewhat remiss on his communications. The luthier went further with me and said he would get back with anyone who called, but maybe not as timely as they might like. And if he was working on YOUR instrument, wouldn't you want him to concentrate on it instead of picking up the phone every few minutes? "Not unreasonable", I thought. What other complaints does this music store have? "Well, he has a 5 year waiting list", came the reply. Now that is a reasonable concern and one I needed to take seriously.
So, I wrote him about that. The reply came soon enough: it was a 2-3 year waiting list, not 5. We were gaining, but far from there, so I replied that at my age, you never knew how long I would be able to continue to play and there was no guarantee that I would be able to play long enough to get my investment back if I had to wait that long. That must have tickled him because he answered right away that he always kept a slot or two open for really important things that might come along. Could I wait a year? Yes, I certainly could - and I sent him the deposit money.
THEN, I learned that he meant one year until delivery, not one year until he started it. Better yet. THEN, I learned that the reason he could bend so much for me is that it would be a companion instrument to another he was making for someone with an even better web site and a whole lot better credentials, a guy named Graham Nash. It turns out the timing will be near perfect. I have been playing another quality baritone since those conversations, learning and understanding more about that kind of instrument and what I like and don't like about it, so when he comes to start mine, he will have a better hand on what I want and how I want it to end up.
Cool.
Guitar Voicings & Building a New Instrument by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Several years ago, I decided that I was never going to be satisfied with my old Martin M38 (I got it when I played a herringbone-braced Martin at the factory and loved that one so much that I knew I had to have one - which led to a several month-long search, all over the US, by which time I had forgotten the sound and the feel of the one in the factory. I ended up, slightly confused, with the M38.) and went on a search for something better. The step I took was, for me, a giant one. I bought a jumbo Goodall (fiddleback mahogany/Port Orford cedar) and then ordered a 000 (ziracote/Adirondack) from luthier John Kinnaird. I have been happy with both and they have different voicings, the jumbo better for louder, lighter, faster stuff and the Kinnaird for the overtones and warmth. For a while I would bring both to a gig, but I don't do that any longer unless there isn't going to be some sort of second guitar around to fall back on in an emergency. For instance, if I have the baritone or the Duolian with me, then one of the others will stay home.
I just had to get the frets of the Goodall jumbo redone (in 4 years of playing - seems way too fast to me) so was "stuck" with the Kinnaird while it was in the shop. Being down to one made me a bit nervous, so I can understand the need people feel for a successor instrument. When I got it back last week, I was really struck by the different sound it made. It felt real tinny and thin to me (that feeling has dissipated now) and when someone complemented me on it's sound, I realized that it was just me being so used to the other's sound, not what I was hearing, an interesting observation. So, if you are going to commission a guitar, I can certainly recommend the approach of having it different enough that your voicing and feel varies.
My voice is far from special, but its range is pretty normal: low A, maybe G on a good day, to E at the top of the staff is where I am comfortable. One of my musical partners is a much higher tenor, and when he leads, is apt to pick a key other than what I am used to playing a piece in. So, the baritone guitar I have comes out sometimes (or a completely different instrument) and that gives us a second sound and keeps it playable for me. But where I likes the baritone's sound the best is on the quieter pieces. Being lower, it doesn't cut through so much, but a full E chord (as fingered), just brings a glow of warmth through me. I keep it C# to C#, standard intervals, most of the time, but sometimes play B to B. B to B works a bit better when with other musicians as it keeps me in familiar keys more often, but the C# to C# is OK too if you don't mind fingering in F. I have never been much on capos in the past, and have always played in true F when it was called for, so that is no hardship.
I also have a couple of folks that I play with just for fun who have low voices and who always chose a key a fifth below what everyone else might do. The B to B works well with them, too. It has made me a somewhat better musician to have the baritone and learn to follow a piece, transposing the chords downward in my head as I play. I am better at that now. And I see utter confusion on the faces of some others when they try to follow me on their guitars. Even though I make sure to tell them what key I’m really playing in, I can watch their fingers gravitating to form the same chords that I am playing, which of course sound horrible. Better players can handle it fine, but others have trouble and some of them just wait until I am done. It is the most fun to see one of the better musicians arrive or start to pay attention AFTER I had announced the key and watch them try to reconcile what they are hearing with what they see.
Playing with others does mean that sometimes I use a capo (shame on me!) on the baritone. I am thankful it has a 14 fret neck. A 12 fret neck would never work on it. I told my builder that 14 or 15 would be OK for me, but I have no idea what I will end up with. He doesn't always remember to check his emailed notes on details I suspect. Nor do I - he sent me pictures of the completed box and, horrors, it wasn't the slope D that I had expected. Alarmed, I fired off a note to him. For once, he responded and reminded me that while we had discussed the slope D at length, that he had recommended the concert shape and I had agreed. I went back in my files and checked. Yep, he was right.
I like to be involved as much as I can with the planning and execution. I have learned quite a bit in the process about woods and their characteristics well as luthierie. I enjoy making things with wood, but realize I would never have the exactitude to make an instrument with which I'd be satisfied. So this is the course I take. I also feel that the builder needs to have a feel for who I am (wordy, among other things) and that he needs to make certain decisions of his own in the process as well so it also becomes "his" instrument. Things inside are all "his"; on other things, such as the rosette or inlay, I set some parameters and let him fill in the details the way he feels best. On all else, I want a collaboration, with us bouncing ideas off one another. I urge the builder to never allow me to make a decision that goes against his better judgment. If he is as good as his reputation, he also need to be satisfied with the results. A luthier who would build an instrument that is not his best just because the customer had odd ideas and he went along with them to keep the guy happy - this is not the kind of man I want working for me. When I commission an instrument, I like to think that have found someone with exacting standards that they will not lower, yet remains flexible enough to allow my own ideas see the light.
Some Thoughts on the Difference Between Handmade and Factory Made Guitars by Ervin Somogyi www.esomogyi.com
I am often asked what makes hand made guitars different from factory made ones, and whether they're better, and if so, how. These are good questions, but complex ones. Handmade guitars are not manufactured goods in the same sense that factory made guitars are manufactured goods. Each is made differently, for different purposes and different markets, and with different intent, aim and skills. Factories need to make instruments which are good enough to sell to a mass market. Luthiers need to make instruments which are successful tools for musicians. Comparing a handmade guitar to a factory made one is analogous to comparing a painting with a toaster: the one really needs to be judged by different standards than the other. I wish to stress that I do not wish to malign either luthiers or factories, but rather to point out how very different their products are in spite of the fact that they can look almost exactly alike.
What, really, is handmade? Obviously, things were literally handmade a long time ago, when tools were simple. But what is one to think if the luthier uses routers, bandsaws, power sanders and joiners and the like? Aren't these the same power tools used in factories? How can something made with them be handmade? These same questions were asked by American luthiers in the l960s and l970s, because the use of power tools was so very common. After much debate it was decided that the answer had to do with the freedom of use of the tool. That is, guitars could be considered handmade if the tool could be used with a degree of freedom dictated by the needs of the work and the will of the operator. Dedicated and specialized tooling capable of only one operation, as is the rule in factories, did not qualify; neither did the rote assembly, even if by hand, of components premade to identical specifications. These became the standards by which to distinguish handmade from production made.
It might be most true to say that handmade guitars differ from factory made guitars primarily in that factory guitars are mass-produced, and handmade guitars are not. While this may sound obvious and self-evident, a number of implications arise out of this basic fact:
l) Long term repairability. In the long term, a guitar is likely to need tune-ups, maintenance or repair work, just like a car. Things like bolt-on necks, and the fact that the repairman may have worked on this or that brand of factory guitar before and knows what to expect, can make certain operations easier. But otherwise factory instruments are often made with procedures and processes which, although quick, cheap and easy to do within the manufacturing context, can be difficult to undo or work with in the normal, post-factory setting. Guitar finishes are a good example of this. The traditional finishes such as lacquers and French polishes are beautiful, but are skill- and labor-intensive to apply. The increasingly popular polyurethane, catalyzed and ultraviolet-cured finishes are much easier and cheaper to apply, and look good. But, they cannot be repaired or worked with if there is damage. To fix a crack in the wood properly, the finish will need to be completely sanded off and redone. Lacquers and French polishes, on the other hand, are comparatively easy to spot-finish or touch up.
2) Personal relationships. If you deal with an individual guitar maker you will establish a personal relationship with someone which may last for years, and which may become an important one. He will almost certainly be available directly to you to consult with or to take care of some difficulty, and he will feel a responsibility to you for any work he has done. With a factory made guitar, you cannot have this personal relationship with the maker. You will have to settle for the best relationship you can have with either the store you purchased the instrument from or the factory's customer support hotline.
3) Choices, features and options. Factory guitars are made to strictly unvarying specifications and in large numbers. Each one will be exactly the same in all particulars, and if you want anything a bit bigger or smaller, or in any way different, you will not be able to have it unless you pay extra to have it customized. An individual instrument maker can provide you with an instrument that is tailor-made for you in many ways. As musical styles and playing techniques evolve, instruments with differing scale lengths, actions, neck widths and contours, fret sizes, string spacings, tunings, tonalities, electronics, woods, body shapes and sizes, etc. all become more desirable. But proliferation of design variables complicates production. I've been told that in Japan many Japanese customers want guitars exactly like someone else's, because that's how things are done in that culture. The factory model serves this need. In the United States, however, musicians more commonly complain about things such as that the neck on a certain brand of guitar is too awkward for their size hand, and that their hands would tire less if the neck were just a little different -- but all the necks are the same.
4) Value and price. A handmade guitar will carry a price which reflects its real value in terms of labor and overhead more truly than a factory made one which carries the same price. The former may take 200 hours of someone's conscientiously invested time and skill; the latter may take 8 to 36 hours of intensely repetitive and automated work. A factory will target a price at which it wishes to sell a certain product and will do everything it can to enable its introduction into the market at that level, including using parts made by others and mounting ad campaigns. A luthier will probably want to make something that's as open-endedly good as he can make it, without an overriding imperative from the profit motive. Because factory instruments are made for wholesaling and price markup, and handmade instruments are in general not, there is much more room for discounting within the system of retail store markups than an individual maker can offer. Discounting is a marketing tool, and factory made guitars are made and priced so that everybody in the complex chain of recordkeeping/tooling/subcontracting/assembling/advertising/retailing/delivering can share in the profit. Handmade guitars are priced so the maker can survive.
5) Quality. According to a guitar industry spokesman at a recent symposium, quality, from a factory point of view, is the same as replicability of components and efficiency of assembly. That is, the factory man considers quality to be the measure of how efficiently his parts can be identically made and how fast his instruments can be assembled in a consistent and trouble free manner. From the musician's point of view quality has nothing to do with any of this: it has to do with how playable the guitar is and how good it sounds. This also is, normally, the attitude of the individual luthier, for whom efficiency is important but secondary to his concern for creating a personal and effective tool for the musician. The main ideal behind factory guitars is that they be made quickly, strong and salable. The main ideal behind the handmade instrument is quality of sound and playability. A really well made guitar almost plays itself.
If quality for the factory man has to do with efficiency and consistency in making identical things, it cannot be so for hand makers. And for obvious reasons: there are a lot of hand makers working at vastly different levels of skill and creative talent, and they have different concepts of "best". Let us return to the analogy of the painting and the toaster to illustrate this point. A painting is something somebody made which may be good or bad, or beautiful, or repellent, or even personally meaningful. Or perhaps unintelligible. Then, some paintings can be amateurish or indifferent. Some are interesting. Some may be pretty damn good. And some are timeless, significant and really great. A toaster, on the other hand, will do what it was designed and built to do, every time, or one fixes it or discards it. One does not normally think of a toaster as being amateurish, meaningful, expressive, trite, evocative, profound, unintelligible, interesting, or timelessly great. This is not what toasters are all about.
6) Craftsmanship. An intelligently run factory is geared to operating smoothly in a standardized, not customized way. Its priorities are automation of procedures and dimensional standardization of parts. A hand maker, on the other hand, is generally flexible and inefficient enough to do customized work in every place where it counts. This methodology is essential due to the innate variability of woods: two identically thicknessed guitar tops can differ by as much as l00% in density, 200% in longitudinal stiffness and 300% in lateral stiffness. Bracewood also varies as much and further compounds the possibilities of mindful wood choice and use. Therefore, while certain components in handmade guitars may be roughed out to approximate dimensions in batches of 4 or 6 or more, the selection of these components, and their final dimensions in the assembled instrument, are done on an individual basis: this top gets those brace-blanks, which are then pared down to that height, which depends on the stiffness of the braced top, its tap tone, and the judgment of the luthier as applied to this particular unique instrument.
As mentioned above, the levels of skill, judgment and attitude among luthiers are variable quantities, some highly developed and some not, depending on how experienced and talented one is. In my opinion many hand makers today are insufficiently trained and experienced, and as a result many handmade guitars are less satisfactory than factory guitars of comparable price. Any luthier worth his salt, however, will continually strive to learn better techniques and improve his work, because personally achieved quality needs to be his stock in trade. He must be good in order to survive. The intent and skill level of factory work, on the other hand, tends to be constant and predictable and does not improve appreciably from one year to the next. Factory work is based more in using the best tooling and jigs available than in developing workers' skills beyond what they must have so they can operate the tooling efficiently and safely and do work that meets the standards set by the quality control department.
This is, in fact, the essential distinction between handmade and factory craftsmanship. The factory's craftsmanship is based in division and automation of labor: there is someone who is paid to do each step or make each part. He has to do it repeatedly, many times a day, at a level that meets the factory's criteria for acceptability. As often as possible, this specialist is replaced by a machine. The handmaker, in comparison, has to be adept at everything. He must spend years to master all the techniques and skills necessary to produce a high quality guitar, and, until he does so, his guitars will be of less than highest quality in some way. The need to perform every operation to a high standard is not unlike an Olympic athletic performance: make one single mistake and you fall short of the goal. To aim so high is an exceedingly demanding, and noble, effort.
7) Playability and action. Since factory instruments are assembled in large quantities, they normally almost all need fine tuning and adjustment before they come into the hands of players. Music stores in the United States often have a person whose job it is to set up all new guitars so that they are most comfortable for the customer. I don't know whether it is the same in other countries, but I'd be surprised if it weren't. Set-ups include setting the strings over the frets at a comfortable height, dealing with buzzes, calibrating intonations at the bridge, adjusting truss rods to the stringing, and whatever else needs to be done. Hand makers, on the other hand, will usually have done these things prior to delivery because, as far as they are concerned, a guitar that isn't as perfect as possible is not ready to be delivered.
8) Sound. The study of the factors involved in the production of tone teaches the instrument maker that small variations in structure in the right places can make important, specific, differences in response. Because there are so many places where one can take away or add a little wood, and because the difference between "a little more" or "a little less" can be critical to a specific aspect of tone, this study takes years. This is the level of work a hand maker engages in and strives to master. Ultimately, he will be able to make guitars which are consistent in quality and consistently satisfying to his clients. The factory approach, on the other hand, cannot spend so much time on any one guitar: its entire operation is based on treating all guitar assembly processes identically. Therefore all tops of a given model are equal thickness, all braces are equally high, all bodies are equally deep, and so on. Tone in a guitar is controlled by paying attention to specific qualities in the materials. Yet, the factory's focus on treating all parts uniformly bypasses these important factors. Because dimensionally identical guitar tops and braces can be twice the mass and up to three times the stiffness of their companions in the assembly line factory guitars are, essentially and literally, random collections of these physical variables. In consequence, their sound quality will correspond to a statistical bell-curve distribution where a few will be brilliantly successful, a few will be markedly unresponsive, and most will be pretty good. To repeat: a factory work's chief priorities and focus are production, selling and delivery. It is off the mark to compare this to a concern with making a personal best at something.
9) Durability. Here, again, the concerns a factory and a hand maker bring to their work are markedly different. And for perfectly good reasons. There is nothing wrong with a factory maker's desire to sell guitars to the public. But each member of this anonymous guitar playing public will treat the guitar with different degrees of care, use different strings, play differently, live in different cities or even countries with different climates, temperatures, altitudes and humidities, and will sometimes take their guitars to the beach or on trips into the mountains. These guitars must be able to hold up against these unpredictable conditions. It is the factory's concern that these instruments not come back to plague its warranty department with problems and repair work. To ensure this, their guitars are substantially overbuilt. Hand makers are concerned with making sensitive, responsive tools for musicians who are fairly certain to treat these with some care. These guitars can therefore deliberately be made more delicate and fragile -- and this makes possible a louder, more responsive instrument. The factory cannot afford to make fragile, maximally responsive instruments: for every increment of fragility a certain predictable number of damages and structural failures can be predicted, and the maker would sink under the weight of warranty work. The hand maker, on the other hand, cannot afford to overbuild his guitars: they would be the same as the factory version but at a higher price, and they would fail to have that extra dimension of responsiveness which makes them attractive to the buyer. He would soon starve.
l0) Machine precision vs. the human touch. Machines will do the same operation, over and over again, to the identical level of precision; there are no bad days or sick days, and they don't get fatigued or depressed. Hand work, on the other hand, is forever shaped by fluctuating human factors of energy, attention, concentration and skill. For these reasons, most people believe that machines can produce faster, cleaner, more consistent and more desirable products for the consumer, as well as reducing the tedium inherent in parts production. There is much truth in this.
But also, it is a fallacy. This relationship between tooling and craftsmanship only applies in direct proportion to how the machines and operations are completely free of human intervention -- as is the case with computer controlled cutters, which are getting a lot of press nowadays. But as soon as any real workers enter the picture factories cannot escape from the same limitations of hand work under which hand makers suffer. This is shown by the fact that a factory's own quality control people can tell the difference between the level of workmanship of one shift and that of another, and especially when there are new employees. Anyone who has done factory work of any kind knows that personnel problems are the larger part of production problems. Naturally, no one advertises this.
This brings us to the fundamental difference in the logic which informs these different methods of guitar making. The factory way to eliminate human error and fluctuation is to eliminate, or at least limit as much as possible, the human. The hand maker's way to eliminate human error is to increase skill and mindfulness.
11) Is a handmade guitar necessarily better than a factory made one? No. Many factory guitars are quite good, and many handmade guitars show room for improvement. How successful a handmade guitar is, is largely a function of how experienced the maker is and what specific qualities of design or tone he is known for. No one ought to be surprised to realize that beginners will make beginner's level guitars, and that more experienced makers will make better ones: this is what makes the instruments made by an experienced and mature maker so special. On the other hand, there is considerably less significance to the purchase of an instrument made by a factory simply because it's been in operation for many years. Long, cumulative experience with the materials is not what they are about, and neither are improvements and advances in design which conflict with profitability.
l2) Are factory guitars any better than hand made ones? By the standards of the factory people, yes. They believe that high-volume assembly of pre-made and subcontracted parts produces superior products. At least one company advertises this explicitly. By the standards of the individual maker, it is possible for factory guitars to be better than individually handmade ones, for all the reasons outlined above. But, in general, factory guitars are "better" only in a limited sense of the word, also for all the reasons outlined above. I wish to emphasize again that handmade and factory guitars are each made with a different intelligence, with different priorities and for different markets. The luthier cannot compete with the factory on the level of price. The factory cannot compete with the luthier on the level of attention to detail, care and exercise of judgment in the work.
13) Are not high-end factory guitars, at least, better? From the view of the musician, no. They are much more extravagantly ornamented and appointed and also produced in limited editions so as to justify the higher price. And they are in general aimed at a quite different market -- the collector. For the average musician, the appeal of collector's guitars is blunted by the high price; and for the serious musician by the fact that their essence, soul and sound are produced under the same factory conditions and with the same concerns as any other product of that factory -- with comparable results: random variation of musical quality. But the collector has different interests. He seeks the appeal of rarity, uniqueness and "collectableness" in an instrument and his principal interests tend to be acquisition, owning and display -- not playing or using.
The collector's market of vintage and collectable musical instruments is not large but it is quite strong, and its continual hunger for new products helps drive the production of "collectable" guitars. Factories respond to the demand by producing and advertising limited edition guitars which have, for the buyer, the requisite appeal of uniqueness, scarcity, rarity, and high cost. There are individual luthiers whose work is sought in the collector's market. But on the whole the difference between factory's and a hand maker's collectable work is that the individual guitar maker's collectable work is scarce by definition, and ends when he dies. A factory such as the Martin company can turn out limited and special edition collector's models for generations.
l4) A collaborative aspect. I like to think that an important difference between handmade and non-handmade guitars is the degree to which the process is one of collaboration. Makers want to find musicians who are able to appreciate how good their work is, and who can challenge them to do even better work. This is a fruitful partnership. The factory's needs are overwhelmingly to sell guitars, and usually prefer to form partnerships only with endorsers.
l5) How can one really know whether one guitar is better or worse than another? A key factor in the assessing of what is better and what is worse is the somewhat basic one of how educated and sensitive one is to the matters under examination. A discussion of differences cannot go very far without understanding this. The consumer is not merely a passive bystander in this debate but a participant in it, even if he doesn't know he's doing it. To illustrate, I want to give you an example of something that has happened to me repeatedly in my experience as a guitar repairman (and which I'm sure other repairmen have experienced as well).
A guitar player called me to report that his guitar, which had worked well for several years, was now not playing in tune. He suspected that the tuning mechanisms were worn and slipping, and he wanted to know whether I could replace these. I said yes, please bring your guitar to my shop. When the caller arrived I examined the guitar and found no problems: the tuners worked perfectly, the bridge hadn't become unglued, the frets and nut hadn't moved, the neck hadn't warped; the guitar was not in any way damaged or broken; in fact, everything was exactly as it should be. What had really happened was that the musician's ear had improved over time so that he could now hear that the guitar did not play in tune. In fact it never had; but he simply had been unable to hear the dissonances before.
Obviously, a guitar which plays in tune is better than one that doesn't; but if one is unable to hear this then it becomes a non-issue. With an improved ear, this man was ready for an improved guitar. This same growth of ability to see and hear in an educated and experienced way affects our ability to appreciate nuances of detail, subtlety, and quality. These are the very areas in which handmade guitars can differ from, and excel, non-handmade ones. But, until a player reaches the point of capacity to discriminate, whatever guitar he has is good enough.
Martin Versus Luthier-Made Guitars by Roland Vinyard, 2008
(Note: I could have used the words ""Gibson" or "Taylor, maybe others, just as easily here.)
Like many of us, I had a Martin period. I still own one. So many of the old ones are great guitars... but so were Larson’s. But the general populace has never heard of a Larson - they never made enough of them to catch the public’s eye. No independent luthier will - you need a factory and all that it entails to get enough instruments out that your name becomes recognizable by the world at large. And by then, you are not giving your instruments the personal attention they deserve and quality control suffers. Let’s not fault Martin too much - - they gave a lot to the guitar world. But they were a smaller business then. I think their current crazy proliferation of styles and low prices will inevitably cheapen their brand. They are selling stuff based upon their reputation, and that won’t last. People get wise eventually. Wall Street is littered with firms that rested on their laurels only to find themselves behind the eightball and too late to catch up. Let’s face it, Martin is one of the names the general populace associates with quality acoustic guitars, and many of them far certainly overshadow in quality the el cheapos out there. Remember, it’s the el cheapos that sell the most and Martin does not want to miss out on that market. If there are 100 buyers who have $100 to spend, there will be only 10 that can afford $1000 and maybe only one that will spring for $3000.
Luthier-made instruments are played by a different clientele, ones who recognize that their values and charms cannot be easily duplicated in a factory situation. A fair comparison might be a Chevy (the el cheapo) to a Mercedes (the Martin) to a Bentley (luthier-made). They all do essentially the same thing, get you to point B from point A, but there is a difference in the joy you have in making the trip.
Now, regarding the traditional look, it’s what I want. Martin has that all right. I play traditional music, often on vintage instruments, and the rest of the time on ones that were either made for me or made by a luthier working by himself or nearly by himself. They may not be entirely traditional inside, but I want them to look that way, both for my audience and also for my own personal aesthetic choices.
I am glad folks are experimenting - the experiments will show us what is right and what is wrong. A friend of mine made a guitar for a lady who requested that the sound hole be in the back, on the upper half of the upper bout. So, he made it, and it turned out like you would expect - a very disappointing sound. But, his client was delighted. What did she value the made her so happy with it? It was comfortable for her to play. (Her right boob fell inside the sound hole and was not flattened by the back of the guitar!) Hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I were playing very modern music, I might want an off-center sound hole, a cutaway, a distinctive saddle, or whatever. Only I don’t.
Stainless Steel Fretwire by Steven Marchione http://www.marchione.com
Stainless Steel fretwire is a vast improvement over traditional Nickel Silver wire if you are a builder who is willing and able to make a fretboard perfect prior to fret installation. Necks I have fretted with it have a great on-the-fret-string feel; strings bend well and the polish of the wire appears to maintain indefinitely. As it is much harder, it should also last much longer. If you are the kind of builder who measures planed relief in thousandths, invests in top notch straight edges, and polishes your fingerboard prior to installation, you will love this stuff!
The wire, however, is more challenging to work with. The fingerboard must be trued exactly as you would like the surface of the frets to be as this wire's hardness won't allow you to level out imperfections off of the top of the frets. Nor would you want to reshape a fret profile with a file. You can, but you won't enjoy it. You must be very precise in cutting your fret slots as the wire has more of a tendency to want to spring up on the edges as you hammer it in. Fret pressing and/or rigid clamping cauls with one drop of cyanoacrylate on each fret end are effective solutions.
A further comment from Frank Ford: "Stainless fretwire is great for bending your notes; the frets don't grab the strings and it feels like you're playing on ice."
The beauty of the wire though, is that if you make everything gorgeous the first time around, it can stay that way a lot longer and my clients have specifically remarked how much they like the way the frets feel.
Finishing Guitars by JJ Donohue www.DonohueGuitars.com
It is often said by luthiers that once the guitar is built, it is only half completed. We seem to discuss finishing issues as much as we discuss wood and construction aspects. I'll try to list the types of finishes that have been used by various manufacturers over time. In any case, it's a good idea to know how your guitar has been finished so that you can take the kind of care that best addresses its needs and keeps it as glossy and protective as it was intended.
Nitrocellulose Lacquer
Traditionally, acoustic guitars have been finished in nitrocellulose lacquer. Over time, these finishes yellow and acquire small surface checking as a result of becoming more brittle from losing its plasticizers through aging. Many guitar affectionados prefer the vintage look of yellowed nitro lacquer and who can argue that such an appearance bestows class on a prewar Martin. Early in my building experience, I used Nitrocellulose Lacquer successfully and would be using it today except for the fact that it is explosive and poses environmental issues for the custom builder without an OSHA-approved spray booth.
Waterborne Finishes
In an effort to avoid the explosive and toxic effects of Nitrocellulose lacquer, I have been experimenting with waterborne finishes. I've produced guitars using several of these finishes that have been formulated with the instrument maker in mind. I rejected these as a result of the annoying bluish cast that they impart to the guitar as well as not being hard enough for my liking.
Catalyzed Polyester
My fellow Hoosier neighbor and friend Joe White introduced me to Catalyzed Polyester (CP) as a finish about 5 years ago. I was immediately sold based upon the material's neutral appearance, transparency and extreme hardness. Guitars sprayed in CP on Day 1 can be wet sanded and buffed out on day 2 and setup by Day 4. This offers significantly better turnaround time from the 2-4 week minimum for nitrocellulose lacquer. In addition, because of its unique properties it can be applied more thinly than any other sprayed finish available. With Joe's 30 years of experience in producing custom car finishes, I have been farming out all of my guitars for his highly coveted finishes even before he formally went into the guitar-finishing business. Since then he has been finishing guitars for many professional luthiers across the country. It's my goal to provide state-of-the-art materials and processes. I simply don't have the facility to provide such a finish... so I'll proudly use Joe's expertise for the foreseeable future.
French Polished Shellac
My personal guitars are French Polished Shellac which gives an entirely different appearance and also offers a distinct performance advantage. The process of French Polishing involves the application of Shellac and a labor-intensive method of hand rubbing the material into and on the wood. After many repeated applications it imparts a very natural and organic appearance that glows with a warm radiance. It is the traditional finish used on the most sought after classical guitars. The process has been used for centuries on fine furniture and stringed instruments. It appeals to my love of historical tradition. This is especially of interest to the player who seeks an alternative to the mirror shine of modern guitar finishes. Compared to the thin coat of polyester at .003", a French Polished finish is less than half that thickness. This translates into a more active top for the ultimate in response. The downside to this finish is that it provides little or no protection from dings and damage from a variety of liquids, including alcohol. As a result, it requires extra care and periodic maintenance to maintain or restore it to its original appearance.
Danish Oil
Danish Oil (DO) has been used for decades by makers of gun stocks and by fine furniture builders. It produces a beautiful satin surface when properly applied and cared for. It takes me about 2 weeks of daily applications followed by vigorous rubbing to produce the surface that I like for my personal guitars. Lately, others are asking for their necks to have a DO-rubbed finish. This imparts a dry satin sheen to the surface. To many that play these guitars, they comment on the dry feel and speed along the neck.
So there you have it... finishing in a nutshell. While 90% of the players today will choose the more familiar shiny and protective finishes such as polyester, I offer these alternatives for consideration when customizing your guitar. My latest experimental guitar has the back and sides finished in Catalyzed Polyester, the top is French Polished and the neck is Danish Oil... it also happens to be a tone monster OM. Stop by and play it sometime!
Aromatic Instruments by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Aromatic instruments is a subject dear to my heart, no - dear to my nose. My first Martin had a cedar top, though at the time I took it for spruce. Wonderful smell, as cedars will. When I replaced it with a better instrument, the lack of that smell was noticed right away. And when I replaced that one with a better instrument, a Goodall, I chanced upon a Port Orford cedar top (actually, it is not a cedar, but a member of the cypress family). It smells nicely of spice and ginger, though far from overwhelming. My Moreira classical guitar has an Alaskan yellow cedar top and has the same aroma that my original Martin had.
Back and side woods can have odors too - witness myrtle, narra, cherry, imbuya, along with the rosewoods (named for their rose-like odor), cocobolo (some like it, some don’t), and bubinga (not such a nice smell here, but at least it fades quickly). There is a tendency of some woods to smell good when relatively fresh or freshly cut, but for the smell to fade with time. Others maintain their smell seemingly forever.
There is no connection between the sound that a particular wood exhibits and its fragrance or lack thereof), at least none of which I have ever heard, no more than a wood’s stability, ease of working, gluing abilities and so forth are related. But to get an instrument that plays, sounds, and looks good and to also get it to smell good - what can be better! Most of the senses can be covered in one guitar, other than taste... And tasting guitars is a subject I won’t get into...
Martin Myths and Other Nonsense by John Greven
There are vast quantities of totally bogus information about Martin guitar construction details found all over the internet, particularly on the various guitar forums. Even builders who should know better promote inaccurate information either through lack of direct experience or perhaps as part of their marketing agenda. Whatever the root cause, the basics need to be discussed and better information provided. I was fortunate enough to be the shop foreman at Gruhn Guitars from 1970 through 1976 during the very beginning of the vintage instrument renaissance. Nashville and Gruhn Guitars were the epicenter of this new movement for the country and the world. It was a time when great old guitars carne out of the woodwork daily and into our hands for repair and restoration. We took it for granted that on any given day we would be working on prewarMartins; l8's, herringbone D's, 42's or 45's as well as many one of a kind special models. It was during this time I restored Charlie Monroe's pre-war D-45 and Red Smiley's D45 before they left for Japan. Both guitars were tonally awesome, iconic instruments, even by the best of pre-war Martin standards...There was not a better place to be working on instruments then, or since. It was an unparalleled educational opportunity for which there is no modern equivalent.. From this perspective, along with fifty years of building instruments including 2100 acoustic guitars, I offer up these insights.
Overview: Here is the thing to remember: Martin was a conservative, pragmatic small business. For them, warrantee repairs were a major drag on their bottom line, and when guitars came in for service, someone from the line had to stop their work and attend to it as Martin had no dedicated repair department back then. It is obvious to me after looking at hundreds upon hundreds of vintage Martin guitars, that every change in structure over the decades had everything to do with solving an engineering problem and nothing to do with TONE. Martin already felt that they had the best possible tone in the marketplace, but they could ill afford instruments coming back with similar structural problems and not address the issues proactively for the future. Martin was always thinking STRUCTURE, not TONE when changes were made.
The X Brace: The position of the crossing of the X relative to the bridge placement has two basic forms; the Advanced X which is closer to the soundhole and further from the bridge and the Back Shifted X, which moved the X much closer to the bridge. While this positioning of the X crossing is a tonal factor if one uses the same top material for both, the primary reason Martin altered the X position over time had everything to do with the changing structural qualities of their tops. The light, scalloped bracing of the 20's and 30's under stiff Adirondack tops gradually gave way to wider, taller less scalloped bracing as more top deformation issues arose. By the time Sitka replaced Adirondack, bracing was significantly heavier than before. Moving the X toward the bridge was just part of the solution for reducing excess top deflection. It was not a tonal consideration. As a side note, the best sounding guitars from the 1930's represent a kind of perfect storm of great materials coming together with small shop production performed by highly skilled and dedicated craftsmen at a point where Martin's structural evolution hit a sweet spot of not too heavy, not too light.
The Tongue Brace: The tongue brace had but one function, to help prevent the top from cracking along the edges of the fingerboard, a very common problem. This upper bout region of the top is primarily structural, holding the rotational pressure of the neck at bay and preventing body collapse. Between the heavy main cross brace by the upper soundhole and the dense, massive fingerboard end glued firmly to the top, this is not a major tone generating part of the top. A 6 gram slip of quartered spruce is not going to have any measurable effect on the output of the instrument. Think Structure, Not Tone. Lloyd Loar was never on staff at Martin.
The T Bar: There is much ballyhoo about this little T shaped bar of high strength steel that Martin went to after the ebony neck support proved insufficient for heavy steel strings. Again, if it had worked so well, Martin could still be using it, but they don't. The same is true of all steel beams they changed to over the decades until they finally replaced all with adjustable truss rods. In this case, function is more important long term. The T bar is a relic to be noted and discarded. It is not a tonal factor in and of itself.
Braces: Contrary to the ongoing mythology, Martin did not use Adirondack bracing, it was always Sitka. Again, it was a simple decision on their part. They were way ahead of their time developihg very local wood sources. The Adirondack came from nearby New York State and upper New England. All other spruce came from the suppliers to the shipyards of New York, where wonderful perfectly quartered Sitka was plentiful and cheap.
Hide Glue: There is much to do about hide glue in today's market. It has been for many generations of wood workers of all sfripes, the glue of choice. It was not the only glue available, but the other options, like fish glue and rabbit glue, all had limitations for wood applications and ended up in book binding, case lining and many other less stress related joinery. So how does it apply to the modern era? Martin, along with all other makers of musical instruments as far back as you choose to look, used hide glue exclusively from their beginnings to the late 1960's, when they began experimenting with the Titebond-like poly glues (but very limited applications). All body work and most neck work was held together with hot hide glue with great success. But because HHG is more difficult to work with in a production setting and takes longer to cure out than the modern "white" glues, even Martin is only using the HHG for the top of the line builds and charging extra for it. My personal thoughts on HHG are that it is a fun and challenging material to work with but I do not find it to be stronger than the modern glues in terms of holding strength and it tonally a wash, despite many vociferous claims to the contrary. It does make for a nice addition to a maker's profit margin above and beyond the actual difference in production time involved. There is one difference between HHG and all modern adhesives that is important. It cures hard like glass or flake shellac. Modern aliphatics and poly's retain a degree of elasticity when cured and are subject to stretching under load over time. With good wood to wood joinery, however, it is a moot point as the ultimate bond strength is at the molecular level in a super thin film between two surfaces. I use HHG if asked and do not charge extra for it, but prefer the carpenter's best friend, the yellow glues. Again, tonally, it is not a factor, there are far more important things that make up the voice of an instrument.
Tops: John Caulkin has often said: "Spruce is spruce, get over it!" A great deal of truth to that. I only disagree to a small degree as I find different species of spruce and different tops within a given species do differ a bit both structurally and tonally, but only a little bit. I use this variation in my voicing process but coupled with brace material choice. I talk at length with my top material sources and they all know what I like to see and hear in my top wood. I am all about the tonal outcome of an instrument, not just the visuals and I choose my spruce with that as my prime directive. That is also true of spruce brace stock, but that's a whole other story. The thing to remember about tops is that the grading of them is essentially about cosmetics; how perfect the grain lines, how clean and defect free. Those clean, clear, fine grained, perfectly quartered materials command the highest prices and become AAAA or Master grade. They are rare. Only a small portion of any group of logs will yield sets this perfect. (As time goes on, this quality of material will be virtually extinct due to ever diminishing resources world wide.) It is important to remember that in the end, it is the skill and experience of the guitar maker that will determine the quality of the sound the instrument makes, not the grade of the top material. A lesser build with a $400 top is still a lesser build while a master maker can easily make an A grade top into an incredible sounding instrument. The appearance of a top is its least important characteristic tonally.
Conclusions: I estimate over my working life span of 50 + years that I have played about 5000 gurtars. I have actually hand made over 2300. Of all of those many guitars (5000), a handful stand out as exceptional sounding. There were many hundreds of really good ones and far more that were only quite average. All makes, all models, all makers; it didn't make much difference. Price was not a factor. Some killer cheap guitars sounded just as good as many of the more expensive ones. (Much of that is about the person PLAYING the instrument more than the instrument itself.) The conclusion I draw from this 50 year database is, oddly enough, most guitars sound like guitars that sound like guitars etc., etc. and that there are only a very small percentage of instruments that stand head and shoulders above the crowd. Maybe 1% of the total. From my work bench, hands on building perspective, I have come to the conclusion that a truly successful guitar has more to do with the luck of the draw, the confluence of materials and skills, the alignment of the stars perhaps, than the Intent of the Maker. We guitar makers have far less control over the final voice on an instrument that most will admit to. Certainty is an illusion. Speaking of our work as though we had any degree of absolute knowledge or control over the outcome is delusional thinking. There are too many variables at work both known and utterly mysterious to exercise much "control"'over the tonal outcome. Structure, the nuts and bolts side of guitar building, no problem. Making it physically "perfect" is the relatively easy part. Making it into a singing, responsive, and tonally multi-dimensional Musical Instrument is far more difficult. History proves that. I liken guitar making to cooking. Both the luthier and the chef seek out fine materials for a particular "recipe", assemble and work with them with skill and imagination, and prepare the "meal" for their client. Experience counts very heavily in both endeavors. Bon appetite.
Like LIttle-Bodied Guitars? by Roland Vinyard, 2011
A letter to a friend who does.....
1) I mentioned that getting a smaller waist was more important then a small body. A deeper than usual body will give you more bass even though the small body size may say to the audience that it will be lacking in bass.
2) I also mentioned the "Manzer Wedge" which tapers the body so it is narrower near your shoulders and wider near your hips. Those two things should make a huge difference in comfort without a sacrifice in sound or volume. You are very unlikely to find the wedge in any store or even boutique.
3) But there is another thing you can have (that you won't find in stores) and that is a custom neck.
A) Obviously narrower will help and it could be quite a bit more so, maybe as much as 1/4" (that's a LOT). If you rarely fingerpick and don't seem to play up the neck, this may be an easy sacrifice to make.
B) Secondly, a 12 fret neck will be more comfortable for you than the usual 14 fret neck and you could even arrange to get the bridge shifted backwards some to accommodate the same scale. These things allow the left hand to be extended less.
C) Or you could go to say, a ~24" scale, which will do the same thing in another way. Not sure if I like that idea as much.
D) Next, you could change the neck geometry, make it shallower for instance (a carbon fiber road inserted in the neck can allow this with no loss of strength) or you can actually change the shape of the neck. Most necks are like a "D" in cross-section, but they do not have to be proportional; the belly of the "D" can be shifted to one side or another to fit your hand better. OR it could be more "V" shaped. Or....
4) Guitars can be made VERY light as well and still keep a larger body, if that is important. You could probably have one that is about full-sized and 3 lbs if you went with an all Port Orford Cedar guitars, back and side, neck, as well as top. (That would be VERY pungent!) The point is that materials vary considerably in weight as well as other characteristics. My 000 is quite a bit heavier than my jumbo, despite being much smaller. And it is the combination of woods that make the difference in those two.
5) You can go to light or extra-light strings. The lighter the strings, the easier they are to push down and the less tired your left hand fingers will get. And also the guitar will get quieter, it's a tradeoff. But it doesn't have to be. With lighter bracing and certain materials, a guitar can be made to be louder.
You can probably see where I am leading. Manufacturers like Martin, Gibson, Taylor, Larrivee and so on have to overbuild because they have no idea who will end up owning their guitars and how they will be treated. But they know they have warrantees that they will be expected to honor. A luthier personally knows the end user and can build a guitar which would implode if you put on medium strings, but would respond nicely to light strings. I don't care for extra light strings like I have on the Weymann parlour guitar. I feel they don't get out of my way quick enough. But if you are not playing blazingly fast like I do (joke), that may not be an issue for you. The point is that it is possible to get better sound from an extra light string than you might expect.
All these things can be yours in a custom-made guitar, one made specifically for you, your size, and your style of playing. Generally these things start at $3000, even $4000 and go up for there, but there are luthiers who do fine work who are much cheaper, often ones who are working part time or are trying to build a reputation. Or they may have developed more efficient and quicker build times. Or they may not work to quite the same degree of perfection in the finish. Two examples whom I have personally met are Nick Apollonio who built my 12 and Kim Griffin who built Brenda's guitar. There are others.
If any of these ideas have merit in your opinion, what I would highly recommend is to attend one of the big three guitar shows. There is one in April in Newport near Miami, another over July 4th in Montreal (where I go) and every two years, the biggest of all, in Healdsburg, California. This year the Healdsburg one will be held in mid August. Google them and check out the web sites. The shows are designed for luthiers to show off what they can do and you will literally see millions of dollars worth of fine guitars in one room: many avant guarde or a bit experimental, others very traditional, but all are things of beauty. You can go in and play any of them, for as long as you wish. They are all for sale and often unsold ones will go comparatively cheap toward the close of the show. You can talk with many, many luthiers, all of whom have been vetted by the Show's organizers and found to be among the best in the world. Most of them are super nice folks who love what they are doing, and also enjoy helping solve particular problems. They may have quite different approaches to achieve the same ends, so it is worth spending lots of time talking to many of them and getting ideas. You can take one person's idea to another and often they will be receptive, though I wouldn't advertise whose idea it originally was. I'd approach each one and say something to the effect that - here's what I play and how I play and here's the problem that I want solved (the discomfort you have in larger-bodied guitars). Then ask what they suggest.
You'll get to play hundreds of guitars if you wish, talk to dozens of luthiers who are absolutely the cream of the crop, get their ideas, and learn what you like and don't like. Take notes, too. As an aside, you will find these shows are very cheap to get into, much less than a festival. And there is as much music going on. Mini concerts, more formal concerts, workshops, after-hours jamming and so forth, all designed with a different focus than festivals have - and that is to showcase the builders and how they built. There is little vocal music, but a huge variety of simply amazing playing. Even if you never visit the rooms where the luthiers display their wares and never talk to any of them, it would be a steal of a value to attend - just for the listening. But the real reason for me to go is to be informed on what is happening in the world of fine instruments and to see who makes guitars that are truly amazing and to learn what they do.
Scattered across the US are shops that specialize in fine instruments (ones that come to mind are Cathedral Music in Troy, a place in Boston whose name eludes me, Mandolin Brothers in Staten Island, a place - Melody Music - in Bryn Mawr, Dream Guitars near Asheville, The Podium in Minneapolis, the Picking Parlour in the Denver area, another near Santa Fe, Sylvan Music and Buffalo Brothers in California). While these are great spots to look, you have only slightly better than a zero chance of finding something that is an exact fit for you. But they can give you ideas as well. But it is at these elite guitar shows that you will find folks who can solve your problems (for the appropriate fee). Or you can take their ideas and find someone elsewhere who may do it far cheaper. The materials selected or the quality of build does not affect the price as nearly as much as the reputation of the luthier.
I would definitely make plans to attend one of these shows, and spend a couple days or more taking to luthiers and handling instruments. And then you will know if you can have both the comfort you want along with acceptable sound and playability in one instrument.
Dry House Syndrome - What It Can Do to Instruments
by Roland Vinyard, 2010
It's that time of year again. Cold and dry, and neither one is good for fine wooden instruments. In 1978, I bought my first fine instrument, a Martin M38. The care and feeding instructions that came with it warned me of the dangers of extreme temperature changes. That was inconvenient, as I was on a long Fall-Winter-Spring road trip, living out of the back of my truck. The guitar was my companion at night, something to do after dark. But I took extreme care, kept it safely locked tight in its case and when I changed from one temperature to another, meaning indoors to outside, and vice versa, I always let it warm or cool slowly, for an hour or more, inside its case. That worked - somewhat. I did not develop any cracks in the wood, not a one. But Martin did not warn me of the dangers of cold and that took a toll. The entire top was severely crazed by the cold, little mini-cracks in the finish, going in all directions. It hurt me when it came time to part with it 20-some years later; it did not command the price I had hoped for, even though the guitar played and sounded perfect and had no structural or other issues.
After that trip, I have exercised even more care. I bought a beater guitar for those times when I would be unable to care for it properly. Living in the Northeast, there are special precautions that all of us need to exercise. Most of the year, it is humid, humid anyhow as opposed to that which the Southwest experiences. That is good, our instruments do not dry out and they are happy. Come heating season, that is another matter. Heat dries out the house, whether it be electric, oil, gas, or wood. Wood is the worst.
So, naturally, here, we use wood for most of our heat, a simple wood stove in the center of the house. It makes my office icy as that is on a floor below it. But the bedrooms above stay warm enough. Oil backup comes on at 60 degrees. And our whole house stays at 40-42% moisture. How do we do it? First we kept a kettle of water evaporating all the time on the stove. That made no measureable difference and moisture levels would get below 11% for much of the winter. I had to keep everything in cases with humidifiers in the soundholes. Then we put in a whole house humidifier on the furnace. I thought that would do the trick, but there was still no difference. Then we bought a humidifier. It proved noisy and difficult since our mineral levels plugged it up. Still no meaningful difference. Then we added a greenhouse for Janet's orchids. We keep a door between the home and the greenhouse partly open to allow exchange of heat and humidity. The floor was built to absorb moisture and we would pour 10 gallons a day of water on it to keep things in there moist. Now, that definitely helped and it shortened the humidifying season for my instruments. Then she bought a commercial humidifier for the greenhouse. She uses rainwater or melts snow for it to lessen the mineral buildup. That did the trick for the entire house. No more pouring water on the floor. When it goes on, the whole greenhouse turns into an extreme fog. So, the obvious lesson is that orchids are good for guitars; there's a symbiotic relationship, a real but unintended benefit.
What did I do in our pre-orchid days? I kept a humidity meter out and working every day , placing it in the room where I keep my instruments. Without a measurement, you don't know where you are or what you need. It measured only so low, 11%, and for long periods that's what it would read. The house used to get so dry that beams would crack and the panels in doors pulled apart so far you could stick a credit card through them. I did NOT want this to happen to my guitars! In each valuable instrument, I kept a humidifier. I have quite a collection of them, various brands, and have found that they all serve the purpose. I am told you can also make your own, a damp sponge in a baggy or plastic case with many pin holes in it. I have not used these and don't trust them. For one thing, I don't like plastic coming into contact with the finish on my instruments. Once a week, I would go through my corral of guitars and fill each humidifier with distilled water (no minerals to bugger up things). We have minerals in our water which would eventually plug up the humidifiers and make them less effective. This was all a necessary chore. Unless I was playing them, I kept them each one in its case, tightly closed, and stored in a closet, in a warm room.
The result? Not a single crack, not a single craze, and few problems with being out of tune or needing neck adjustment. Every scientific trial needs a control, a base upon which we can make real judgments. My wife's concertina served this purpose. She keeps it downstairs, in its case, but unhumidified. Oh yes, when I'd bug her, she might toss an apple slice in there, but how much water can that hold? She rarely plays it and it's mostly out of sight, out of mind. When she pulled it out after a very long nap, what did she find? You guessed it, cracks in the wood, ones serious enough to justify a fast trip to the luthier, who does not work cheap.
Need more proof? I restored a Yang Chin, removed by sanding an ugly coat of some horrible material and discovered underneath just spectacular wood, which I lacquered. I never strung it up, but would take it out of its case once in a great while to admire the woods. A longer while transpired and when I opened the case, I found something I didn't like. A huge crack, monstrous and gaping in its cover. It must have opened up 3/16". Not a good sign. I removed the cover to look at the instrument itself, yes there was another, almost as big. And another. And another. My fine instrument now a curious wall hanging, it was off to eBay where I received a fraction of what I would have had I sold it a few months earlier.
Though I don't use them, I keep my gallon of distilled water and my collection of humidifiers around - just in case. Maybe she'll get tired of orchids and want to grow cactus.
Terminology by James Goodall, www.goodallguitars.com
...I thought I should make a list of some of the guitar tone terminology I use. Here is a condensed list in alphabetical order ( I added a few superlatives not directly related to anything specific). You can use a dictionary for clarification on some of these: Balanced, bassy, boomy, brilliant, bright, cool, excellent, even, fat, fantastic, focused, full, fundamental, harmonics, incredible, gnarly, loud, lyrical, majestic, midrangey, musical, open, overtones, phenomenal, powerful, rich, responsive, sensational, sensitive, strident, superior, sustain, sweet, trebly, and wonderful....
Voicing the Steel String Guitar, by John Greven, 2011
Considerations When Selecting Wood by Roland Vinyard
Wood - A Brief Education, by Bruce Petros
Tonewoods in Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi, 2010
Tapping Tonewoods, by Dana Bourgeois
The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin
Alternative to What?, J. Chris Herrod, with Luthier's Merchantile Int'l, 2004
The World of Fine Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Montreal Guitar Show, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
My Instrumental Hegira Starts, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Torrified Tops, from John Greven
Custom Baritone Guitar, by Roland Vinyard, 2007
Guitar Voicings & Building a New Instrument, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Some Thoughts on the Difference Between Handmade & Factory Made Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi
Martin Versus Luthier-Made Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Stainless Steel Fretwire, by Steven Marchione
Finishing Guitars, by JJ Donohue
Aromatic Instruments, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Martin Myths, by John Greven
Like Little-Bodied Guitars?, by Roland Vinyard, 2011
Dry House Syndrome, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Tereminology, by James Goodall
George Gruhn Said, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Blazing Guitar, by Roland Vinyard, 2008
The Lacey Act and How It Affects You, by Chuck Erikson (Duke of Pearl), 2012
The Lacey Act and How It Affected Me, by Chuck Erikson (Duke of Pearl)
A Guide to Figure in Woods, by Don Savoie
What Is the Function of the Back & Sides? Trevor Gore & Alan Carruth
Grain Orientation, by Dana Bourgeois
(Scroll down to visit each article or blog.)
"LOVE your site. I am a semi - retired professional who is now turning my attention to producing very custom , one off guitar bodies and related products. I have been a home luthier for 10+ years having sold hundreds of bodies on eBay but am now developing my own site." Mark
The Polys
Tim McKnight (quoted from Acoustic Guitar Forum)
...When you mention "Poly", it can refer to straight Polyurethane (the solvent evaporative air dried version), Catalyzed Polyurethane (the chemically cured version), Catalyzed Polyester (chemically cured) and UV Polyester (Ultraviolet light cured).
Air dried polyurethane is typically the slowest drying and the softest version much akin to flexibility of oil based varnishes. It typically takes 14-30 days to reach its full cure before it can be buffed without shrinkage.
Chemically cured polyurethane is much faster drying but still takes 2-14 days to reach full hardness. Its not any harder or less flexible than the air dried version but can be buffed much sooner with less risk of the finish shrinking.
Chemically cured Polyester dries much faster than PU, usually to a full cure hardness in 12-24 hours.
UV cured Polyester is fully cured in 30-60 seconds! It can be buffed almost immediately after cooling and sanding. Both versions of Polyesters are THEE hardest of the finishes typically used on guitars. These polyester finishes are the ones I believe you may be referring to when you mention "Poly".
Polyester is most often used in large scale production shops and factories though its not uncommon for small one man shops to dabble in it as well. Both versions of PE have the steepest learning curve to properly apply because it has a much higher solids content of the professional finishes. Because of the high solids content it takes a while to learn how NOT to apply it too thick.
PE can be found on most production Asian guitars and also on the Alvarez that Alan mentioned earlier. A final film thickness of .010" - .030" is certainly NOT uncommon. The downside to PE is film thickness control and when the film builds so does mass and especially added stiffness to all the vibrating surfaces. This added stiffness can add unwanted brightness, shrillness and a loss in bass response. The upside to PE is its like steel armor plating your musical instrument. The added hardness and stiffness of PE finish resists dents, scratches and ANY chemical known to man. There is NO paint stripper on the planet that will remove it!
With the right skill set one can learn (speaking from personal experience) to apply PE pretty thin but its VERY difficult to do. As a disclaimer I no longer use PE for various reasons.
As I grow wiser, through experience, I find myself gravitating to softer finishes. I think ... a host of other seasoned veteran builders would also concur. A softer finish adds warmth and sweetness to the tone that is so difficult to describe or put into words. I think we share a common desire that we want the completed instrument to sound its best, with the most natural, woody, unencumbered voice. When we tap on a guitar, in the white [prior to finish], that is the voice we want to hear after its finished. Using too much finish or even the wrong finish can significantly change that voice. Its such a fine line that we walk.
Finishing a guitar or any musical instrument, is a complex subject and task. There are hundreds, if not thousands of finish products on the market and I have yet to find the one perfect finish, without its own unique set of quirks or challenges. But be informed that finish is yet one more important component, that contributes to the sum of the parts of the completed instrument that positively or negatively influences the final tonal envelope of the instrument.
Voicing the Steel String Guitar (A talk given to the Guild of American Luthiers) John Greven
I spent four months writing and rewriting this in an effort to keep it simple, but also as complete as I could come up with. All this has directly influenced my building over my 55 year career, but really has only become a prime focus over the last decade. After 2200+ guitars, much of what I do is instinctive rather than deliberative, so I rarely stop and think about a choice I am making, I let the wood "speak" to me. Taking the time to actually articulate what I do and why I do it was quite a task, but well worth it. During the 3 1/2 hour talk/demo at GAL, I was constantly amazed at how few builders in the audience had thought about the basics like this, even stuff that seems so obvious to me.
Basic Maxims
The top IS the voice, choose it with care and treat with the respect it deserves. Keep top construction mass to a minimum sufficient to maintain stability, do not overbuild it. Think of it as if you were building the guitar like a model airplane, make it to fly.
Everything about the guitar has some effect on both tone and responsiveness, to a greater or lesser degree. The single most important tone/power element is the top itself. Second is the brace mass and lastly the brace placement.
The back and side materials color the sound but they are not the voice itself. The back and sides affect bass response to some degree and sustain (dense woods increase sustain, soft reduce it). The also create reflective or absorptive effects depending on density and stiffness and can, in some cases add power back into the overall sound envelope via the "trampoline" effect.
The essence of the great guitar over the average guitar lies in its relative level of efficiency; its ability to take the energy of the string in motion and turn it into the maximum in singing tone quality and amplification of sound. Guitars work at about 5% optimum efficiency as a mechanical device. Even a small addition of overly massive elements in the build or other impediments to the motion of the plates will reduce the efficiency and thus the output. A I% loss in the overall efficiency of the box is actually a20o/o loss relative to the maximum possible.
The Vocabulary of Tone - how a guitar sounds
Power: referred to as Headroom, the ability of a guitar to respond to heavy playing pressures with huge but a musical voice.This has to do with its Dynamic Range (the ability of the guitar to be soft or loud while maintaining the full complexity of its voice).
Responsiveness: The ability of the guitar to respond to any player pressure with immediacy and a full voice. (a matter of efficiency)
Projection: How well the guitar throws its sound at a distance, also a matter of efficiency
Tone: The vocal qualities of the instrument, how the elements come together to make the voice.
Articulation: how crisp and distinct the notes are. The range: Mushy/dulI to crisp/normal to edgy/overly bright.
Tone Color: (how woody and complex or thin, metallic, and stringy the notes are. The range: Very warm and woody to balance wood and string to minimally woody, bright.
Depth of tone: whether the notes are full and complex or thin with little wood motion audible. The range: thin, mostly string sound to piano-like solidity of tone with obvious woodiness.
Sustain: how long the notes ring after striking them. The range; Quick decay to Moderate to Long sustain.
Choosing the Top: The top is the most important element in the construction of the guitar, it IS the voice.
Raw tops: oversize and over thick plates changes ping tone and flex test results, skewing data to the positive side with cleaner ping tone and more sustain, also stiffer flex.
Top Grading: Best stops are not necessarily Master Grade and often not AAA. These tops are rare and nearly perfect cosmetically, thus expensive and pretty, however they are often softer with a less articulate voice due to overall fiber density. Talk to your wood dealer in depth about grading and what you are looking for. The best sounding tops often feature wider grain, uneven growth rings and color changes,etc. The only way to tell true quality is to physically handle the tops to determine their worth Best to buy at least 6 tops of a specific grade to test them, often you can return unused ones. Know your sources, they have the best information about the wood they sell. Know what you want in a top before ordering and tell the dealer your criteria in detail. You absolutely cannot tell the quality of a top by looking at it, appearance is no measure of worth.
Testing the Top
This is the single most important step in the guitar building process; it will determine the degree of success of the build more so than any other component. First, know what your target sound envelope is, talk to your customer in depth. Take back and side material and neck materials into account as they will color the sound Match tops to back and side woods in a way that will get you closer to your target voice Choose your species and physical properties to best approach the target voice. Every species of top material has its own vocal characteristics. All samples of a given species will have similar tonal properties even when they differ in stiffness and grain count. The essential cellular structure and amount of lignin* in the winter and summer growth is a relative constant and determined by the genetics of the species. Only the microclimate growing conditions may vary somewhat.
*Lignin: A complex polymer, the chief noncarbohydrate constituent of wood, that binds to cellulose fibers and hardens and strengthens the cell walls of plants.
If two samples of a species where one is less stiff than the other which is stiffer are made into guitars (sic), the voices will have the same characteristics except for a slightly higher level of articulation and sustain in the stiffer of the two. Engelmann will always sound like Engelmann, Sitka like Sitka, German like German etc. It is a fundamental structural issue with each species. There are groupings of species that exhibit very similar tonal properties because they are also similar in the structures within their wood makeup.
Hardness refers to the density and physical hardness of the wood. Stiffness refers to the dynamic resistance to deflection of the wood.
Soft Woods
As a good rule of thumb, softer woods are less articulate (warmer, fuzzier) than harder woods. The same holds true for stiffness: stiffer means brighter and more articulate, less stiff means softer sound. Softer tops will have more bass response, stiff tops stronger treble response. Soft tops work better on small footprint boxes where the tighter perimeter stiffens the top. Stiff tops work better on larger boxes where the longer span acts to minimize additional stiffening.
Almost all modern Adi is softer than the old growth Adi Martin and Gibson used prior to 1939. It has the headroom of the old stock, but the tone is more diffuse, often muddy and inarticulate. Lutz is the only top wood that has the tone quality of the vintage Adi along with the headroom.
Ping Testing of Tops
Look for clarity, complexity, and sustain in initial test of half plates. Ping half tops holding by the middle of one side tapping middle of the plate. Final test is for the power quotient. Looking for the ability of the top to hold a clean ping tone and push large amounts of air. The strong fundamental should be very sonorous and substantive. Pinging should evoke lots of top motion and a clear sense of the air moving away from the top. A top which lacks a musical quality to this fundamental note should be avoided.
The Ping Test: The three things to listen for with the ping test are clarity, complexity and sustain. It is not the frequency that matters. Frequency is a function of size and thickness of the plate. The important aspect to listen for is the character and quality of the ping and the sustain. A dull ping tone: with short decay indicates a soft or very fibrous top/lots of internal damping. Leaving only the fundamental audible in the finished guitar, guitar will be muddy, with no high end. Decently crisp ping tone: most tops fall into this range, a safe choice.
Look for good sustain as well, balance from bass to treble, good partials mix, very crisp. ringing ping tone. This top will make a very bright, articulate voice. It might benefit from softer bracing to even it out, could be percussive. Tonal spectrum sifted hard to the high mids and highs, sparkly and intense.
The second test of the raw plate is the power quotient test. When listening to the ping tone, look for a strong fundamental as well as overtones, clarity, and sustain. These elements will show up in the final voice of the guitar (assuming you do not overbuild the top structure). The quality and amount of the above characteristics are inherent in the top material and are the building blocks of the voice to come.
These basic elements of the voice can be modified through choice of brace stock, bracing mass and location, choice of back and side materials (and their relative mass) and the materials of the neck In addition, how the top is arched or not arched can alter the top's voice significantly.
Testing the glued plates as a unit: It is at this stage that the true character of the top is revealed, when the plates are joined and sanded to rough thickness. I take my tops to .135" to start with a finish around .125-.130".
Top Arching: arching the top to a 30-36 ft. arc raises fundamental and shifts the tonal spectrum to the treble register losing depth of bass response. Arching the top increases top tension and rigidity. Think eggshell effect. Great for neck set, higher bridge and saddle, easier setups, prevents S curve in top, reduces bridge torque and top motion as well as tonal depth and power. It is impossible to achieve anything approaching the vintage tone with an arched top.
Remember that EVERY top is different, even within a flitch from the same round of a tree. It must be treated as having its own unique tonal envelope and adjusted as to thickness and bracing accordingly. It is equally true that every piece of wood involved with the guitar structure is unique and must be tested and evaluated for its effect on the final sound.
Top thickness: Historically. guitar tops were generally thinner than today. The Adirondack materials were much harder and stiffer than their modern counterpart. Martin tops were .095-.110" with small bracing. Gibson tops were .095-.130, showing their materials varied more than Martin's.
I thin my tops to a starting thickness of .135 and the usual final thickness will be between .100 and .125. It all depends on how hard and stiff the top material is. Obviously stiff stock can go thinner than soft, but the tonal trade offs there as well. The thinner and stiffer the top, the brighter the tone, to the point of being shrill. Soft top materials work best at about .125". Too thick and the tone will be dull. Much thinner and there will be a loss of depth to the sound. I let my tops do about 60% of the structural work and the bracing about 40%, but this will vary with top stiffness. I rarely use soft top material even if it has a good ping tone.
Bracing the top: The most problematic part of the build, how to brace the top. Think VOICE first, then remember the ping tone of the selected top as well as its stiffness. Choose a bracing material to compliment, enhance or alter the basic voice of the top wood.
Basic concepts: A softer brace material and one that is less stiff will fatten and sweeten the tone, take off the edge. It also increases bass response because it allows longer waves of the low frequencies to move the top more easily. A harder brace material will increase top stiffness also increasing treble response but reduce bass.
Bracing: Width/Height/Shape
Shape: The shape of the brace matters for both tone and structure. The old "knife" style Gibson bracing sounds totally different than the Martin parabolic shape on the same body size and top material. I have tested this repeatedly. The knife brace imparts a percussive and nasty quality to the tone along with lots of raw power. The more massive parabolic shape adds woodiness and warmth to the tone. The narrower the brace footprint, the brighter the tone. The wider the brace footprint, the less bright the tone. The more parabolic shaped brace like Martin uses has the same strength for its height, but adds mass to the sides of the brace, leading to a woodier tone quality. Both of these brace types had minimal footprints of .250 - .270”.
Footprint: A wide brace is not stronger than a narrow brace for the same height but greater width significantly reduces overall top motion and output. The width of the footprint impacts the overall motion or mobility of the top. The greater the percentage of bracing footprint on the top the less the top can move and the converse is also true. The brace sitting on the top creates a null zones of minimal motion. Increase the null zones, reduce top motion, reduce null zones, increase top motion.
Height: The shorter the brace, the more it can flex, the higher the amplitude of the top in motion The taller the brace, the tighter the top, lower amplitude, reduced bass response. It is a non-linear function, so small increments of height change make large changes in stiffness. The height measured at the center of the brace is the primary strength factor. Mass added to the sides of the brace do not significantly increase strength vertically, but do alter the tone audibly.
Important data point: Remember that increasing the height of a brace by 2O% increases its rigidity by 50% and conversely, reducing a brace height by 20% REDUCES its rigidity by 50%. Scalloping braces radically reduces its overall brace rigidity and allows greater top motion.
To X or not to X: The X braced top has become the defacto standard in the American guitar industry and a majority of the hand builder arena. It has a long tested history of success both structurally and tonally. There is no question that many of the very best acoustic guitars ever made use the X bracing system. It is relatively easy to work with to alter to adjust the voice of the top wood. By changing size or location of the various components, the tonal spectrum and power can be shifted to suit the goal of the builder.
Since I build exclusively with the X brace system now and have for many decades (although not early on in my career), I will start there and explain my thinking process for working with it on a top. I think of the top as having two primary regions: the area above the sound hole and the lower bout. The upper bout region is heavily braced and does not have much tonal impact. The lower bout is like a speaker cone and does 95% of the work of the guitar.
When I brace the upper bout, I am thinking neck rotational pressure and structure, structure…. I concentrate on the area from the sound hole to the end block or the lower bout for adjusting the voice of the guitar with bracing. Structure is essential here also to prevent collapse of the top, but we underestimate the strength of the top plate combined with its bracing and tend to way overbuild this critical element of tone.
Remember - if the guitar is only 5% efficient and you add lots of unnecessary mass to the underside of the top, you have greatly reduced the top's ability to move and greatly reduced available string energy to drive the top. Excess mass increases loss of transfer or damping. It acts like a sonic heat sink, drawing available string energy into the mass rather than transferring it to the top and the air chamber where it can be converted to sound.
There is already internal damping going on in the top itself, the goal with the bracing is to speed and direct the movement of energy through the top without adding to that damping effect.
Bracing Patterns: I use the vintage X after having tried a number of more exotic forms and rejecting them. The sound they produced lacked character, they were even toned to the point of being boring. I personally find variations of fan bracing, radial bracing (like Kasha) and hybrid radial bracing patterns all sound way too even and uninteresting. They also lack a wide enough dynamic range for my taste. Even with Adi tops, they lack headroom. The top moves in a more uniform fashion rather than with lots of asymmetry. The X bracing adds the asymmetric component to the top motion that also gives it the punch and power.
Tuning tops is an impossible task. All tops of all species exhibit a singular pitch for each body size (footprint) within a half step of F#. It has much more to do with size and mass of the top plate than anything else. I will stay with what I know works and has worked for over 200 years of successful guitar making, the X brace system.
The ways I like to change the sound of the top are as follows, but not limited to these adjustments.
The Splay of the X: Actually, the splay of the X varies with the body size and shape to the degree necessary to cross the ends of the bridge feet with the tails of the X. This is both a structural and a tonal consideration. If you want a hard number, most D models are 102 degrees on the wide side. Smaller body guitars are closer to but never equal to a 90 degree angle. Allowing greater or lesser motion of the bridge by increasing or decreasing the amount of the bridge sitting on top of the X tails changes the motion of the top and either allows for more motion or restricts it. The effect is dramatic.
The so called "advanced" X that Martin employed for decades prior to 1940 kept the center of the X closer to the sound hole (about I 1/4 inches on a 4 inch sound hole) and minimal crossing of the bridge feet. This loosens the top and increases its amplitude and power. The downside of this configuration is that you must have a strong and relatively stiff top to minimize the S curve or partial top collapse that will inevitably take place under string tension. A soft top will distort too much and not bear the bridge torque.
Since the Adi top material used when these advanced X braced guitars were built was very stiff, hard and longitudinally strong, it was not so much of an issue. Modem Adi tops must be left thicker or arched more heavily to allow for light forward shifted bracing to be used. Both structural changes degrade tone quality.
One critical data point about my tops and all vintage Martins (as well as most other modern vintage guitar maker's tops) is that the arching is approximately a 50 foot arc which translates into a 1/8 gap at the ends of the 17 inch X brace when it is set down on a flat surface. Modern Martins have a 36 foot arc and follow the more modern building scheme. This is one reason the modern Martin does not sound like its historic counterparts.
Tone Bars: I always use 2 tone bars on all guitars larger than the 00 size; including all 000, D, J,and PS models. I vary the angle they attach to the X tails and tuck them under the tails, but I honestly have not found their placement to have much impact on the tone of the guitar. I keep them light to allow this part of the top easy motion while helping to prevent excessive top pull behind the bridge. Sometimes I use a different material for the tone bars, usually Adi, to sweeten the tone on a very stiff top. The softer and less stiff Adi works well to add woodiness to the sound.
Finger Braces: I discovered by chance that smaller bodies like the 000 and 00 work well with just one finger brace, rather than the traditional 2 on either side of the bridge plate. It is a work in progress.
The Bridge Plate: I am a traditionalist in this aspect, I use a small, thin, hard maple bridge plate. My thinking is that it worked for Martin for 140 years and made many of the best sounding guitars I have ever played; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The primary purpose of this plate is to prevent premature wearing out of the top from the ball ends of the strings. It also prevents the possibility of the bridge ripping up the spruce if and when it comes partially or completely loose. It was a common sense structural element on Martin's part.
If you look back at Martin and Gibson guitars over the decades prior to 1940, each and every structural change that was made was in response to a problem having come along that brought guitars back for service. At both Martin and Gibson they were, as a small and highly skilled work force, simple woodworkers at heart and came up with simple, logical woodworking solutions to the many little structural issues arising over time.
It was the sudden availability of new and better materials (like the advent of pattern grade Honduran mahogany in l9l6 allowing Martin to stop using Spanish cedar and the famous "bird's beak" complex neck joint) that led to production changes. Most of the small bracing changes were to correct for customers using too heavy a string-set on delicately built instruments causing top and bridge failures.
Scalloping: In years past,I glued my braces to the top as rectangular pieces and then shaped them with chisels and sandpaper. Now and for the last fifteen years or so I pre-shape the bracing and glue to the top. I like pre-shaping them. It allows me to test the brace for stiffness as I thin it or scallop it and I feel it affords me greater control over the final structure of the top.
I scallop or not depending on both the target sound and the specific physical properties of the top itself, adjusting the stiffness and sizing of the braces to suit the structural needs of the top and to make changes to the overall sound of the finished guitar. Since I do both Martin and Gibson style builds, I use very different brace shapes and patterns to achieve the vintage tone of each type.
Testing the finished top: It may seem odd, but I rarely tap a finished braced top other than to make sure there are no loose braces. By the time I have made and glued the braces down, I already know what to expect from the finished guitar. It is a matter of having built so many guitars and played with hundreds and hundreds of tops over the years.
Because my total build time averages 22 hours over a two week span, I can still hear in my mind's ear the tap tone of the unbraced top and feel its flex, so my build data points are still fresh. My memory for sound is very acute and it serves me well in this voicing process. It has become totally intuitive after nearly 50 years of day in and day out guitar making.
I find that tapping a finished top yields little information. Some builders are now using the Chladni frequency generator sand test for their tops with good results. Allen Carruth uses this method and has an excellent four hour video of the process if you are interested.
I do tap and flex the top when the box is ready for binding. While I can still see the top thickness around the edges, I tap the top to hear its response and tone, and I flex the top in the sweet spot for stiffness (the sweet spot lies on the lower right bout between the tail of the X and the lower tone bar. I adjust the thickness by sanding the perimeter to alter both the tap tone and the flex.
NOTE: There are all kinds of scientific tests on guitars on-line to look at. I have read most of them and find them utterly useless. It is important to remember that every top is different, there is no absolute uniformity. Data from one guitar will only hint at how to treat the next guitar. One experiment I saw used a 1968 Gibson Dove as their test bed. I'm surprised the plates moved at all! That data is highly suspect.
Making the Box (How the back and sides impact sound and tone):
The back and sides form the air chamber of a guitar and impart their physical properties into the tonal mix of the finished instrument. Thus choice of body woods is important to tone.
To keep it simple, I think of all woods in terms of their density, hardness, and elasticity.
These qualities along with how the woods are thinned and braced add or take away tonal qualities from the whole, but in relatively subtle ways. The top is still the voice and it is the dominant tone generator.
Here is a rough graph of various common guitar woods grouped by the three characteristics I list.
Low Density Medium Density Very Dense
Palo Escrito Indian Rosewood Pau Fero Light Braz. Madagascar Dark Braz. Hond. Coco Af.Blkwd
Madagascar Madagascar Braz.
Khaya Walnut Hond. Mahog. Cuban Mahog. BL Maple Sugar Maple
Lacewood Hond. Mahog
Spanish Cedar Koa Koa
Density and hardness are similar for these species with the following differences:
Very Soft Medium Soft/Hard Hard Very Hard
Spanish Cedar Red/Silver maple BL Maple Sugar Maple
Black Walnut Claro Walnut English Walnut
Cuban Mahog. Hond. Mahog. Khaya
Pao Fero Indian RW Braz. RW Mad RW Hond. RW
Lacewood Af. Blackwood
Ebony
The Elasticity Graph
Very Elastic Moderately Elastic Inelastic (rigid)
Spanish Cedar Hond Mahog. Madagascar RW
Indian RW Braz. RW Braz.RW Hond. RW
soft maple BL Maple Sugar Maple African BW
Lacewood Cocobolo
Myrtle Walnut Aust. BW Ebony
These three qualities of back and side woods do the following to the sound of the guitar:
Density: Less dense materials make for greater liveliness in the response and an increase in the power quotient. They also reduce the strength of the high partials, softening the tone. The higher density materials add to the sparkle and sustain by increasing the available mass. They also tend to be rigid, which has an even greater impact on thinning the tone quality, less depth.
Hardness: The physical hardness of a back and side material affects the wood's ability to either absorb or reflect sound waves moving about the box (actually a combination of absorption and reflection). The more absorption the wood provides, the fatter and sweeter the tone quality, possibly too much so. Using soft woods here can make it difficult to achieve a good balance between warmth and clarity as the high frequency range is damped significantly.
Highly reflective woods are also dense and tend to be inelastic. They reflect the majority of the sound waves and cause the tone to take on a brittle, metallic, thin quality, There is a noticeable loss of tonal depth with very dense, hard woods so it is important to choose a top that will add warmth back into the mix rather than choosing a screamingly bright and stiff top.
Elasticity: I think this is one of the most important and interesting of the three characteristics and one I have discovered late in my career. The ease or difficulty of setting a plate in motion determines, in part, how much depth and power the guitar will have and how much sting energy will be lost in the process. The air chamber and back act to reinforce the motion of the top, or not, and the elasticity of the back, in particular, can greatly effect the efficiency of the guitar as a whole.
For this reason, I prefer to use woods that move easily, even the rosewoods that are quite dense, either by choosing a mobile species or by thinning out the more rigid material to where it can flex a bit. This may entail cutting a back down to as little as .070" as in the case of African Blackwood and Cocobolo. Scary process, but worth the risk for the better tone and power produced.
For many years I thought that really nice Madagascar Rosewood was not particularly different from Brazilian Rosewood in how it behaved structurally and thus, tonally. After building dozens of guitars of similar sizes using both materials as well as the same top species, it became painfully obvious that this was simply not true. I had been seduced by the similarity in ping tones and appearances of the two rosewoods to think they sounded alike as well.
Even when thinned heavily, Madagascar Rosewood remains very stiff, stiffer than a Brazilian back at the same thickness. Brazilian and Pauo Escrito, for example, are far more similar in their elasticity than Madagascar and Brazllian, which only look similar. Brazilian has what I call a trampoline effect on the sound, pushing it out of the box with greater force, thus projecting well.
Body Design
Size Matters: The footprint of a guitar body and the depth of the air chamber all impact the tone of the finished instrument. I know from experience that my rounded 16 inch J model (like a J-l85 Gibson) never sounds or behaves like my 000 or D or the J-35 or any other guitar I make. It defies any changes in woods or tops and will not move away from the basic tone of that box shape. It has an almost annoyingly even tone quality and lacks the headroom of any other box I build, again, regardless of the top material. There is something about the shape of the body that effects the way sound moves through the system and it seems immutable.
Here is my take on body shapes and depths. The most efficient guitars are small guitars, like the 00-12 fret and the 15 inch 000. Larger than that, the sound becomes more airy and the bass starts to take over the vocal register. Making the air chamber shallower on a larger box helps to balance out the bass, mids and highs as well as making the pumping of the air chamber air less audible, the blowing over the coke bottle effect. The wider top has its own effect on the balance of the voice and the sound often seems to wallow inside the box rather than projecting from it efficiently.
Small boxes throw the sound much better than larger boxes. It is a mechanical advantage they have, not a function of specific design elements.
Sound Holes and Ports: In the Martin history book there is a picture of a piece of paper from C.F.'s office circa 1885 that shows a complete listing of every model they were making at the time and the different sound hole size for each. So even early on, Martin had figured out the effect of hole size to air chamber frequency. This is the Helmholz frequency we all talk about. Smaller boxes use smaller sound holes to increase the bass response of an otherwise treble strong instrument.
I am a traditionalist and use only two sizes of standard sound holes, a 3 3/4 for the small boxes and a 4 inch for the D and larger boxes. I don't do Ports, that's for you modern guys. I would not have thought large side ports or small top ports was a good idea, but I have played enough really fine modern guitars with these features to know that they can work well.
The Neck:
There are a zillion theories about the neck, its effect on sound and feel, how it behaves with the motion of the body, etc, etc. Here is my very unscientific take on it based on my 50 years of experience and well over 1000 guitars under my belt. I could be wrong… I approach the neck from two points of view: structure and tonal effect.
Structure: I want the neck to be strong and stable. I prefer an adjustable truss rod for service. I would build with a non-adjustable rigid system, but I don't trust it over time. My next iteration is to go back to the very sensitive, but light weight Gibson style single rod. I currently use a single action double rod.
Ebony fingerboards are harder, more rigid, and wear better than rosewood. I suspect they also add a little to the sustain of the box, but subtly. Rosewood is lighter and less rigid and wears relatively quickly, but seems to add a bit of liveliness to the response of the instrument. I use mostly ebony.
I only do the old fashioned wood to wood dovetail neck joint. It works, it is relatively simple to make and fit, it adds no extra mass to the guitar beyond what was already there. If the goal is to build lightly, the handy dandy bolt-on neck assembly needs to go bye-bye.
So much for structure.
Tonal Effects: The mass of the neck material seems to do two things to the sound of the guitar.
Light neck (Spanish cedar, light mahogany): increases responsiveness of the guitar, adds warmth to the tone, draws less energy from the box
Medium neck (Honduran mahogany or similar): the standard, works well, hard to tell what effect it has on tone
Dense neck: (hard maple, heavy mahogany, rosewood, etc.) Definitely adds noticeably to the sustain of the instrument. Adds sparkle with accent on higher partials audible. Reduces the headroom of the instrument by drawing string energy from the box
The Scale Length: Basic rules of physics to keep in mind here: 1) The longer the scale, the higher the string tension for a given pitch. 2) It is a non-linear, exponential relationship. 3)A small change in scale length has a relatively large change in tension.
The longer the scale, the plainer and less complex the string motion and thus the less interesting the tone quality. Fewer small harmonic nodes form on the tighter string. The shorter the scale the greater the complexity of the string motion creating a more interesting tone.
I prefer the 24.9'6 Martin/Gibson short scale as is found on the 000 and many of the early Gibson flat tops of all sizes. I also use the slightly longer 25.4 * D scale for my larger guitars. I have done scales as long as26.25 but do not like the tone I get from them regardless of box size and wood choices. I find guitars with these longer scale to be dull and boring as well as underpowered..
The Baritone Thing: It is my belief that the current Baritone and Semi-baritone building frenzy is misguided. Rather than doing the wholly logical thing and make everything bigger and scales longer to increase bass response, why not take the MOST EFFICIENT guitar box and turn it into a low tuned instrument? Remember, the bigger the box, the more mass and the less efficient it is. The longer the scale, the plainer the sound, why not go with something more complex as well.
Basic rule of thumb: If you need a longer scale to make the guitar have a bigger sound, it is probably overbuilt. A smaller box with a short scale can easily sound every bit as powerful and have a more complex voice than the bigger box with the longer scale.
The Bridge: Again, mass is important as is how the bridge feet interact with the supporting bracing. Other than that, it is pretty much up to you to decide on design. The top is doing 90% of the work of the guitar, anything you add to it, either under it or on top of it can impact both tone and power. Less is more.
I use both the belly bridge and the slimmer, longer pyramid bridge because it fits my style of build. I have little data on other bridge types and their effects on the resulting sound. I do know for certain that the Tune-o-matic is not a good idea! Keep it simple.
The height of the bridge and corresponding saddle height is important because the height above the top determines the angle of the fulcrum for the string/top motion and thus the ability of the bridge to "load" the top.
Top "loading" is a mechanical term meaning how much torque is applied to the top by the bridge rotating with the string pull. The higher the point of rotation, the greater the force applied, the more top torque or loading.
Industry standards are a bridge height in the middle of 5116 " and an additional saddle height of at least 3/16 ", although depending on the geometry of the top itself, an ll8 to 5132" saddle will work as well.
Bridge materials: The bridge should be tough and hard. Ebony is a good and standard choice. I prefer African Blackwood for its greater toughness and resistance to cracking. It also polishes really nicely and has some grain character to it. Using a Rosewood bridge will brighten the sound but has the trade off of being prone to cracking and it is not as tough or durable a material..
The Nut and Saddle: You can alter the tone quality of a guitar by using different nut and saddle materials. More so with the saddle than the nut. How hard of soft these two components are effects the level of brightness of the tone. A muddy toned guitar will benefit from a really hard nut and saddle material (like fossil ivory), whereas an already bright or overly bright guitar can be tamed by using Micarta or similar soft materials. Corian actually works well in this case. I use bone or ivory exclusively as I choose tops that will already have the crispness I seek.
Strings: Like it or not, not all strings are created equal. Every brand seems to have its own voice. I look for clarity and durability as well as easy left hand feel, even with mediums. I string mostly with light gauge J-16 D'Addario. They do the job and are cost effective. I use their mediums for the flat picking crowd, the J-l7's. I also use Nanowebs sometimes for their longevity. They don't sound as good, but the don't sound as good for a lot longer.
My feeling is, if you have to use mediums along with a long scale on your guitar in order for it to sound good, the guitar is overbuilt. Any guitar should sound almost as powerful and full voiced with lights as it does with mediums. One test of a really good guitar is how it sounds with old, worn out strings. If it still has power and clarity and tonal depth with year old strings, it is either a vintage guitar or a very good modern one. Few guitars meet the challenge.
Finish: Every guitar maker's nightmare is applying the finish, regardless of the materials used. It takes as mach time to finish a guitar as it does to build it (rule of thumb). Finish Matters. The best finish is a thin finish, on the order of 3-5 mils, regardless of material used. Thin means it will protect the raw wood but still be flexible and allow full motion of the parts. Each finish has its own degree of elasticity (here we go again with elasticity...it is important).
The old work horse material like French polish (shellac and variants) and nitrocellulose are more similar than different in their physical properties. Both for quite hard, rigid, brittle thin films. Any finish overbuilt is going to case-harden the guitar and impede the motion of the wood. Modern catalyzed finishes have flexibility by virtue of their molecular structures, long interlocking chains of complex acryls and esters along with some very nasty solvents and catalys agents. The only finish I would avoid at all cost is the non-UV cured polyesters. They do not stick well to any substrate, so they chip and delaminate easily. They also retain an odd softness which deadens the tone of the guitar like wrapping it in a thin rubber blanket. I can't speak to the UV cured polyester, but I suspect it can be applied so thin that it minimizes the tonal downside. Poly is the only truly bullet-proof finish I know of, but I would never use it or advocate others use it.
Varnish of various flavors is being reinstated as a guitar finish after almost a century after it was last used on production instruments (primarily Gibson). It is a challenge to work with but in capable hands produces a lovely, warm, slightly soft but very tough finish.
I actually use a waterborne, self catalyzing acrylic lacquer from Target Coatings, EM 6000. It has the burn in, high solids, quick build, fast cure-to-buff, easy touch up and most of the physical properties of the old nitro. It takes several weeks to fully de-solvate and harden, but it is a very forgiving finish to work with and safe enough to shoot without venting to the outside air. It can be sanded after 30 minutes and buffed after 24 hours, cutting down finish time significantly.
Final Thoughts to Leave With:
1) The top IS the voice, choose it wisely and work it with care.
2) Do not overbuild; lighter is much better than heavier. You would be surprised at how lightly you can build the structure of a guitar and still have it work without imploding.
3) Arching the top increases top tension and rigidity. It is an exponential function, not linear, whereby a small amount of arch significantly increases both top tension and rigidity. The top at rest or without arching will have a fundamental as much as 2 whole tones lower than a top with a 36 foot arc. Arching shifts the overall responsiveness of that top from bass-mids-highs to mids- highs and highest partials. The resulting tone becomes less deep and woody and brighter, stringy sound and greater playing noise.
4) Fit and finish is important, but keeping the structure light and responsive is paramount for success. A flawlessly executed bit of fancy woodworking is not the same as a great guitar. It can be, but one aspect does not automatically follow the other. Just because you can do, does not mean you should.
5) Don’t be seduced by fancy modern tooling into thinking you are a great guitar maker all of a sudden. Tools designed for production remove the direct human to wood contact so necessary for understanding the various materials intimately. Tooling can take away the sheer tactile joy from the build process. A sharp chisel in the hand is far more satisfying than turning on a CNC machine. Besides, how many guitars are you trying to make in a year? Hone your hand skills first.
6) Experience really does count Build and play lots of guitars and pay attention. Educate your ears. Get your hands on as many vintage and modern guitars as you can, play them, listen closely to them and learn.
7) Use the internet as an information resource with great caution. There is much nonsense and misinformation contained therein. Be skeptical of all information unless you know the source well and trust it.Remember when reading on-line scientific research abstracts about guitars that a late 60's Gibson Dove was the data source for one such study. Keep a sense of humor about all of this and take it with a grain of salt. A Gibson Dove? Really?
8) Hide glue does not sound any different than LMI white guitar glue, sorry about that. However, it is much more fun to use.
Relax, none of us really know what we are doing. We are all flying blind with only occasional glimpses of the ground through the fog of unknowing. Enjoy the process. It does get easier over time.
Considerations When Selecting Wood, by Roland Vinyard
When researching wood for a build, here is what I consider, in addition to the appearance, all in no particular order.
1) Does it split easily? Is it brittle? Will it be structurally sound for the size and style guitar I am making?
2) How hard is it to work with? To bend (extra important on cutaways)? Does it take finish easily? Does it glue well?
3) Does it have an odor? If so, does this persist? Do I like it? Hate it?
4) What are the luthier’s preferences, likes and dislikes? How about his experiences with these different woods? Take his advice and experience very seriously.
5) Could there be legal difficulties down the road (meaning CITES and the Lacey Act regulations and so forth - as well as my own concerns about rare and endangered species)?
6) How stable is the wood? How affected is it by changes in humidity?
7) Need the luthier be concerned about the toxicity of the dust?
8) Is it heavy or lightweight?
9) How resistant to marring?
10) And, of course, how likely is any particular wood to affect the sound of the finished product? Can I expect it to give me the sound I am looking for?
And that's why we are here today.
Woods – A Brief Education, by Bruce Petros www.petrosguitars.com
...We start with master-grade tone woods that have only the best, proven track records for producing good sound in acoustic, steel strung guitars. We then classify these exceptional woods on a hardness/density scale (see chart to the right). We have placed the different woods on a scale from lightest and softest to heaviest and hardest and have suggested pairings of tops and backs. The harder the back wood is, the less energy it absorbs and so the less it vibrates. The less it vibrates, the more it projects. The cost of great projection is reduced tonal color as contributed by that wood. Conversely, softer woods vibrate more and produce great tonal color, but project less well.
So, hard back tone woods:
- Are heavier
- Vibrate less
- Effectively focus energy to the top and, therefore
- Project powerfully
- Are lighter
- Vibrate more
- Focus less sound to the top, but
- Contribute to more evocative color and tone
The Guitar Top – Heart of the Instrument: The top is the heart of the instrument. It “makes or breaks” the sound of a guitar, regardless of what back wood is employed. ... Slightly arching the top creates stability and wonderful overtones, while the graduating of the top’s thickness creates big, deep basses. This remains consistent regardless of the back and side woods we employ. Yet, while the overall volume, weight and timbre changes, just as a gold flute will sound different than a silver one, one is not superior to another. They are just different.
.... The different wood combinations used contribute to the production of a pleasing array of variations in timbre and volume. The Petros techniques for building the guitar top are far more important than the difference, for example, between Sitka and Adirondack top woods. Adirondack is harder so the top is made thinner than a Sitka top would be. (This has a tendency to make Petros Adirondack guitars a bit louder.)
Cedar and Redwood are very much alike and are softer than Sitka and Red Spruce. Being softer woods, they need to be made a bit thicker. While less loud than the harder tops, these lighter woods make for very responsive, delicate sounding Fingerstyle instruments that produce warm tones and are favored for their expressiveness. Englemann and Italian Spruce fall between Cedar and Sitka.
A Word on Top Development Over Time: The Cedars and Redwoods do not develop dramatically over time like the Spruces. This is primarily because the Spruces contain resins that continue to dry and harden over many years. Cedar and Redwood don’t have resins and sound pretty well developed right off the bench. All guitars will break in and develop regardless of resin content by virtue of playing and vibration through some magical realignment and relaxing of the wood fibers and molecules. All very scientific!
Commonly Available Back & Side Woods From softest & lightest to hardest & heaviest.
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity Recommended top pairings (see below, Top Woods)
Alaskan Yellow Cedar 29/.38 1 – 4
Mahogany 35/.54 1 – 5
Koa 37/.57 1 – 5
Sapele 41/.58 1 – 5
Claro Walnut 40/.55 1 – 5
Bolivian Rosewood 42/.70 1 – 7
Ziricote 53/.66 1 – 7
E Indian Rosewood 53/.77 1 – 7
Brazilian Rosewood 53/.77 1 – 7
African Rosewood (Bubinga) 56/.88 1 – 7
Ceylon Satinwood 62/.88 1 – 7
Ebony (Macassar or Malaysian) 54/1.01 1 – 7
Cocobolo 63/1.02 1 – 7
Cambodian Rosewood 72/.97 1 – 7
Less Common Woods
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity Recommended top pairings
Shedua 37/.46 1 – 5
Zebra Wood 47/.55 1 – 7
Wenge 54/.83 1 – 7
Madagascar Rosewood 58/.47 1 – 7
Paua Rosa 68/.67 1 – 7
Bois De Rose 58/.47 1 – 7
Top Woods from softest & lightest to hardest & heaviest
Species Weight/Spec. Gravity
1 Western Red Cedar 24/.33
2 Redwood 25/.38
3 Engelmann 26/.34
4 Italian Spruce 26/.35
5 Sitka Spruce 27/.36
6 Adirondack Spruce 28/.37
7 Alaskan Yellow Cedar 29/.38 ....
Deciding on Back Wood and Top Combinations: In my experience, the softer the back, the softer the top should be. A softer back with an Adirondack top will absorb too much energy to efficiently drive that top. Generally speaking, if you want a softer back, go with a softer top – Cedar, Redwood or Englemann. If you are a more aggressive player and really want maximum volume and lots of headroom, we suggest a harder back and a harder top. A hard back and any top, even the softest, will completely utilize that top. If your style is more delicate and you play with more nuance and subtlety, you would naturally lean toward the softer, lighter weight woods. A good, in-between compromise is Indian Rosewood and Sitka … both in the middle of the hardness scale. They are an excellent pairing and therefore very popular. Bottom line, you can pick the woods you like best for any of a number of reasons – visual appeal, for example – and Petros Guitars will do what it takes to make it superbly well balanced.
Tonewoods in Guitars, by Ervin Somogyi, 2010 www.esomogyi.com
Behind everything that has ever been said or written about the guitar, it is in fact nothing more nor less than an air pump. As such, the air pumping efficiency of its design and materials are the most important factors a maker needs to consider in his work. Everything else -- the guitar’s history, its design aesthetic, its looks, the romance, the art, the techniques of its construction, its noble materials, the fame of its makers, or even its beauty -- is secondary.
Structurally, the guitar consists of a vibrating top and a vibrating back which are separated by a set of non-vibrating sides, and a non-sound-producing neck. Because the top and the back are the only two acoustically active parts of the guitar, the choices of top and backwood are the most important ones to be made in the selection of guitar tonewoods. Tonewoods are called such because they really make tone, or are capable of making tone, compared to more normal woods which are useful for making things like buildings, boats or furniture. Tonewoods can ring when you strike them, just like a bell or a piece of glass. Can you imagine a wood that rings to a musical note when struck? Brazilian rosewood can: it’s the material marimbas have been traditionally made of, and, even in guitar form, such wood can ring like a gong. Good quality face wood also can ring like crystal. Such materials, when studied by scientists or acousticians, are said to have a high degree of liveness, or "Q" [which stands for "quality"], and Brazilian rosewood is only one of many tonewoods that have high "Q".
Because of the dynamics of the guitar, tonewoods for faces need to be different than tonewoods for backs, if the instrument is to have the best and most even sound. The best guitar faces are made of high quality musical instrument grade softwoods such as spruce and cedar. The best guitar backs are made of high quality hardwoods such as rosewood, ebony, maple, walnut, koa, mahogany or any of a number of other suitable body woods. The consensus among luthiers is that face and backwoods need to be chosen from woods of differing densities because the resonant frequency of the back needs to be higher than the resonant frequency of the face, by at least a tone. The best wisdom on this matter is that if there is too great or too small a gap separating the fundamental resonant frequencies of the top and the back, then guitars have an uneven tone. That is, the sound becomes an uneven mixture of loud and quiet notes. Likewise, if the face and the back are most active at the same frequency or frequencies they’ll act in tandem to reinforce certain notes, but leave others weak. It does not matter what the sides are made out of, except that guitars in which the back and side woods don’t match are considered to look too strange and generally won’t be salable: backs and sides need to match for aesthetic reasons.
How does one choose tone woods? Well, it depends on what the guitar is expected to sound like and how the face is expected to behave.
SPRUCES AND CEDARS
As far as top woods go, European spruce, on account of its cellular structure, is more brittle than American Sitka spruce: it cracks and splinters somewhat easily when sufficiently bent or stressed. Sitka spruce, in comparison, has superior tensile strength: it will bend a lot before it breaks. Because of these factors ships’ masts and airplane propellers -- which need to put up with lots of stresses -- are made from Sitka spruce. Before the advent of space-age materials, its stiffness-to-weight ratio even made it ideal for making airplane fuselages out of. On the other hand, no one uses European spruce for ships’ masts or airplane propellers: they’d snap from hard use. Nonetheless because of this internal brittleness, and when made into a guitar face, European spruce makes a beautiful sound rich in overtones -- a sound that is limpid, focused and full of nuance and tone color. Fingerpickers tend to like this sound, which is a little like having a choir of singing voices inside your guitar, or like listening to the clear fundamental and harmonics of a church bell. In comparison American spruce is supple and springy (in a ropy way) rather than brittle, as a function of its cellular structure. Because of these qualities, when it is made into guitar tops, it makes a sound that is not so much in focus as the European spruce is. Its sound is heard as not being so cleanly defined but, instead, as warmer, more fundamental, and largely free of overtones. It’s a good, solid sound and bluegrass flatpickers and folk-musicians tend to like it a lot. These are, of course, rules of thumb with many exceptions, because there is so much innate variability from sample to sample.
Cedars, as a vibrating material, sometimes have a better stiffness-to-weight ratio than spruces. Accordingly, the sound these can make is more quick and loud and, because it is so immediate, brighter and sharper than a spruce sound -- but without the European spruce overtone component. Because of its inner structure cedar is also a somewhat weaker wood than spruce, and it is more subject to cracking and fracturing. I recommend being a bit more careful in the care and handling of a cedar top guitar than a spruce one. These are also rules of thumb, with many exceptions.
Engelmann spruce has been brought into instrument making in the last few years, and is different from the above woods in several characteristic ways. First, it is very white. European spruce is white at first, but oxidizes and darkens over time so that after ten or so years a European spruce guitar face takes on a lovely and warm honey color which gives it a naturally aged look. If repair work needs to be done on such a face and the repairman sands some of this wood off it reveals a lighter color which won’t match the surrounding surface and needs tinting. Engelmann spruce seems to resist oxidation, and, in my experience, stays white for a longer time.
A second, and much more important, difference is in the nature of its cellular structure. Sitka and European spruce and cedars tend to have dark grain lines which are hard; that is, they are areas of dense cellulose concentration. It is precisely this cellulose concentration which gives softwoods woods their longitudinal stiffness and strength: the white grain lines in between are mostly thin walled cells full of air (think styrofoam). It’s the dark material that does the work. Engelmann spruce seems to have dark grain that is less differentially concentrated from its own white grain. That is, it’s not all that much harder a material than the white grain next to it, like it is in the other woods. You can test this out yourself next time you’re in a position to compare these woods: dig your thumbnail into a few dark grain lines to see how hard they are. Or aren’t. The differences are pretty obvious. In consequence, because this concentration of linear "cellulose rebar" is decreased in Engelmann spruce I believe it is a softer and weaker wood in general. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad wood, but it does mean that it has to be worked differently than the other spruces. I should add that I have noticed quite a range of this quality in Engelmann spruce, and some of it compares favorably in cellulose structure to the European and American -- but most of it is not like that, in my experience. Therefore, because it’s so varied a wood and there are so many exceptions to any general description of its quality, I’m inclined to believe that one has to be choosier in using it. Thus, saying that a particular top is Engelmann spruce becomes less meaningful than saying European or American spruce. To the extent that Engelmann is generally weaker and softer I’d expect that one would have to use it in thicker plates to work it with confidence; otherwise it would correspond, structurally, to the use of exceptionally thin (and correspondingly weaker) European and American spruces. And having a consistently thicker top would have to create some consistent, characteristic, difference in sound. But all in all, I’m not sufficiently experienced with this wood at this time to say anything more about it.
ROSEWOOD
Rosewoods are more consistent from sample to sample than spruces and cedars and one piece is much more like another in behavior, if not appearance. Of the rosewoods used in guitar making, Brazilian rosewood has traditionally been the best wood of choice. This is partly due to tradition and partly due to its phenomenal "Q", which makes it a very acoustically active material. When struck, a properly cut sample rings like a plate of glass. This quality contributes to sustain and projection in a guitar, because those are the chief functions of the back. Sustain, because it rings a long time; and projection, because the back’s movement can be coupled in vibrating activity to the movements of the face, boosting the directional power of the activity of the guitar. Because of its high "Q", Brazilian rosewood is both vitreous and brittle, and therefore prone to cracking and checking. East Indian rosewood, the alternate wood of choice, is comparable to Brazilian rosewood but simply not as beautiful nor as "live", by a factor of some 10% to 20%. This is not a huge difference, and there are plenty of excellent sounding East Indian rosewood guitars around. Also, East Indian rosewood is an attractive choice because it is much less prone to cracking and therefore generally less problematic to work with. Other rosewood-like woods which have a high "Q" are wenge and padauk (both of which crack very easily) and certain Asian and Central American rosewoods, which do not have the beauty of Brazilian or East Indian. While I haven’t worked with all these woods I’d expect them all to be brittle in direct proportion to their liveness and be prone to the same mechanical failures. Removing their brittleness would in fact remove the factor that is responsible for their characteristic tone.
MAHOGANY AND KOA
Mahoganies and koas are very variable in physical properties. That is, whereas one piece of rosewood is much like another in this regard, these woods range from light to dense, and stiff to loose, while all looking the same. Accordingly, they will behave differently as tonewoods as they exhibit different degrees of "Q" and a guitar’s sound will be colored by the specific selection of koa or mahogany used. The denser and more brittle the wood, the more it will ring; the lighter and looser the wood is, the more it will be an acoustically passive part of the guitar. Heavy koa, mahogany and walnut are all comparable in their tone. Everything else being equal, it is generally recognized that mahogany and koa will produce a "warmer" sound in a guitar than the more brittle rosewoods can.
MAPLE
Maples usually have a low "Q" and tend to make passive backs in that they don’t ring, sustain, or further the vibrational activity of the face very much. In fact, they help to absorb the vibrational energies of the face and kill them. As an extreme example, consider the sound you’d get in tapping a guitar back made of cardboard. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however. Besides being beautiful, maples help to create a sound which is damped and short-lived and which is perfect for jazz style playing. The jazz musician will play many notes, and the music is such that it is not desirable for any of the notes to linger in the air. Such music does not need the sustain of Brazilian rosewood. For jazz, one wants quick notes that come out and then disappear -- because there are many more notes coming. This quality is also desirable for certain parts of the modern classical guitar repertoire, which has at this point somewhat abandoned the lush, dark and expressive tonalities so much appreciated in the Romantic classical repertoire. Again, there are exceptions to all these statements; but, as rules of thumb, these descriptions are accurate.
SPANISH CYPRESS
"Spanish" cypress is the traditional wood of choice for flamenco guitars. It’s a formerly cheap and plentifully available Mediterranean wood which is wonderfully aromatic and easy to work. For much of the Spanish guitar’s early life this cypress was the poor man’s wood for backs and sides; it was the most common default material for anyone who could not afford the more expensive rosewood. For all its humble origins, though, and in spite of its comparative lack of density, properly cut and selected Spanish Cypress has at least as good a "Q" as East Indian rosewood and a much better one than maple. Even though it isn’t used for making steel string guitars, I know of no reason at all why it wouldn’t work very well on them.
CELEBRITY WOOD AND EXOTICS
From time to time a new wood surfaces that captures everyone’s imagination as being "superior" in one way or another. It’s an interesting phenomenon that is part and parcel of the guitar making community’s cyclic attempts to find The Holy Grail. It has its counterparts in many other departments of human endeavor such as the search for a better President, the best athlete or athletic team, the ultimate racing-boat design, the best next actor/actress, the surefire cure for cancer or urban decay, etc. In lutherie, as an example, African blackwood has emerged as a popular alternative to Brazilian rosewood in the last few years: it’s a perfectly good wood, and getting quite pricey as demand for it rises. Likewise, Adirondack and red spruces have been getting a lot of press lately on the strength of their having been the "original" spruces used by the Martin Company. I sometimes wonder what African or Asian wood will be discovered next year as the answer to my acoustical problems -- both those continents being so well known for their long and rich traditions of guitar making. The fact is that the use of celebrity wood -- that is, simply because it’s popular all of a sudden -- is always driven as much by marketing and wishful thinking as by experience and the laws of acoustics. I want to underline the obvious: namely, that one can overbuild or under build with celebrity wood as easily as with anything else: just using it will not be a guarantee of anything.
Parenthetically, the corollary to the myth of "the best wood" is the myth of bad wood. The fact is that, within reason [for instance, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for a balsa wood guitar], there aren’t many really "bad" woods: one simply has to know how to work with the materials. Personally, I prefer the stiffest and most lightweight tonewoods woods to work with. But perfectly good guitars have been made with stiff woods, floppy woods, heavy woods, lightweight woods, tightly-grained woods, widely-grained woods, domed woods, flat woods, quarter sawn woods, off-quartersawn woods, etc. etc.; you get the idea. It’s very largely in what one does with them....
And as far as exotic woods go, keep in mind that one man’s exotic is another man’s boring domestic product. Today, many American guitar players and makers believe that European spruce is the best guitar top wood: European spruce comes, of course, from Europe. Prominent Swedish luthier Michael Sanden reports that he has great demand for Sitka spruce on his guitars; Sitka spruce is, of course, a Northwestern American and Canadian (and Alaskan) wood, and Sanden’s clients consider this wood superior. Each group of end-users considers its preferred wood to be an exotic.
TONAL POTENTIAL AND TONE CHANGES OVER TIME
It is common knowledge that wooden string instruments -- whether they be pianos, mandolins, lutes, or guitars -- benefit from being "played in". Older instruments have tonal qualities of mellowness and smoothness that newer ones lack, the latter often sounding somewhat brittle and harsh in comparison. The analogy of making a stew is often used to describe the quality of transition of a sound which is initially a bit rough, "green" and unsubtle but which gradually blends its elements into something more integrated and smoothly pleasing. In the guitar, also, different woods take different amounts of time for getting "played in". Why this is so is not fully known but, obviously, it has to do with changes in the cellular and fibrous structures of the woods over time.
Some of these changes have to do with the adaptation of the woods to the stresses of being strung, after possibly centuries of being unencumbered by such forces. A main physical indicator of these changes is seen in the doming in the area behind the bridge which almost all older guitar tops show, but which new ones won’t yet have. Extreme distortion is problematic, but a merely visible amount of it is absolutely normal and even desirable; in fact, guitars which are so overbuilt (through thicknessing, doming, bracing, etc.) or understrung that this distortion of the wood is prevented will never manage to have the developed sound every player wants. The act of actually playing on a guitar, over and above simply stringing and stressing it, seems to have a decisive and accelerating effect on this blending; as with muscles, stretching and "warming up" seems to loosen things up significantly. I make my guitars yielding enough to have some top pull-up, and tell my clients to play them a lot for at least the first few weeks.
Finally, all of the woods described above have a certain tonal potential rather than a fixed quantity of tone. That is, they can be worked with to enhance or suppress certain portions of their potential response spectrum. However, like a plank of wood that can only yield usable pieces shorter than itself when it is cut, and never a longer piece, guitar making woods benefit from the outset only in having the most and best potential tone for their intended use. You can work with any wood to make it sound a lot worse than its potential; but you can only work with it to make it a little, if any, better. Once you’ve figured out what you want your next guitar to sound like, go out and buy the best wood you can find for it.
Tapping Tonewoods, by Dana Bourgeois
How the Selection of Species Helps Define the Sound of Your Guitar
Acoustic Guitar Magazine, March/April 1994
Why is it that different woods are used for acoustic guitars, and how do these woods affect the sound of the instrument? In the past, there was less opportunity for confusion on this issue, since most guitars were made of mahogany, rosewood, maple, ebony, and spruce. But with the dwindling availability of traditional tonewoods, particularly those cut from old-growth forests, major manufacturers and smaller luthiers have been compelled to consider the use of alternative species of tonewoods - some of them common and others decidedly uncommon. This article looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the woods most commonly used today for tops, backs and sides, fretboards, and bridges.
Evaluating Tonewoods
Differences between woods can be as mysterious and complex as differences between people. Even within a species, no two pieces of wood are exactly alike. Environmental conditions, genetics, the age of the tree, annular growth patterns, grain orientation, curing conditions, and so on all have an effect on the tonal properties of a piece of wood. In addition, tonewoods respond differently in the hands of different makers. They can also take on different characteristics when used in different models of guitars-even those built by the same maker. And whether a particular wood sounds good or bad depends partially upon who’s doing the listening. So any attempt to sort out distinctions between tonewoods can only be offered from a relatively subjective point of view.
When evaluating tonewoods, luthiers must take into account a wide variety of factors, some of which can be inscrutably subtle, and most of which are likely to vary in priority from one luthier to another. I tend to place a good deal of importance on a couple of elements that, when viewed together, illuminate much of my own understanding of tonewoods.
Velocity of sound refers to the speed at which a material transmits received energy. Simply described, plucked guitar strings transmit energy to the bridge. The bridge in return oscillates one surface of a ported enclosure, setting up sound pressure waves that eventually reach the eardrum. In order to contain this chain reaction, one must design an efficient ported enclosure and then make it out of materials that facilitate the transmission of the vibrational energy. Lively materials-those with a high velocity of sound, or low internal dampening-make the best facilitators.
There are a number of ways in which luthiers judge the sound velocity of wood. The most common method is to hold the wood at a nodal point, tap it, and then listen for the response. (Nodal points are analogous to the locations on a guitar string where natural harmonics can be played.) The difference between a high and a low velocity of sound can often be so apparent that one demonstration is usually sufficient to teach an apprentice how to select most of the good sets out of a given stack of wood. Sometimes a piece of wood is so lively that it doesn’t seem to matter where you tap it or where you hold it. I remember going through a large stack of aged Brazilian rosewood from which I was able to make my selection the moment I lifted a piece off the top of the pile; rubbing one piece of wood against another was enough to make the best sets ring!
In addition to testing for velocity of sound, luthiers also make use of the tapping technique to listen for harmonic content. Like a string, a piece of wood is capable of producing a fundamental tone and an array of harmonics. Though the presence and strengths of individual harmonics are distinctly influenced by changes in the geometry and mass of the piece of wood, elements such as clarity of tone, relative harmonic complexity, and high, low, or mid bias can readily be discovered by holding and tapping a piece of wood in a variety of ways.
Topwoods
Each part of the guitar seems to play a role, be it significant or subtle, in determining the tonal characteristics of the instrument. In very general terms, the top, or soundboard, seems to affect the guitar’s responsiveness, the quickness of its attack, its sustain, some of its overtone coloration, and the strength and quality of each note’s fundamental tone. Most luthiers (but not all) believe that the wood chosen for the top is the single overriding variable that determines the quality of tone of a finished instrument.
Spruce is the standard material for soundboards. These days the most commonly used species is Sitka, due to its availability and to the high yield from its characteristically large-diameter logs. Quartersawn Sitka is quite stiff along and across the grain; high stiffness, combined with the relatively light weight characteristics of most softwoods, is a recipe for high velocity of sound. A strong fundamental-to-overtone ratio gives Sitka a powerful, direct tone that is capable of retaining its clarity when played forcefully. Sitka is an excellent choice of top wood, then, for players whose style demands a wide dynamic response and a robust, meaty tone. On the other side of the balance sheet, the lack of a strong overtone component can result in a "thin" tone when played with a relatively light touch-depending, of course, upon the design of the guitar and the other woods used in its construction. The break-in period for a new Sitka guitar can also be longer than that of other spruces.
The most common alternative to Sitka is Engelmann spruce, another domestic western species. Engelmann is often more expensive than Sitka due to the lower yield from its smaller logs and because most logs have a spiral-grained structure that renders them unsuitable for proper quarter-sawing. Engelmann is considerably lighter in color than Sitka spruce, lighter in weight, and usually less stiff, resulting in a slightly lower velocity of sound. Engelmann also tends to exhibit a weaker fundamental tone, although it produces a noticeably broader and stronger overtone component. It is therefore a good choice for players who require a richer, more complex tone than can be obtained from most Sitka tops, particularly when the instrument is played softly. The downside is that Engelmann tops can have lower "headroom" than Sitka tops, which is to say that clarity and definition are often sacrificed when the guitar is played loudly.
European or silver spruce, the spruce of choice for makers of classical guitars, shares a number of characteristics with Engelmann spruce, including color, lightness of weight, harmonic complexity, and fullness at the lower end of the dynamic range. Because of its visual similarity and significantly higher cost, its name has been affixed more than once to a piece of Engelmann spruce by unscrupulous (or uninformed) wood dealers and luthiers. European spruce differs from Engelmann in its potentially quicker response and greater headroom. The availability of anything better than mediocre European spruce (which is easily exceeded in quality by the better grades of Engelmann - a commodity that is still readily obtainable) is sharply limited, unless the boards are selected at the source in Europe.
Eastern red spruce, also known as Adirondack or Appalachian spruce, was the primary top wood used by American manufacturers before World War II. Its use was all but discontinued due to over-harvesting of the resource but has recently been reintroduced thanks to 50 years of regeneration and to the legendary status that this traditional tonewood has attained. The small size of most logs and a shortage of wood conforming to market preference for even color and regularity of grain conspire to keep the price of red spruce extremely high.
Red spruce is relatively heavy, has a high velocity of sound, and has the highest stiffness across and along the grain of all the top woods. Like Sitka, it has strong fundamentals, but it also exhibits a more complex overtone content. Tops made out of red spruce have the highest volume ceiling of any species, yet they also have a rich fullness of tone that retains clarity at all dynamic levels. In short, red spruce may very well be the Holy Grail of top woods for the steel-string guitar. If players and builders were able to overcome phobias about unevenness of color, grain irregularity, minor knots, and four-piece tops, many more great-sounding guitars could be produced while the supply of potentially usable red spruce is still available. Old-growth woods are disappearing so fast that such an attitude change will need to be scheduled sometime in the near future, unless the majority of new guitars are to be made of synthetic materials.
Before leaving the spruces, I should mention bearclaw figure, or hazelficte-a delightful pattern in the grain occasionally occurring in all species of spruce. Bearclaw, like the curl in curly maple, is a rippling of the longitudinal fibers, which divides the surface of the wood into shimmering patterns. Unlike the even waves that usually occur in maple, bearclaw usually appears on asymmetrical or randomly broken patterns. This phenomenon almost always occurs in older trees that have dense, stiff grain structure and high sound velocity. Thus bearclaw is usually a reliable indicator of the better examples of tonewoods within any given species of spruce.
Western red cedar ranges in color from honey brown to light chocolate. It has a quickness of sound that exceeds any of the spruces, a higher overtone content, lower fundamental content, and lower stiffness along the grain. Additionally, cedar tops require a significantly shorter break-in period than spruce tops, a phenomenon that a few dealers of new guitars are beginning to pick up on.
Since World War II, cedar has been used extensively by makers of classical guitars. Cedar-topped guitars are characteristically lush, dark-toned, and bursting with flavor. They are often less powerful in projection than their spruce cousins, however, and they tend to lose clarity near the top of their dynamic range. Having enough bottom end is never a problem for a cedar guitar, although preventing the sound from getting muddy sometimes is. Because of its pronounced weakness along the grain, I find cedar to be used to its best advantage in smaller-bodied guitars or with non-scalloped braces. Redwood is usually darker in color than cedar and often displays the same general tonal characteristics, leaning slightly toward darker tones, less definition in the bass, and lower velocity of sound.
Koa and mahogany have been used for soundboards since the ‘20s, and makers have recently begun to use maple. These hardwoods have in common a relatively low velocity of sound (as compared to softwood tops), considerable density, and a low overtone content. They therefore tend to produce a solid tone-though not an especially rich one-and respond best at the upper end of the dynamic range. Mahogany-topped guitars exhibit a strong "punchy" tone that is well-suited to country blues playing. Koa has a somewhat more midrangy tone that works well for rhythm and truly shines in guitars made for Hawaiian-style slide playing. Maple, in particular, having the lowest velocity of sound of the three, can be downright flat-sounding-a blessing in disguise when a guitar is amplified at high sound-pressure levels.
Back and Sides
Besides serving to form the enclosure of the soundbox, the back and sides of the guitar also act as a sympathetic resonator whose oscillations contribute greatly to the harmonic mix. When judiciously selected (with due consideration given to design criteria and the other tonewoods used in the instrument), the back and sides can have a tremendous effect on the overall tone of the instrument.
Brazilian and Indian rosewood have an extremely high velocity of sound and a broad range of overtones. The rosewoods, as well as their various rain forest cousins - cocobolo, kingwood, morado, and the like-have strongly pronounced low overtones, usually the lowest resonating frequencies in the entire guitar. These lows help to create a complex bottom end and to impart an overall darkness of tone to the instrument. Strong mids and highs serve to reinforce overtones generated by the top, contributing to a fatness of tone on the upper registers. Guitars made of rosewood also have a pronounced "reverby" tone, caused by a strong, clear set of sympathetic harmonics with a delayed onset and slow decay.
I’ve found that Brazilian rosewood has everything that Indian rosewood has, only more. I say this with great trepidation in light of that species’ likelihood of extinction within a couple of generations. An international embargo on trade on Brazilian rosewood products guarantees that the relatively few sets remaining in this country, which may be used only on domestically sold guitars, will continue to spiral in price as the supply dwindles.
Mahogany and koa have relatively high velocities of sound when considered as materials for backs and sides and thus contribute much to overtone coloration. Lacking the low-end frequencies of the rosewoods and also their sustaining reverberation, these woods have an altogether different sound. Where rosewood guitars can be thought of as having a "metallic" sound, mahogany and koa guitars are better described as sounding "woody, although the harder, more dense examples of these woods can take on some of the characteristics of the rosewoods. Between the two, koa seems to have a little more fullness in the midrange, while mahogany tends to favor the bass (to some extent) and the treble.
Maple and walnut tend to be more acoustically transparent than other tonewoods, due to a low velocity of sound and a high degree of internal damping. That is to say that they allow tonal characteristics of the top to be heard without the addition of extraneous coloration and may even serve to attenuate some of the overtones emanating from the top. The harder, denser examples of these woods, such as sugar maple and black walnut- particularly quarter sawn examples-tend to lean slightly more toward the tonal direction of mahogany, while softer examples, such as bigleaf maple and claro walnut, tend toward greater tonal transparency. Curly, quilted, or bird’s-eye figures do not seem to have much effect on the tone of the wood, but they can be used, like bearclaw, as an indicator of other properties. Quilted figure, for example, occurs most often in softer species and is best displayed when the wood is flat sawn-two characteristics that tend to produce higher damping properties.
Fretboards and Bridges
Players of electric guitars with bolt-on necks have long been hip to the fact that neck and fretboard materials can have a significant bearing on tone. Maple necks can impart a bright, poppy tone that can do much to reinforce the top end of a large-bodied guitar, while mahogany necks help push the overall palette into a warmer, more woody tonal range.
Fretboard materials also exert an influence on overall tone, although they probably act more as icing on the cake than as a layer of the cake itself. Brazilian rosewood fretboards and their denser rainforest counterparts add sparkle and ring, and Indian rosewood fretboards can help fatten up the midrange. Wenge, a dense, dark-colored African hardwood unrelated to the rosewoods, has tonal properties remarkably similar to those of Brazilian rosewood. Ebony, the traditional fingerboard material found on violins, classical guitars, and high-end steel strings, has the lowest velocity of sound of all the woods commonly used in lutherie and has definite damping characteristics. This may not prove to be much of a problem for large-bodied guitars made out of red spruce or Brazilian rosewood, but it may be something to consider when designing smaller guitars, particularly those using some of the less resonant woods for tops and backs.
Bridge materials, like fretboards, cannot make or break an instrument, but they serve to enhance or edit the tonal contributions of other materials found on the guitar. The woods discussed above-ebony, Brazilian rosewood, and Indian rosewood-contribute similar tonal qualities when they are used as bridge materials as when they are used for fretboards.
It is important to remember that wood, when considered generically, can be responsible only for certain aspects of the tone of any guitar. Equally important are the design of the guitar, the skill of the maker, and the quality of the individual pieces of wood from which the guitar is made. Species selection can, however, be a determining factor in the creation of a very special guitar or a guitar designed for a specific purpose.
The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods,
by John Calkin
This article first appeared in American Lutherie #69. American Lutherie is the official publication of the Guild of American Luthiers.
Why do we even need alternative wood species for musical instruments? That's a perfectly valid question, and the answer is that we don't. Rosewood, mahogany and maple have served us well for centuries , we know what to expect of them. First of all (and speaking from a steel string guitar perspective), let's discard the notion that some species of wood make good instruments and that others don't. The concept of tonewood is a hoax. Guitars sound like guitars. No matter how poorly or bizarrely they are made, you'll never confuse the natural sound of an acoustic guitar with that of a banjo, a mandolin, a drum or a flute. Obviously, not all guitars sound alike. The tone of a guitar lies more in the hands of the builder than in the materials from which it is constructed. With increased experience, the level of craftsmanship increases. Psychoacoustics plays such a large role in this matter that it's difficult to discuss tone objectively. ( I think that it's called psychoacoustics because trying to figure out stringed instruments will make you psycho.) We hear what we expect to hear.
So if the type of wood doesn't matter to the instrument, and if we can't get good money for instruments made of alternative wood, why bother with them? I like them because I need a certain amount of variety in my life. Curiosity has often been a stronger task master than the buck, I guess. I've tried as many types of alternative woods as anyone I know, which is what led to my conclusions about tonewood. Alternative species will eventually become more acceptable as standard species go the way of Brazilian rosewood. Alternative wood can also be cheaper and more accessible than standard tonewood. This can especially be an important factor to beginning luthiers. If your favorite wood should become accepted by the industry, you'll notice an astonishing price increase as the orders fly in.
Perhaps I should briefly describe my experiences with conventional wood species, just so you have a gauge for my opinions about the alternatives.
Mahogany is a lovely wood to work with. Old-timers maintain that the quality of mahogany isn't what it used to be, and I am forced to believe them. Supplies today vary widely in hardness and density. Some mahogany is stiffer and heavier than other samples.
Indian rosewood is much harder, heavier, and stronger than mahogany. Guitar sets seldom show much figure, but we're all accustomed to looking at it that Indian rosewood just looks "right". Sanding this wood clean takes more effort than mahogany.
The most trying wood that I have used to any extent is Brazilian rosewood. The stuff loves to warp while it is sitting on the shelf, and, once installed in a bender, is capable of almost anything.
The makers of other instruments are probably glad that not many flattop guitars are made of maple, which leaves the supply of good stuff for them. Maple sort of proves my point about tonewood. Quilted maple is soft and floppy. Bird's-eye maple is very hard.
Before you start daydreaming about having all the cheap wood you want, remember that some tonewood companies will join backs and sand sets to usable thickness for you (for a fee, of course), thus saving you the cost of a large band saw and a thickness sander. Some species are easier to deal with than others. For luthiers, this is primarily a matter of bending the sides. Hand bending is the cheapest way to go, and learning the process with mahogany will make the process the most bearable. Instruments can be designed to make bending easier. Dreadnoughts are the easiest to bend. Tight waists make life more difficult for the hand bender, but not for the blanket-equipped. Tight cutaways always present some risk.
About the author: John Calkin is a contributing editor to American Lutherie, the official publication of the Guild of American Luthiers (GAL). A professional luthier since 1980, he has made over 300 instruments. He began working for Huss & Dalton in 1995.
Alternative to What? by J. Chris Herrod, with Luthier's Merchantile, Int'l, 2004 www.lmii.com
About Chris Herrod: As sales manager for Luthiers Mercantile, Int'l. for many years, Chris Herrod has enjoyed the friendship and advice of scores of the world's finest string instrument makers. In his spare time he records and performs as a solo singer/songwriter and is also known to make a huge racket on the electric guitar in various local improv combos.
We hear the term alternative tonewood bandied about quite often and are fond of it ourselves, but what exactly does it mean? If you walk into a guitar store, chances are you'll see a variety of wood grains on the instruments displayed there. The first thing we need to do here is to establish our bias against the majority of cheap, often imported guitars that use veneers instead. Typically, the veneers used are made from (or made to look like) a traditional tonewood, though occasionally you'll see some rather outrageous synthetic veneers where the grain patterns swirl around in nearly impossible ways! But for the serious player, there is no real substitute for solid wood. The main, immediate difference in sound one hears are the numerous subtle overtones, harmonics, or partials that color the basic tone. A solid wood guitar sounds richer, more colorful.
Function and Tradition
Some woods are better suited to guitar making than others and there are two main reasons for this- function and tradition. The physics of the guitar are rather delicate. The strings on a steel-string guitar exert a tremendous amount of tension on the soundboard. Other qualities determine whether a particular species of wood is suitable for guitar making, such as stability (most luthiers hope their instruments will last for many, many years without repair), workability and, of course, visual beauty.
Tradition is a factor that is somewhat subservient to function. For instance, the Martin guitar company established the American steel-string guitar as the instrument we all know today. Now, some may rightfully argue that traditions such as these are somewhat arbitrary as far as the value of an instrument is concerned, but guitars are cultural artifacts, and there is a lot more to them than just their functionality as music-making device.
So, when we say 'alternative tonewood' what we really mean is an alternative to the tradition of using certain woods in guitar making. The reasons a luthier would choose to depart from the traditional or familiar are many. Some luthiers have set out to carve a unique professional identity by using a particular alternative wood. Others seek a more environmentally responsible alternative.
Common Woods
Now, there are many parts on the guitar, but most agree that it is the soundboard (or top) and the back and sides (the latter typically made from the same type of wood) that have the most to do with the sound of an acoustic guitar...
Soundboards are usually constructed from one of two types of woods, cedar or spruce. It should be mentioned, however, that many guitars have been made from pine, fir and larch, though generally these woods are considered poor choices as far as tone is concerned. The soundboard is the main sound-producing component of the guitar and the choice of tonewood, along with the way the top is braced and thicknessed, has the greatest bearing on the overall tone of the guitar.
Where to Now?
As stated previously, there are many reasons why a musician might consider buying a guitar with so-called alternative tonewoods in its make-up. So, if a luthier is building a custom instrument for you, it's best to ask what he or she can suggest to help you meet your musical goals. Just remember that the craftsman will have a better idea of how to inject his or her gifts into the instrument.
The World of Fine Guitars, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
I received this email from a friend:
“I went to the Saratoga guitar show and played an instrument that I can't get out of my mind. It was the best sounding and playing guitar I ever laid my ears/hands on. I was going to ask you if you've heard or tried, but no matter what your opinion is, I LOVED it. Now I need to justify that I deserve such a fine guitar. Now I bet you're wondering who/what. Kim Griffin from Washington County, Greenwich, I believe. I found a review on the web and it was 10 stars in every category. He custom makes no more than 6 guitars each year. The one I am dreaming of was 3 grand, but he said he'd knock of a few hundred, heh. I'm thinking that folks spend that much for a factory made instrument . This is out of character for me.....I just bought a hundred dollar Chinese Epiphone and was proud that I could spend so little. Well, I wrote to you because you have some very good sounding, unique guitars. I'm guessing that these should increase in value just as an old Martin or Gibson, am I right? Is this a good investment aside from my desire factor?”
My reply -
I know well the phenomena of which you speak. My first insight happened when in high school and I played a far better quality sax than I ever owned. "Was this me playing? Wow! I sounded good." And I was playing better too. A fine instrument can do that - basically give you - and the listener - far more pleasure. Obviously, not everyone feels that way. There are some good players out there with not-that-good instruments, but I am seeing a slow trend with the better players having far better instruments. Those old days are disappearing. A good example of this is Leadbelly. He played a Stella 12 string, for which he is famous. Stella was sort of a Montgomery Wards kind of brand; mostly all very low end instruments with very few high end ones. My bet is that, if he could have afforded it and if handmade instruments were available to him, Leadbelly would have played as fine a guitar as he could get. It may be that his guitar was made before the company went cheaper and bigger.
It has been said that we are in the golden age of guitars. That may be true. More than ever, luthiers are experimenting and pushing the boundaries as they learn more about their craft. Forums (try "The 13th Fret" or "Acoustic Guitar") and guitar shows allow them to meet others and see what boundaries others are pushing. There are fine, fine tonewoods out there now and it is generally acknowledged that the supply is going to rapidly diminish. And there are just some incredibly skilled folks out there. Not all of them are the same. One guitar that tempted me was the second one made by a DuPont employee. Darned fine guitar. But I didn't buy it. Here's why.
The less well-known the maker is, the lower resale it may have or, at least, the harder it may be to sell, if you ever had to do that. It is the "Holiday Inn Syndrome". People tend to buy what they are familiar with, even through better alternatives may exist. I had the Martin thing for a while. They make good instruments (as does Taylor, Gibson and also Guild). And people know they are good. They don't know what a Griffin is, for example, so they will tend to discount them, even when they hear and play them. Sad fact, but still a fact.
There are 4 tiers of guitars, as I see it. At the bottom are the factory-made lower end instruments, serviceable and inexpensive. They are your biggest bang for the buck. Some, not most, Martins are in this category, cheap but still decent. That is one reason I don't consider them for purchases any longer. I think that in their attempt to reach a broader customer base, they have really cheapened the brand. Martin still sells high end instruments, but I feel they are significantly overpriced, betting on their name to bring the extra. The second tier are the well-made name brands listed in the above paragraph, solid quality that you can count on. A third tier are what I call "boutique guitars", finely made, by small firms such as Goodall (I own two of these), Huss and Dalton, Larrivee, Santa Cruz, Collings, Froggy Bottom.... You can go to certain stores and find them. There is one in the Capital District, Cathedral Music, over in Troy; others are where you find them, scattered far apart. These guitars sell for thousands, but may be cheaper than the finest of the Name Brands, when comparing quality. The last tier are luthier-made guitars. By this, I am referring basically to shops so small that one man (or woman) oversees the entire building of each instrument, doing most if not every step himself. Guitars made by these people are normally made on order only and each is one of a kind. The buyer gets to select the body style, the woods, the appointments, exactly how he wants them and the build is a collaborative process between luthier and buyer. A good builder will know what kind of music his customer plays and how he plays it. My most recent build saw the luthier ask for a CD of my playing so he could voice it to my attack and to my style. Once in a while luthiers will make one on spec, especially when he has ideas on the build process that he wants to try, ones for which no one has ever ordered.
It is a real high to finally receive a guitar that you ordered years ago, one that was created only for you, and was made just the way you proscribed. After all this time, you get to hold it, to play it, to hear it. And, yes, you also get to see if your trust in the builder was warranted. Normally, the owners are delighted and have done the homework ahead of time to assure their trust was not misplaced. Sometimes, though, they would have been better off to go to a boutique and first play the one they are going to buy. When you order, there is always a chance you will not be satisfied, because you can't play or see them until they are made. If you play enough by a particular maker, here and there, you begin to get ideas about what you like or what you don't. You may also forget what the ones you saw earlier were like.
Let me give an example of that. In 1978, I went to my first visit to the Martin factory. They have a neat little museum there and a guitar out that you can play. Of course, it is one of which they are especially proud and the acoustics in the museum are great. Naturally, I took hold of the one they had out. Omigod, I had to have one like it! I had no idea I could sound so good. So, that started a 3 month search. I was traveling around the US at that time and every single music store that I could find got a visit from me, looking for such a herringbone-braced Martin. I played a lot of them and what you might have expected happened. I kind of lost an exact memory of what the one in the museum felt and sounded like. So, I could never be sure when I had one in my hands if it was as good. I eventually bought one, but by then, I was forced to acknowledge that my scientific comparison was completely flawed. The next search came many years later and this time, I went to higher-end stores where I could play a bunch of fine instruments, put one down, then pick it up again. I went to Cathedral Music, Mandolin Brothers in Staten Island, Melody Music in Bryn Mawr, Pa, to mention a few. That was very helpful and I began to make some useful comparisons. I talked to other high end stores, all over the US, and read what I could on the internet, also useful.
What did I end up with? A radical departure for me. I ended up buying a Goodall - sight unseen, from Buffalo Brothers in California. Not a totally dumb move, I could have returned it if I was not happy - except I was happy. It is a truly great guitar. By the time I was ready to commit, I had made up my mind that a Goodall was going to be a contender, so buying one that I had never even seen was not quite so dumb as it might have sounded. That's only half the story. Another guitar came out of this search. At Cathedral, I played a used Kinnaird, one which had been made specifically for a fellow who later sold it. I loved that thing, but I didn't like its looks (too ornate for me). Curious, I went to Kinnaird's web site and learned that I could have one made specifically for me for the same price I had considered paying for a used one. So was it a Goodall right away or a wait for a Kinnaird? I did something totally out of character - I bought the Goodall AND ordered the Kinnaird, taking care to get different voicings on each. At home, the Goodall is used for faster pieces, as it is brighter-toned. The Kinnaird is used for more introspective pieces, as it has a slower decay and a more subtle and nuanced intonation. The Kinnaird happens to be the one you heard me play at the Moon & River, the one you liked the sound of so much.
To get a special instrument, there is another direction one can go - the vintage route. As a guitar is played, the vibrations in the wood are supposed to work on the resins and stuff therein and allow it to "open up". I am in a skeptical minority about this. But, more importantly, vintage instruments may have been built with better woods than are readily available today. With cheaper labor back then, more care may have been taken in the build and a better low or middle end (just maybe, maybe, even high end) instrument resulted. With a vintage instrument, you get all the mojo you could ever ask for and you don't have to worry about the first dings and blemishes; they were done for you decades ago. But, they come with their own worries - bending tops, curving necks, glue coming loose, body cracks, crappy tuners... And the vintage market can be very biased toward certain brands or models. For example Gibson banjos sell for top dollar. They are well-made, definitely yes, but yet they were not always thought to be a "top" brand when they were new.
Now, having said so much of a general nature, let me be more specific. If that guitar rings your bell, that's all you need to know. Are you happy with the looks, the workmanship, and the sound and playability? If so, what more can be asked? I have played a Griffin once and they are fine. The one I played wasn't what I particularly wanted, but that's OK. I have talked to a couple of Griffin owners and they were well satisfied. One fellow was trying to sell his. He had to drop the price several times before it sold. I have the same problem right now with my Moreira classical guitar. If you are really into classical guitars and their makers, you will know who Moreira is. But most people don't. I couldn't get squat for it on eBay. I tried. It is now consigned in North Carolina at Dream Guitars, who have other Moreiras. I have been trying to sell it for a while and had previously consigned it at a small classical-only shop in Philly, then at Cathedral and, later, at Mohawk Valley Guitars. I am re-making the same point I made earlier about re-selling them. But if you are happy, you will not be selling it, so it doesn't matter as much as my writing might make it seem. "Are you truly happy with it?" is the big question, the one besides which every other concern pales.
In general, reviews on the web seem to be positive, not matter what you are researching. That's why internet firms have them on their web sites. They provide useful knowledge, especially when you can read many of them. Then certain trends become apparent. I like to form a judgment of where the reviewer is coming from and what his experience is. Read a review for, say a Dean or a Johnson, and I'll bet they are good too, even thought they are not anywhere near the same category. Most reviews are made when the purchase was new and before things stared to go wrong with it (if they ever do). Incidentally, Harmony Central seem to have the most guitar reviews. It's a good resource, when taken with the usual grain of salt.
Most of the fine instruments out there are $3 grand - and up. I would be a bit suspicious of a $2000 handmade instrument and would wonder was it the fact that the luthier wasn't well-enough known to command a higher price, or was he not really as good as you think he is. My observations this summer at the Montreal Guitar Show (recommended!), which featured only handmade guitars from select luthiers, was that there were a lot more out there above $6000 than there were at $3000-3500. But there were ~$3000 guitars I played there that I liked as well or better than far more expensive ones. Price is not always an indicator of quality or of what you want. For instance, I thought Kinnaird was very reasonable, considering what he was turning out. And the asking price of any given guitar may be far different than what you end up paying. The one I just got, the baritone, was offered to me at a Professional's Discount, which amounted to several thousand dollars. I would have been crazy not to take it. Other luthiers did not make that kind of attractive offer to me and this maker's reputation for quality baritones was second to none. An easy choice to make. Yes, I love it.
At the Montreal show, I met a luthier with whom I had communicated in the past. Great guy. Heck, most of them are. I haven't met a luthier who I did not like and who did not really seem to put both his professionalism and his craft on a very high plane. You see this in certain professions once in a while. Anyway, this luthier and I carried on an enjoyable set of conversations on finer points of building in which I was interested. He knew I'd never buy anything from him, yet he wanted to help me. His guitars were priced closer to $10 grand than they were to $6 and I could not see that they were better for my uses than others which were cheaper. He based his price upon two things: his reputation, and the fact that folks were buying from him at the prices he asked. Others do too. Once, he suggested that a luthier in Maine ask far higher prices for his instruments (based upon their relative quality, his and the other fellow's), but the other fellow declined, saying that he thought his were expensive enough as it was (I agreed, but then I am a consumer). At $3000, no luthier is getting rich and no wife can quit her job. Maybe not at $6000 either. There is just too much work that goes into a handmade instrument. These guys are meticulous and professional. Each one they sell has to be a perfect as they can make it. They stand behind them, often with lifetime warranties. I joke, whose life, "theirs or mine?" Remember when they retire, if they do, the company does not continue and service will end for your instrument. You'll have to get any problem taken care of elsewhere, which is not hard to do.
A rule of thumb is that a used instrument in mint shape will bring 80% of the selling price when new. And, also, list price is greater than selling price (except with luthiers, who are more apt to not do the padding thing). I have seen fairly large price jumps in the time I have been following fine guitars. But that does not carry through to all brands/makers equally. Of course, "past performance is not an indicator of future value", or whatever it is that stockbrokers say. The Griffin or Goodall or Kinnaird that you buy today may or may not edge up in value along with the rate of inflation, and when if becomes vintage it will be like the "unknown makers" of a quality instrument, not highly sought after, but still well-regarded. Let's face it, one buys a fine guitar because you gotta have it, because it speaks to you and says "take me home" (the forums are full of references to "GIS" - Guitar Acquisition Syndrome). Most buyers intend to keep theirs for a very long time, so resale price should not really be much of a factor in one's decision. Let me give an example from the cow world. I asked a dairyman why he had all those expensive and fancy registered cows in his herd, ones that didn't make any extra money for him. He said that when he got up in the morning, he wanted something special out there in the barn, something to get him excited to start the day. That describes my guitars. I take real pleasure in owning, playing, hearing, just touching and seeing my guitars. And I like knowing that what I have is truly special. Yes, for 1/3 the price, I can get something 75% as good. But I don't want to settle for 75%.
As an aside, if you buy it, or any other one, be absolutely sure to get a guitar humidifier and to use it during the dry winter weather.
Montreal Guitar Show, by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Cory (#1 Son) and I took a day+ off and skipped up to Montreal for the big guitar show there. I am so glad I went - and so was he, even though he doesn’t play much guitar. After a few hours, my brain went into guitar overload, not that I wanted to do or see anything else. Here’s some more information for you.
In North America, there are 3 guitar shows that eclipse all the others. One, in Healdsburg, California is held every other year. There is another near Miami and this one in Montreal. I’ll describe it and, by extension, the others.
It lasts 3 days. Admission is ridiculously cheap at $15/day (Canadian). Mainly, it is a showcase for luthiers who practice the very highest form of guitar-making. They have to be invited to attend. There were over 100 luthiers of just acoustic guitars alone who exhibited there. As you might expect, most were from the US and Canada, but about 10 countries were represented. And then there were luthiers of electric guitars as well. I did not pay any attention to them, except to notice that they were less numerous and had far fewer people milling around them.
But acoustics, oh my - there were flat tops, classicals, 12 strings, archtops, Macaferris, resonator guitars, baritones, Weissenbourns... of every shape and description there, made from more exotic woods than most folks could ever name and each one was a work of art in addition to being a wonderful handmade instrument. I of course focused on the the flattops - parlour guitars, dreadnoughts (very few, which is surprising since it is the best-selling guitar size), 000s, OMs, 00s, jumbos, concert-models... and many with proprietary sizes and shapes.
Since I am very interested in both tone woods and guitar design, it was a cornucopia for me. I got to see guitars built from woods, some of which I had only ever seen pictures of: pernambuco, ebony, maple, cypress, pau ferro, bubinga, sapele, ziracote, Bolivian cherry, lacewood, zebrawood, cocobolo, koa, black walnut, monkeypod... and every sort of rosewood and rosewood substitute you could think of. But there was not that much mahogany, which I found interesting, as it is the most basic tonewood used worldwide, and a darn good one despite its popularity.
And design - what a lot to see! Some guitars looked pretty normal, but incorporated radical interior design, others were built normally but were very different to look at. Of greater interest to me were many with innovations I have heard about but had never seen or played. I can’t say that any longer. If you asked, each luthier would let you play any of the instruments he had there on display, for as long as you wanted. Want to play a $25000 guitar? Go ahead (but be careful). Want to talk guitars? You will never find a more knowledgeable and friendly group of folks than were there, all willing to spend as much time with you as you needed.
As some of you know, I have a baritone ordered. It has been done for 6 weeks but has not been delivered yet, not sure why. Based upon the luthier’s recommendation, I had it built from spruce (top) and bubinga (back and sides). So yesterday, I got to see my first bubinga wood, what it looked like in person (my luthier has provided me with many photos) and hear how it sounded. I even saw a bubinga baritone, not nearly as nice wood as mine. It was merely beautiful and sounded fine, but I bet mine will sound far better. I did see another guitar built from bubinga. It was far different appearing than mine, a mixture of light and dark brown, not the reds I expected. It was truly beautiful and I spent a while playing it. From a luthier in the west, it had a unique system to quickly and easily adjust the neck angle and pitch. I am not sure that these things would ever need doing so much as to justify this. It also led to some compromises in appearance. But I liked playing the guitar. That is, I did until I went back after having played so many others that were better. The guy really wanted me to buy it, too. He was obviously willing to cut his price considerably to avoid taking it back home. But, the quality of workmanship, upon close examination, did not meet my new (higher) standards. And I certainly didn’t need it with 7 or so of them at home.
I played a beautiful cocobolo guitar with a black top that was really beautiful, despite that black top. It had a double top, very thin layers of spruce sandwiched between some space age honeycomb material. I was not at all impressed with the sound. That took me by surprise, as the luthier is quite renowned and naturally his offerings reflect that in the price.
Another innovation I wanted to learn more about were fan frets. I had my own ideas on these and found myself proved wrong. Fan frets are not parallel to each other, but are angled, each one different then the one next to it. They must be a nightmare to install. The idea is to have a longer vibrating section for the low strings and shorter for the higher-pitched ones. The benefits to this are supposedly better intonation up and down the neck and a better bass sound. To gain this, you get a, well a weird looking guitar with a bridge not parallel to the bottom and a nut not at right angles to the neck. Looking them over and mentally complaining about their very nontraditional looks, I saw one that was different than the others. It’s bridge was parallel to the bottom and the nut parallel to the top of the headstock. This was accomplished by doing two things. First the angles of the frets were more moderate, less jarring to see. Secondly the body was asymmetrical. The builder had shifted the upper and lower bouts until they have mirrored the frets. When you have lemons, make lemonade. I picked it up and started to play. Immediately I noticed that the body seemed further to my right side than it should be. That odd feeling lasted 15 seconds and after that it felt normal. The fan frets felt normal to play right from the start. Remember, this guitar’s frets were less angled than some others. And it had a great bass sound. As a matter of fact, I liked the way it felt and the way it played as well as what I was hearing and could probably happily live with its unusual looks. That is, IF I wanted another guitar. (0ne can never have too many!) On the other hand, I play traditional music and my audience expects to see something traditional in my hands. But, tempting.... It also had a cutaway, which I do not like, both for aesthetic reasons and since I don’t need a cutaway.
But it did have a sound port. This was something I had thought of having on the baritone I have ordered, then discarded the idea. That was a mistake, I should have had one put in. Perhaps it is not too late. What a sound port is, is a hole in the upper bout nearest the player’s face, a second sound hole. It acts like sort of a stage monitor. You can hear what you play much better and it sounds better to you. I played quite of few of these and each one sounded better than expected. Cover it up and you get less sound, less happiness. What the audience hears does not change. We did some experiments and, sure enough, I can find no downside to this one. Both of you get to hear it well, the audience and the player.
The last innovation I wanted to try out was the “Manzer Wedge”, invented by luthier Linda Manzer, who I met there. Many luthiers use this, not just her. What is it is an instrument that is narrower on the top than the bottom. That does just one thing - makes it more comfortable to play. The audience cannot tell by looking. I tried it and discovered two things. First, I think the sound is less than it should be. No doubt, others will ague about this; it's subjective. But I did not like the sound of the one that I played. Secondly, I am already comfortable with large guitar bodies - I don’t need it more comfortable.
We went to Montreal just for the day. If I were serious about getting a fine instrument, I would go for all three days, try out all sorts of guitars, take notes (there are so many there, you will not remember it all if you don’t), and then bargain for the one I want during the last minutes of the show. They have booths where you can take a prospective guitar and hear yourself play without the din of other playing, people talking and moving about. I didn’t do that as I was not serious about getting another guitar at this time.
I noticed that when I played, a crowd started to gather around me. Why was that? There were so many other players there who can blow me out of the water. Most of them, probably. But, I play fingerstyle, with a good bass beat and, with the song circles I play in, have learned to play a bit louder. Toes start to tap, then they walk over to see what is causing it, huddling around to listen until something else distracts them. An interesting discovery. I was of course far from the only one there who drew small crowds.
If you want to listen to music, there were free mini concerts each day long and into the late night. If I had gone for all three days, l would have heard more of these. Not subscribing to any of the guitar magazines and listening to mostly traditional music, unfortunately, I knew just about zero of the performers and the slick and colorful 54 page booklet that came with the admission ticket did little to explain what we would hear. A luther will hire or cajole a well-known (not by me, but by everyone else) performer to showcase his instruments and what can be done with them in the hands of the right person. We did take in a few mini concerts and and were treated to find music that we would not be likely to hear anywhere else. The two that impressed me the most were a duo of classical guitarists, women, who played simply exquisitely beautiful music. And there was one we saw just before we left. I have no idea how to categorize his music, maybe “rhythmic avant guarde”. He used lots of harmonics and percussive techniques both up on the strings and the body, flamenco stuff without a flamenco sound, pretty amazing. The crowd was wild over him.
I had ODed on guitars some hours before (but was still ready for more), but was reluctant to leave, it was so good. But it was late and I had my life to resume. And, the icing on the cake for many - this event coincides with the huge Montreal Jazz Festival. Everyone not associated with the show asked us if we were here for the jazz and were surprised to hear about the show. Even the huge hotel that hosted the free evening concerts didn’t seem to know about it. We had ask around quite a bit before we found where they were playing. And there were 100 in our audience!
My Instrumental Hegira Starts, by Roland Vinyard, 2010
Back in 1960, I was at a Bible camp and what did the kids there do for fun - they sang in Hootenannies. (Remember those?) With my awful voice, I never had considered that singing could be fun, but that was where it was at. With so many folks singing, I could blend in and not be heard. So I did, what fun! In all that group, there were two who could play a stringed instrument. Well, I played sax at home and figured out that this was a way I could contribute. So when I returned, I petitioned my parents for a guitar. In due time, they made the 90 mile trek to Philadelphia (where all major family purchases were made) and returned home with one for me. A Kay archtop. My heart sank; that was not what I had in mind. Still, it was what I had, so with the help of a teach-yourself-guitar manual, I set out to learn. Progress proved to be excruciatingly slow, but I was stubborn and I learned.
Then a music store in town opened and I became friends with the son of the owner, who was talented but younger than I - which helped to lower the gap between us. Anyway, I decided I wanted a different guitar. My friend's father told me I should buy this old beatup though sound Martin that he had there. We are talking the '60's now and $50 was about all I could afford. I could get the Martin or a new Czech-made classical for the same money. Today, that would be a no-brainer. I now see the attraction of vintage instruments and accept flaws in them as part of their cachet. But this was not today and I was 17. Also keep in mind that in those days, players in many of the popular big name folk groups used classical guitars. Steel strings had not yet won that battle. So did Burl Ives. Nylon was as acceptable for folk music almost as much as a steel was. You guessed it, I bought the new one. My friends shrugged their shoulders and took my $50.
Five years later, I was out of college and working. I'd been introduced to old time music and was becoming knowledgeable about it and also about the suitability of my classical to play it. Now regretting the chance to buy a $50 Martin, I began to look at them in stores. They were all a LOT more than $50. Finally I found one that was much cheaper than the others. On a whim, with a paycheck in my pocket, I just up and bought it. How unlike me to just spend money without thinking forever about it first. Of course there was a reason this Martin was cheaper. It was a less valuable instrument and came in a el cheapo cardboard case. A 00-18 parlour model, it was still decent though subdued. I now believe it had a cedar top. When I bought it, I didn't care much for any fact other than its brand. Dumb, but true. I remember the wonderful smell every time I opened the case and after I replaced it with a better guitar, I noticed I no longer got the smell. I took very good care of it.
Another five years later and much water under the bridge, I had sold my farm and the classical guitar (to an employee, for what I had paid for it) and had gone to the Martin factory, a neat tour if you are ever near by. In their little museum, next to the historical models safely tucked behind glass, was a guitar for anyone to try. So I tried it - and was immediately converted. No, I was blown away. Wow, did it sound super (of course the acoustics were probably superlative too)! And my playing was immediately better, the enjoyment score way up, off the scale. I am sure Martin was very smart about picking this particular guitar for the public to play. They wouldn't sell it to me; I tried. Now I had gone there with no intention of getting another guitar, but suddenly I had to have one like it! That became the focus of my life now, even more important than jobs or women.
Having some cash from the farm sale as well as all the time I could ever want, I was touring the US on an extended and badly needed vacation. Slowly making my way west, every music shop I passed had me in there looking for another such instrument. None was the Holy Grail. I went into shops in many, many states and the inevitable happened soon enough. I could no longer exactly remember what that magical Martin had sounded like or even felt like when I played it. But still I persisted in my search for an instrument that would blow me away. In Colorado, I thought I found it (a Martin M38, to be exact). But I was not sure of anything any longer except that I was finally tired of looking. Being insecure about the purchase, I took an easy way out. I asked them to hold it for me over the weekend, while I could see if I could sell my own guitar (a 00 parlour model).
I was visiting friends at CSU in Colorado and put up a single 3x5 note card on a bulletin board there to fulfill my obligation to the music store. Wouldn't you know, the darn thing sold the next day! Later on, I discovered why. Yes, I got pack what I'd paid for it 5 years before, but I had never even considered appreciation. For some reason that model was now worth double my investment. Someone else knew a good buy when he saw it and took quick advantage of my unwitting generosity.
Money in hand, I returned to the store Monday and bought the M38, which I kept for well over 20 years. The irony was that when I sold it, it had never appreciated. During all that time, I knew I had a very well made instrument, but was slowly cognizant that it was not so special as I'd hoped. In the 20+ years it went not one but through 3 neck resets (there was no truss rod in it, as it was made when Martin maintained that their instruments were so good they did not need them). But the repairs were all covered under Martin's warranty. Steve Kovacik did the last reset, and it played noticeably better afterward - finally. But by then two things had happened. I was playing in quite a few song circles and was tired of not being able to hear my instrument (I don't use picks). I was more serious about my music and, being 20 years older, was no longer so impoverished as I had been. I decided to reward myself and get something I could really be proud of. That's when I started learning more about wood and construction - and builders, which is a whole 'nother story.
The Instrumental Hegira, Part 2
Fed up with my Martin M38's lack of assertiveness in unamplified groups, I began to think about replacing it. It was a finely made guitar, not that I didn't have certain problems with it over the years. So my next step had to be upward, not sideways. It seems the ante is always raised in these things.
By now, I had more money than when I was in my 20's and I was a more careful and astute shopper. I started looking at instruments that other good players had and quickly decided I didn't want most of them. That was a little surprise in and of itself. On the other hand, professional musicians are usually not very rich, so why should I have been surprised? So I went to the good old internet, trying to find what was out there in better instruments. Martin's recent entreprenurial advances made me leery of another Martin. I simply feel that they have cheapened their image with all the low end models they now make and they are coasting on their name now. Their high end instruments are very fine as they always have been, but I felt the name was adding $1000 in price - but not in value. For similar reasons, I was also leery of other mass-produced but quality guitars, Gibsons, Guild, Taylor and perhaps Guild. I have always liked to feel I was different anyhow. My internet search lead me to Santa Cruz, Hues and Dalton, Collings and Goodall, among others. Now to see them and play them. That took some travel. We are fortunate to have Cathedral Music not too far away, a store that specializes in the boutique guitars, high end small makers. I went there and also to Mandolin Brothers on Staten Island. Later on, I found occasion to spend an afternoon at Melody Music in Bryn Mawr. Between them, there were LOTS of great instruments to consider. Too many. I became confused and had difficulty drawing conclusions. Nothing blew me away, though some were obviously much better than others.
So I began to rely more upon what others had written. I tried to get a sense of who the writers were and where they were coming from to make sense of the various reviews and forums. I went back to the stores as the opportunities presented themselves. I was beginning to decide upon getting a Goodall when I played a guitar of an unknown (to me) maker named John Kinnaird. Dang that thing was nice, but too ornate to suit me. I looked him up on the internet and, lo and behold, I discovered I could get a new custom-made guitar for cheaper than the used one in the store. Conversations between me and Kinnaird ensued.
[I need to interject a bit here. Years before, I had a successful foray into custom-made instruments. I also play the autoharp, among other stringed instruments, and my original 'harp was literally self-destructing. I bought the best Schmidt available (there being no other brand better than Schmidt), a Centurion, and while it offered some great advantages over my old el cheapo, it didn't really sound that much better. I began to study what could improve it, did some modifications, and after a while I had some design ideas of my own. This all took some years. Then I searched out autoharp makers. There aren't many, but I used the phone and eventually managed to visit three in various states, none of them New York, where I live. I settled on Keith Young and he made me the one I use today. Rather experimental in several ways, but very traditional looking and sounding. It was a great collaboration and very fun for me. Now back to Goodall and Kinnaird.]
So while I was talking with Kinnaird, I still kept searching. Eventually I found a jumbo Goodall at Buffalo Brothers in California that had the most amazing mahogany back I have ever seen. Their man out there also claimed a similar sound. I could get it on trial and if I was unhappy, could return it. Now I had an enviable problem, Which one, the Goodall or a Kinnaird? I could not take forever to decide or the Goodall would be sold to someone else. I took the easy way out - I bought both. This is not as dumb as it may first appear. The Goodall would be the louder guitar I wanted, with most everything else I might want, but would be a tad bright. The Kinnaird I would have built would be smaller, with warmer sound and more overtones. Use them for different music for optimum results. And if one of them needed work sometime down the line, the other would be there to play. If I broke a string at a concert, I could just pick up the other one. What's more, the Goodall could be here in a week and it would take John over a year to create mine. More time to earn money, more time to learn more precisely exactly what I wanted. And yes, I did make an opportunity to visit Kinnaird, who lived in Georgia at the time.
To make it short, I have been very happy with both of them. The collaboration with Kinnaird proved much more ongoing and extensive than it had been with Keith Young, mostly thanks to the internet and digital photos. John was great to work with, receptive to my ideas, responsive, and shares a real enthusiasm for special wood. After playing the two guitars for 5 years or so now, I still can't tell which my favorite is. I ended up just taking one to an event since I drag along several other instruments anyhow. It seems I'll play one for a few weeks and then put it aside for the other. I tend to use the Kinnaird more on stage as it is more interesting for the audience to see from the front. The Goodall, with its Port Orford Cedar top, gets used more at events where weather may be more of a factor. I get lots of comments on them. Recently I came with my Goodall from a gig directly to a real estate showing. My customer, also a guitarist, knew I played and had to see the guitar before he saw the house. He was a very good player and I must say I was impressed by how good it sounded to me. I had never been in front of it before. Dang, it was nice. I may not have sold a home that day, but I just may have gained Goodall a customer.
The story is not over. These things get ahold of you. I began to attend the Montreal Guitar Festival, which has 100 luthiers exhibiting, a cornucopia of talking and playing guitar. I made forays every 3 weeks to certain forums to see what was new and of interest to me. Along the line, I got the notion that a baritone guitar would be a neat, useful yet unusual addition to the corral, so I began a search for them. At Mandolin Brothers, I was able to play a Santa Cruz and Goodall, side by side. To my ears and fingers, there was no contest, the Goodall was best... But maybe a luthier could make something better at a competitive price. I began to search out who had experience with baritones. Not many did. John Kinnaird was willing to try, but had never Tonewood Data Sourced one one before, nor had he ever played one. I ended up with another dilemma.
Because at the same time, two things happened. I found a Goodall baritone, used, and at the right price. And I came into contact with one of the very best luthiers who had baritone experience. He did the prototypes for Santa Cruz when he started out in the business and has since done quite a few others, utilizing more of his own ideas and techniques. And this fellow made me an offer I could not refuse. What did I do? Again, I bought both. I played the Goodall for a couple or three years while waiting for the other one to be done. That gave me experience which could be parlayed into an instrument that would be better for me. When the custom one finally arrived (after an excruciating series of delays and complete stoppages of communications from the maker), I sold the Goodall for my investment in it. The new one was, as promised, FAR better.
So, what is happening now? The luthier itch still has not yet subsided. I fear it may be permanent. At the last two outings to Montreal, I looked at 12 strings. Nothing excited me. I wasn't sure I wanted to pay that much even if one had excited. I just don't have that much use for a 12. Ten or fifteen years ago, I bought a 1967 Martin D12-20 and I loved it from the start. However, it had issues, cracks in the body that seems stable. So far that has been the case. However, as time wore on, the action got higher and higher and I saw it less frequently as it became less enjoyable to play. Finally, I bit the bullet and got the neck reset and new frets put in. It hasn't been the same since. I don't like the sound. Others tell me it is fine, but to my ears it no longer sounds very 12 stringish. Did they screw something up? Or did my standards change during the long period I rarely used it? I only know I am no longer satisfied with that Martin either and I have been watching eBay.
Recently I saw one for sale that was luthier-made and was offered very cheap. Cheap was more important than usual as my use for a 12 is limited, so it made sense to limit by budget accordingly. But I had never heard of the maker. That meant some quick investigation. He had no web site, but I uncovered an email address and that led to what has become a friendship. At the last couple minutes of the eBay auction, it tripled in price, going beyond what a new custom-made one would cost me from the same maker. Now, to actually see and play one of his instruments. That meant a trip to Maine, long but not impossible. One thing led to another, and 4 months later, I had a new 12 string, one which met my standards. It is also quite beautiful
This saga may not end until I can't play any longer.
Torrified Tops from John Greven
(I am quoting a private communication from John Greven which was posted by "mcduffnw".)
I have been experimenting with T'd woods for some time now thanks in part to fellow guitar maker Bob Thompson (who had gone entirely over to the "dark" side and doing ALL T'd woods), supplying me with materials and other resources.
There is too much in-the-weeds info to detail here, but on two points I would like to comment.
First, the cost. Depends on who does it and how it's done. Commercial kilns do box car loads of wood at one time because the process is complex and time consuming, not to mention energy consuming. The average run for a kiln at 386 degrees (the middle cook temp) is five days. The cost per piece using the large kilns is relatively small, less than $10 a top for small runs, less than $5 a top for larger runs. Neck stock is about $ 15 because of special handling issues in loading those parts into the kiln. I have no idea what a maker would charge for a T'd part, but it is not a major cost on their end at the start. I do not charge extra for my T'd woods.
Martin has opted to cook to the lower temp point of 286 degrees (or there abouts) which produces a light amber brown color on an Adi top. At the mid range temp of 386 degrees the color becomes a lovely cognac brown that very closely mimics a vintage top from the early 30's. Higher temps are not used for delicate guitar parts.
The wood itself is lighter in weight compared to its starting state, but not significantly so. It is stiffer, but, again, not radically so. It does ping much more clearly than the uncooked top and it is super stable in terms of changing shape with humidity and temperature (a nice feature to be sure).
This brings me to the second point. What is the down side?
I have worked with both tops of various species and mahogany neck blanks (which are the perfect color of the old necks, but not needing any stain to get there!) Two things stand out; it is definitely more brittle and it has, to some degree, lost the structural integrity of the summer wood growth. The hard winter growth rings become harder and less elastic while the summer wood is compromised to the point that when you tape binding on during the build, if the top is not first sealed, the tape pulls up a fine sheen of the top wood along with it, very similar to what the cedar tops do. I worry that it may lead to bridge failure down the road. I have also experienced finish de-lamination on one instrument.
My take on this material as I worked it is that while it has some excellent qualities, but it is untested over time for this particular application and I am very cautious about using it.
The last thing is tone. It is not old wood, it is cooked wood. Very different beasts, just ask T.J.Thompson. Tonally, I have not been at all impressed by it either on its own merits or compared to many of the fine old Martins I have played over the decades.
One of my tests was building two D-18's side by side with exactly the same back and sides and neck stocks and tops that were the same but with one natural and the other cooked. The bluegrass players loved the cooked top for its more fundamental voicing while the non-grassers (like me) preferred the natural top with its greater depth and complexity. Both were equally powerful, but distinctly different voicings.
So for the future, I will use the T'd woods sparingly and with caution and with no additional cost to the player.
One side note on the neck stock. The mahogany necks that were T'd are unlike any I have ever worked. They are a little bit brittle and must be handled with some care, but they work like a stick of frozen butter. No sense of grain to the cutting tool whatsoever. No hard/soft feel, no grain fiber orientation feel, just cuts easily and smoothly regardless of direction. It is fun and a little disturbing to hand shape one of these necks. It is nice not to have to stain them, however.
It makes sense that Martin is doing a series of variations on the lighter cook. It is a safe way to approach this new material. Much less compromise to the structure of the wood while adding to its overall stability. As to their being able to selectively "age" the wood, I think that is some very clever marketing not science. None of the woods that are T'd are the same as the real aged woods now residing on the great old guitars. Again, just ask TJ. T'd tops are merely different from un-T'd tops and different from the old tops.
John
__________________
http://www.grevenguitars.com/
Custom Baritone Guitar by Roland Vinyard, 2007
Let me tell you an amusing story.
I am having a baritone guitar custom made for me. The builder offered me a deal too good to pass up (he looked at my web site and obviously thought me a better musician than I am) - what I saved on the purchase just paid for that web site. Before I gave a final "yes", I did some due diligence. After all I still will have to pay him a sizable sum. I called various purveyors of fine, hand-crafted instruments to see what I could learn about this luthier. One company said that while they handled any instruments from him that they could get, they were not going to any longer. Why? "He doesn't communicate" was the first answer. Well, that wasn't too bad - he had been communicating reasonably well with me and his web site DID say that due to a move of his shop and residence to another state that he would be somewhat remiss on his communications. The luthier went further with me and said he would get back with anyone who called, but maybe not as timely as they might like. And if he was working on YOUR instrument, wouldn't you want him to concentrate on it instead of picking up the phone every few minutes? "Not unreasonable", I thought. What other complaints does this music store have? "Well, he has a 5 year waiting list", came the reply. Now that is a reasonable concern and one I needed to take seriously.
So, I wrote him about that. The reply came soon enough: it was a 2-3 year waiting list, not 5. We were gaining, but far from there, so I replied that at my age, you never knew how long I would be able to continue to play and there was no guarantee that I would be able to play long enough to get my investment back if I had to wait that long. That must have tickled him because he answered right away that he always kept a slot or two open for really important things that might come along. Could I wait a year? Yes, I certainly could - and I sent him the deposit money.
THEN, I learned that he meant one year until delivery, not one year until he started it. Better yet. THEN, I learned that the reason he could bend so much for me is that it would be a companion instrument to another he was making for someone with an even better web site and a whole lot better credentials, a guy named Graham Nash. It turns out the timing will be near perfect. I have been playing another quality baritone since those conversations, learning and understanding more about that kind of instrument and what I like and don't like about it, so when he comes to start mine, he will have a better hand on what I want and how I want it to end up.
Cool.
Guitar Voicings & Building a New Instrument by Roland Vinyard, 2009
Several years ago, I decided that I was never going to be satisfied with my old Martin M38 (I got it when I played a herringbone-braced Martin at the factory and loved that one so much that I knew I had to have one - which led to a several month-long search, all over the US, by which time I had forgotten the sound and the feel of the one in the factory. I ended up, slightly confused, with the M38.) and went on a search for something better. The step I took was, for me, a giant one. I bought a jumbo Goodall (fiddleback mahogany/Port Orford cedar) and then ordered a 000 (ziracote/Adirondack) from luthier John Kinnaird. I have been happy with both and they have different voicings, the jumbo better for louder, lighter, faster stuff and the Kinnaird for the overtones and warmth. For a while I would bring both to a gig, but I don't do that any longer unless there isn't going to be some sort of second guitar around to fall back on in an emergency. For instance, if I have the baritone or the Duolian with me, then one of the others will stay home.
I just had to get the frets of the Goodall jumbo redone (in 4 years of playing - seems way too fast to me) so was "stuck" with the Kinnaird while it was in the shop. Being down to one made me a bit nervous, so I can understand the need people feel for a successor instrument. When I got it back last week, I was really struck by the different sound it made. It felt real tinny and thin to me (that feeling has dissipated now) and when someone complemented me on it's sound, I realized that it was just me being so used to the other's sound, not what I was hearing, an interesting observation. So, if you are going to commission a guitar, I can certainly recommend the approach of having it different enough that your voicing and feel varies.
My voice is far from special, but its range is pretty normal: low A, maybe G on a good day, to E at the top of the staff is where I am comfortable. One of my musical partners is a much higher tenor, and when he leads, is apt to pick a key other than what I am used to playing a piece in. So, the baritone guitar I have comes out sometimes (or a completely different instrument) and that gives us a second sound and keeps it playable for me. But where I likes the baritone's sound the best is on the quieter pieces. Being lower, it doesn't cut through so much, but a full E chord (as fingered), just brings a glow of warmth through me. I keep it C# to C#, standard intervals, most of the time, but sometimes play B to B. B to B works a bit better when with other musicians as it keeps me in familiar keys more often, but the C# to C# is OK too if you don't mind fingering in F. I have never been much on capos in the past, and have always played in true F when it was called for, so that is no hardship.
I also have a couple of folks that I play with just for fun who have low voices and who always chose a key a fifth below what everyone else might do. The B to B works well with them, too. It has made me a somewhat better musician to have the baritone and learn to follow a piece, transposing the chords downward in my head as I play. I am better at that now. And I see utter confusion on the faces of some others when they try to follow me on their guitars. Even though I make sure to tell them what key I’m really playing in, I can watch their fingers gravitating to form the same chords that I am playing, which of course sound horrible. Better players can handle it fine, but others have trouble and some of them just wait until I am done. It is the most fun to see one of the better musicians arrive or start to pay attention AFTER I had announced the key and watch them try to reconcile what they are hearing with what they see.
Playing with others does mean that sometimes I use a capo (shame on me!) on the baritone. I am thankful it has a 14 fret neck. A 12 fret neck would never work on it. I told my builder that 14 or 15 would be OK for me, but I have no idea what I will end up with. He doesn't always remember to check his emailed notes on details I suspect. Nor do I - he sent me pictures of the completed box and, horrors, it wasn't the slope D that I had expected. Alarmed, I fired off a note to him. For once, he responded and reminded me that while we had discussed the slope D at length, that he had recommended the concert shape and I had agreed. I went back in my files and checked. Yep, he was right.
I like to be involved as much as I can with the planning and execution. I have learned quite a bit in the process about woods and their characteristics well as luthierie. I enjoy making things with wood, but realize I would never have the exactitude to make an instrument with which I'd be satisfied. So this is the course I take. I also feel that the builder needs to have a feel for who I am (wordy, among other things) and that he needs to make certain decisions of his own in the process as well so it also becomes "his" instrument. Things inside are all "his"; on other things, such as the rosette or inlay, I set some parameters and let him fill in the details the way he feels best. On all else, I want a collaboration, with us bouncing ideas off one another. I urge the builder to never allow me to make a decision that goes against his better judgment. If he is as good as his reputation, he also need to be satisfied with the results. A luthier who would build an instrument that is not his best just because the customer had odd ideas and he went along with them to keep the guy happy - this is not the kind of man I want working for me. When I commission an instrument, I like to think that have found someone with exacting standards that they will not lower, yet remains flexible enough to allow my own ideas see the light.
Some Thoughts on the Difference Between Handmade and Factory Made Guitars by Ervin Somogyi www.esomogyi.com
I am often asked what makes hand made guitars different from factory made ones, and whether they're better, and if so, how. These are good questions, but complex ones. Handmade guitars are not manufactured goods in the same sense that factory made guitars are manufactured goods. Each is made differently, for different purposes and different markets, and with different intent, aim and skills. Factories need to make instruments which are good enough to sell to a mass market. Luthiers need to make instruments which are successful tools for musicians. Comparing a handmade guitar to a factory made one is analogous to comparing a painting with a toaster: the one really needs to be judged by different standards than the other. I wish to stress that I do not wish to malign either luthiers or factories, but rather to point out how very different their products are in spite of the fact that they can look almost exactly alike.
What, really, is handmade? Obviously, things were literally handmade a long time ago, when tools were simple. But what is one to think if the luthier uses routers, bandsaws, power sanders and joiners and the like? Aren't these the same power tools used in factories? How can something made with them be handmade? These same questions were asked by American luthiers in the l960s and l970s, because the use of power tools was so very common. After much debate it was decided that the answer had to do with the freedom of use of the tool. That is, guitars could be considered handmade if the tool could be used with a degree of freedom dictated by the needs of the work and the will of the operator. Dedicated and specialized tooling capable of only one operation, as is the rule in factories, did not qualify; neither did the rote assembly, even if by hand, of components premade to identical specifications. These became the standards by which to distinguish handmade from production made.
It might be most true to say that handmade guitars differ from factory made guitars primarily in that factory guitars are mass-produced, and handmade guitars are not. While this may sound obvious and self-evident, a number of implications arise out of this basic fact:
l) Long term repairability. In the long term, a guitar is likely to need tune-ups, maintenance or repair work, just like a car. Things like bolt-on necks, and the fact that the repairman may have worked on this or that brand of factory guitar before and knows what to expect, can make certain operations easier. But otherwise factory instruments are often made with procedures and processes which, although quick, cheap and easy to do within the manufacturing context, can be difficult to undo or work with in the normal, post-factory setting. Guitar finishes are a good example of this. The traditional finishes such as lacquers and French polishes are beautiful, but are skill- and labor-intensive to apply. The increasingly popular polyurethane, catalyzed and ultraviolet-cured finishes are much easier and cheaper to apply, and look good. But, they cannot be repaired or worked with if there is damage. To fix a crack in the wood properly, the finish will need to be completely sanded off and redone. Lacquers and French polishes, on the other hand, are comparatively easy to spot-finish or touch up.
2) Personal relationships. If you deal with an individual guitar maker you will establish a personal relationship with someone which may last for years, and which may become an important one. He will almost certainly be available directly to you to consult with or to take care of some difficulty, and he will feel a responsibility to you for any work he has done. With a factory made guitar, you cannot have this personal relationship with the maker. You will have to settle for the best relationship you can have with either the store you purchased the instrument from or the factory's customer support hotline.
3) Choices, features and options. Factory guitars are made to strictly unvarying specifications and in large numbers. Each one will be exactly the same in all particulars, and if you want anything a bit bigger or smaller, or in any way different, you will not be able to have it unless you pay extra to have it customized. An individual instrument maker can provide you with an instrument that is tailor-made for you in many ways. As musical styles and playing techniques evolve, instruments with differing scale lengths, actions, neck widths and contours, fret sizes, string spacings, tunings, tonalities, electronics, woods, body shapes and sizes, etc. all become more desirable. But proliferation of design variables complicates production. I've been told that in Japan many Japanese customers want guitars exactly like someone else's, because that's how things are done in that culture. The factory model serves this need. In the United States, however, musicians more commonly complain about things such as that the neck on a certain brand of guitar is too awkward for their size hand, and that their hands would tire less if the neck were just a little different -- but all the necks are the same.
4) Value and price. A handmade guitar will carry a price which reflects its real value in terms of labor and overhead more truly than a factory made one which carries the same price. The former may take 200 hours of someone's conscientiously invested time and skill; the latter may take 8 to 36 hours of intensely repetitive and automated work. A factory will target a price at which it wishes to sell a certain product and will do everything it can to enable its introduction into the market at that level, including using parts made by others and mounting ad campaigns. A luthier will probably want to make something that's as open-endedly good as he can make it, without an overriding imperative from the profit motive. Because factory instruments are made for wholesaling and price markup, and handmade instruments are in general not, there is much more room for discounting within the system of retail store markups than an individual maker can offer. Discounting is a marketing tool, and factory made guitars are made and priced so that everybody in the complex chain of recordkeeping/tooling/subcontracting/assembling/advertising/retailing/delivering can share in the profit. Handmade guitars are priced so the maker can survive.
5) Quality. According to a guitar industry spokesman at a recent symposium, quality, from a factory point of view, is the same as replicability of components and efficiency of assembly. That is, the factory man considers quality to be the measure of how efficiently his parts can be identically made and how fast his instruments can be assembled in a consistent and trouble free manner. From the musician's point of view quality has nothing to do with any of this: it has to do with how playable the guitar is and how good it sounds. This also is, normally, the attitude of the individual luthier, for whom efficiency is important but secondary to his concern for creating a personal and effective tool for the musician. The main ideal behind factory guitars is that they be made quickly, strong and salable. The main ideal behind the handmade instrument is quality of sound and playability. A really well made guitar almost plays itself.
If quality for the factory man has to do with efficiency and consistency in making identical things, it cannot be so for hand makers. And for obvious reasons: there are a lot of hand makers working at vastly different levels of skill and creative talent, and they have different concepts of "best". Let us return to the analogy of the painting and the toaster to illustrate this point. A painting is something somebody made which may be good or bad, or beautiful, or repellent, or even personally meaningful. Or perhaps unintelligible. Then, some paintings can be amateurish or indifferent. Some are interesting. Some may be pretty damn good. And some are timeless, significant and really great. A toaster, on the other hand, will do what it was designed and built to do, every time, or one fixes it or discards it. One does not normally think of a toaster as being amateurish, meaningful, expressive, trite, evocative, profound, unintelligible, interesting, or timelessly great. This is not what toasters are all about.
6) Craftsmanship. An intelligently run factory is geared to operating smoothly in a standardized, not customized way. Its priorities are automation of procedures and dimensional standardization of parts. A hand maker, on the other hand, is generally flexible and inefficient enough to do customized work in every place where it counts. This methodology is essential due to the innate variability of woods: two identically thicknessed guitar tops can differ by as much as l00% in density, 200% in longitudinal stiffness and 300% in lateral stiffness. Bracewood also varies as much and further compounds the possibilities of mindful wood choice and use. Therefore, while certain components in handmade guitars may be roughed out to approximate dimensions in batches of 4 or 6 or more, the selection of these components, and their final dimensions in the assembled instrument, are done on an individual basis: this top gets those brace-blanks, which are then pared down to that height, which depends on the stiffness of the braced top, its tap tone, and the judgment of the luthier as applied to this particular unique instrument.
As mentioned above, the levels of skill, judgment and attitude among luthiers are variable quantities, some highly developed and some not, depending on how experienced and talented one is. In my opinion many hand makers today are insufficiently trained and experienced, and as a result many handmade guitars are less satisfactory than factory guitars of comparable price. Any luthier worth his salt, however, will continually strive to learn better techniques and improve his work, because personally achieved quality needs to be his stock in trade. He must be good in order to survive. The intent and skill level of factory work, on the other hand, tends to be constant and predictable and does not improve appreciably from one year to the next. Factory work is based more in using the best tooling and jigs available than in developing workers' skills beyond what they must have so they can operate the tooling efficiently and safely and do work that meets the standards set by the quality control department.
This is, in fact, the essential distinction between handmade and factory craftsmanship. The factory's craftsmanship is based in division and automation of labor: there is someone who is paid to do each step or make each part. He has to do it repeatedly, many times a day, at a level that meets the factory's criteria for acceptability. As often as possible, this specialist is replaced by a machine. The handmaker, in comparison, has to be adept at everything. He must spend years to master all the techniques and skills necessary to produce a high quality guitar, and, until he does so, his guitars will be of less than highest quality in some way. The need to perform every operation to a high standard is not unlike an Olympic athletic performance: make one single mistake and you fall short of the goal. To aim so high is an exceedingly demanding, and noble, effort.
7) Playability and action. Since factory instruments are assembled in large quantities, they normally almost all need fine tuning and adjustment before they come into the hands of players. Music stores in the United States often have a person whose job it is to set up all new guitars so that they are most comfortable for the customer. I don't know whether it is the same in other countries, but I'd be surprised if it weren't. Set-ups include setting the strings over the frets at a comfortable height, dealing with buzzes, calibrating intonations at the bridge, adjusting truss rods to the stringing, and whatever else needs to be done. Hand makers, on the other hand, will usually have done these things prior to delivery because, as far as they are concerned, a guitar that isn't as perfect as possible is not ready to be delivered.
8) Sound. The study of the factors involved in the production of tone teaches the instrument maker that small variations in structure in the right places can make important, specific, differences in response. Because there are so many places where one can take away or add a little wood, and because the difference between "a little more" or "a little less" can be critical to a specific aspect of tone, this study takes years. This is the level of work a hand maker engages in and strives to master. Ultimately, he will be able to make guitars which are consistent in quality and consistently satisfying to his clients. The factory approach, on the other hand, cannot spend so much time on any one guitar: its entire operation is based on treating all guitar assembly processes identically. Therefore all tops of a given model are equal thickness, all braces are equally high, all bodies are equally deep, and so on. Tone in a guitar is controlled by paying attention to specific qualities in the materials. Yet, the factory's focus on treating all parts uniformly bypasses these important factors. Because dimensionally identical guitar tops and braces can be twice the mass and up to three times the stiffness of their companions in the assembly line factory guitars are, essentially and literally, random collections of these physical variables. In consequence, their sound quality will correspond to a statistical bell-curve distribution where a few will be brilliantly successful, a few will be markedly unresponsive, and most will be pretty good. To repeat: a factory work's chief priorities and focus are production, selling and delivery. It is off the mark to compare this to a concern with making a personal best at something.
9) Durability. Here, again, the concerns a factory and a hand maker bring to their work are markedly different. And for perfectly good reasons. There is nothing wrong with a factory maker's desire to sell guitars to the public. But each member of this anonymous guitar playing public will treat the guitar with different degrees of care, use different strings, play differently, live in different cities or even countries with different climates, temperatures, altitudes and humidities, and will sometimes take their guitars to the beach or on trips into the mountains. These guitars must be able to hold up against these unpredictable conditions. It is the factory's concern that these instruments not come back to plague its warranty department with problems and repair work. To ensure this, their guitars are substantially overbuilt. Hand makers are concerned with making sensitive, responsive tools for musicians who are fairly certain to treat these with some care. These guitars can therefore deliberately be made more delicate and fragile -- and this makes possible a louder, more responsive instrument. The factory cannot afford to make fragile, maximally responsive instruments: for every increment of fragility a certain predictable number of damages and structural failures can be predicted, and the maker would sink under the weight of warranty work. The hand maker, on the other hand, cannot afford to overbuild his guitars: they would be the same as the factory version but at a higher price, and they would fail to have that extra dimension of responsiveness which makes them attractive to the buyer. He would soon starve.
l0) Machine precision vs. the human touch. Machines will do the same operation, over and over again, to the identical level of precision; there are no bad days or sick days, and they don't get fatigued or depressed. Hand work, on the other hand, is forever shaped by fluctuating human factors of energy, attention, concentration and skill. For these reasons, most people believe that machines can produce faster, cleaner, more consistent and more desirable products for the consumer, as well as reducing the tedium inherent in parts production. There is much truth in this.
But also, it is a fallacy. This relationship between tooling and craftsmanship only applies in direct proportion to how the machines and operations are completely free of human intervention -- as is the case with computer controlled cutters, which are getting a lot of press nowadays. But as soon as any real workers enter the picture factories cannot escape from the same limitations of hand work under which hand makers suffer. This is shown by the fact that a factory's own quality control people can tell the difference between the level of workmanship of one shift and that of another, and especially when there are new employees. Anyone who has done factory work of any kind knows that personnel problems are the larger part of production problems. Naturally, no one advertises this.
This brings us to the fundamental difference in the logic which informs these different methods of guitar making. The factory way to eliminate human error and fluctuation is to eliminate, or at least limit as much as possible, the human. The hand maker's way to eliminate human error is to increase skill and mindfulness.
11) Is a handmade guitar necessarily better than a factory made one? No. Many factory guitars are quite good, and many handmade guitars show room for improvement. How successful a handmade guitar is, is largely a function of how experienced the maker is and what specific qualities of design or tone he is known for. No one ought to be surprised to realize that beginners will make beginner's level guitars, and that more experienced makers will make better ones: this is what makes the instruments made by an experienced and mature maker so special. On the other hand, there is considerably less significance to the purchase of an instrument made by a factory simply because it's been in operation for many years. Long, cumulative experience with the materials is not what they are about, and neither are improvements and advances in design which conflict with profitability.
l2) Are factory guitars any better than hand made ones? By the standards of the factory people, yes. They believe that high-volume assembly of pre-made and subcontracted parts produces superior products. At least one company advertises this explicitly. By the standards of the individual maker, it is possible for factory guitars to be better than individually handmade ones, for all the reasons outlined above. But, in general, factory guitars are "better" only in a limited sense of the word, also for all the reasons outlined above. I wish to emphasize again that handmade and factory guitars are each made with a different intelligence, with different priorities and for different markets. The luthier cannot compete with the factory on the level of price. The factory cannot compete with the luthier on the level of attention to detail, care and exercise of judgment in the work.
13) Are not high-end factory guitars, at least, better? From the view of the musician, no. They are much more extravagantly ornamented and appointed and also produced in limited editions so as to justify the higher price. And they are in general aimed at a quite different market -- the collector. For the average musician, the appeal of collector's guitars is blunted by the high price; and for the serious musician by the fact that their essence, soul and sound are produced under the same factory conditions and with the same concerns as any other product of that factory -- with comparable results: random variation of musical quality. But the collector has different interests. He seeks the appeal of rarity, uniqueness and "collectableness" in an instrument and his principal interests tend to be acquisition, owning and display -- not playing or using.
The collector's market of vintage and collectable musical instruments is not large but it is quite strong, and its continual hunger for new products helps drive the production of "collectable" guitars. Factories respond to the demand by producing and advertising limited edition guitars which have, for the buyer, the requisite appeal of uniqueness, scarcity, rarity, and high cost. There are individual luthiers whose work is sought in the collector's market. But on the whole the difference between factory's and a hand maker's collectable work is that the individual guitar maker's collectable work is scarce by definition, and ends when he dies. A factory such as the Martin company can turn out limited and special edition collector's models for generations.
l4) A collaborative aspect. I like to think that an important difference between handmade and non-handmade guitars is the degree to which the process is one of collaboration. Makers want to find musicians who are able to appreciate how good their work is, and who can challenge them to do even better work. This is a fruitful partnership. The factory's needs are overwhelmingly to sell guitars, and usually prefer to form partnerships only with endorsers.
l5) How can one really know whether one guitar is better or worse than another? A key factor in the assessing of what is better and what is worse is the somewhat basic one of how educated and sensitive one is to the matters under examination. A discussion of differences cannot go very far without understanding this. The consumer is not merely a passive bystander in this debate but a participant in it, even if he doesn't know he's doing it. To illustrate, I want to give you an example of something that has happened to me repeatedly in my experience as a guitar repairman (and which I'm sure other repairmen have experienced as well).
A guitar player called me to report that his guitar, which had worked well for several years, was now not playing in tune. He suspected that the tuning mechanisms were worn and slipping, and he wanted to know whether I could replace these. I said yes, please bring your guitar to my shop. When the caller arrived I examined the guitar and found no problems: the tuners worked perfectly, the bridge hadn't become unglued, the frets and nut hadn't moved, the neck hadn't warped; the guitar was not in any way damaged or broken; in fact, everything was exactly as it should be. What had really happened was that the musician's ear had improved over time so that he could now hear that the guitar did not play in tune. In fact it never had; but he simply had been unable to hear the dissonances before.
Obviously, a guitar which plays in tune is better than one that doesn't; but if one is unable to hear this then it becomes a non-issue. With an improved ear, this man was ready for an improved guitar. This same growth of ability to see and hear in an educated and experienced way affects our ability to appreciate nuances of detail, subtlety, and quality. These are the very areas in which handmade guitars can differ from, and excel, non-handmade ones. But, until a player reaches the point of capacity to discriminate, whatever guitar he has is good enough.
Martin Versus Luthier-Made Guitars by Roland Vinyard, 2008
(Note: I could have used the words ""Gibson" or "Taylor, maybe others, just as easily here.)
Like many of us, I had a Martin period. I still own one. So many of the old ones are great guitars... but so were Larson’s. But the general populace has never heard of a Larson - they never made enough of them to catch the public’s eye. No independent luthier will - you need a factory and all that it entails to get enough instruments out that your name becomes recognizable by the world at large. And by then, you are not giving your instruments the personal attention they deserve and quality control suffers. Let’s not fault Martin too much - - they gave a lot to the guitar world. But they were a smaller business then. I think their current crazy proliferation of styles and low prices will inevitably cheapen their brand. They are selling stuff based upon their reputation, and that won’t last. People get wise eventually. Wall Street is littered with firms that rested on their laurels only to find themselves behind the eightball and too late to catch up. Let’s face it, Martin is one of the names the general populace associates with quality acoustic guitars, and many of them far certainly overshadow in quality the el cheapos out there. Remember, it’s the el cheapos that sell the most and Martin does not want to miss out on that market. If there are 100 buyers who have $100 to spend, there will be only 10 that can afford $1000 and maybe only one that will spring for $3000.
Luthier-made instruments are played by a different clientele, ones who recognize that their values and charms cannot be easily duplicated in a factory situation. A fair comparison might be a Chevy (the el cheapo) to a Mercedes (the Martin) to a Bentley (luthier-made). They all do essentially the same thing, get you to point B from point A, but there is a difference in the joy you have in making the trip.
Now, regarding the traditional look, it’s what I want. Martin has that all right. I play traditional music, often on vintage instruments, and the rest of the time on ones that were either made for me or made by a luthier working by himself or nearly by himself. They may not be entirely traditional inside, but I want them to look that way, both for my audience and also for my own personal aesthetic choices.
I am glad folks are experimenting - the experiments will show us what is right and what is wrong. A friend of mine made a guitar for a lady who requested that the sound hole be in the back, on the upper half of the upper bout. So, he made it, and it turned out like you would expect - a very disappointing sound. But, his client was delighted. What did she value the made her so happy with it? It was comfortable for her to play. (Her right boob fell inside the sound hole and was not flattened by the back of the guitar!) Hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I were playing very modern music, I might want an off-center sound hole, a cutaway, a distinctive saddle, or whatever. Only I don’t.
Stainless Steel Fretwire by Steven Marchione http://www.marchione.com
Stainless Steel fretwire is a vast improvement over traditional Nickel Silver wire if you are a builder who is willing and able to make a fretboard perfect prior to fret installation. Necks I have fretted with it have a great on-the-fret-string feel; strings bend well and the polish of the wire appears to maintain indefinitely. As it is much harder, it should also last much longer. If you are the kind of builder who measures planed relief in thousandths, invests in top notch straight edges, and polishes your fingerboard prior to installation, you will love this stuff!
The wire, however, is more challenging to work with. The fingerboard must be trued exactly as you would like the surface of the frets to be as this wire's hardness won't allow you to level out imperfections off of the top of the frets. Nor would you want to reshape a fret profile with a file. You can, but you won't enjoy it. You must be very precise in cutting your fret slots as the wire has more of a tendency to want to spring up on the edges as you hammer it in. Fret pressing and/or rigid clamping cauls with one drop of cyanoacrylate on each fret end are effective solutions.
A further comment from Frank Ford: "Stainless fretwire is great for bending your notes; the frets don't grab the strings and it feels like you're playing on ice."
The beauty of the wire though, is that if you make everything gorgeous the first time around, it can stay that way a lot longer and my clients have specifically remarked how much they like the way the frets feel.
Finishing Guitars by JJ Donohue www.DonohueGuitars.com
It is often said by luthiers that once the guitar is built, it is only half completed. We seem to discuss finishing issues as much as we discuss wood and construction aspects. I'll try to list the types of finishes that have been used by various manufacturers over time. In any case, it's a good idea to know how your guitar has been finished so that you can take the kind of care that best addresses its needs and keeps it as glossy and protective as it was intended.
Nitrocellulose Lacquer
Traditionally, acoustic guitars have been finished in nitrocellulose lacquer. Over time, these finishes yellow and acquire small surface checking as a result of becoming more brittle from losing its plasticizers through aging. Many guitar affectionados prefer the vintage look of yellowed nitro lacquer and who can argue that such an appearance bestows class on a prewar Martin. Early in my building experience, I used Nitrocellulose Lacquer successfully and would be using it today except for the fact that it is explosive and poses environmental issues for the custom builder without an OSHA-approved spray booth.
Waterborne Finishes
In an effort to avoid the explosive and toxic effects of Nitrocellulose lacquer, I have been experimenting with waterborne finishes. I've produced guitars using several of these finishes that have been formulated with the instrument maker in mind. I rejected these as a result of the annoying bluish cast that they impart to the guitar as well as not being hard enough for my liking.
Catalyzed Polyester
My fellow Hoosier neighbor and friend Joe White introduced me to Catalyzed Polyester (CP) as a finish about 5 years ago. I was immediately sold based upon the material's neutral appearance, transparency and extreme hardness. Guitars sprayed in CP on Day 1 can be wet sanded and buffed out on day 2 and setup by Day 4. This offers significantly better turnaround time from the 2-4 week minimum for nitrocellulose lacquer. In addition, because of its unique properties it can be applied more thinly than any other sprayed finish available. With Joe's 30 years of experience in producing custom car finishes, I have been farming out all of my guitars for his highly coveted finishes even before he formally went into the guitar-finishing business. Since then he has been finishing guitars for many professional luthiers across the country. It's my goal to provide state-of-the-art materials and processes. I simply don't have the facility to provide such a finish... so I'll proudly use Joe's expertise for the foreseeable future.
French Polished Shellac
My personal guitars are French Polished Shellac which gives an entirely different appearance and also offers a distinct performance advantage. The process of French Polishing involves the application of Shellac and a labor-intensive method of hand rubbing the material into and on the wood. After many repeated applications it imparts a very natural and organic appearance that glows with a warm radiance. It is the traditional finish used on the most sought after classical guitars. The process has been used for centuries on fine furniture and stringed instruments. It appeals to my love of historical tradition. This is especially of interest to the player who seeks an alternative to the mirror shine of modern guitar finishes. Compared to the thin coat of polyester at .003", a French Polished finish is less than half that thickness. This translates into a more active top for the ultimate in response. The downside to this finish is that it provides little or no protection from dings and damage from a variety of liquids, including alcohol. As a result, it requires extra care and periodic maintenance to maintain or restore it to its original appearance.
Danish Oil
Danish Oil (DO) has been used for decades by makers of gun stocks and by fine furniture builders. It produces a beautiful satin surface when properly applied and cared for. It takes me about 2 weeks of daily applications followed by vigorous rubbing to produce the surface that I like for my personal guitars. Lately, others are asking for their necks to have a DO-rubbed finish. This imparts a dry satin sheen to the surface. To many that play these guitars, they comment on the dry feel and speed along the neck.
So there you have it... finishing in a nutshell. While 90% of the players today will choose the more familiar shiny and protective finishes such as polyester, I offer these alternatives for consideration when customizing your guitar. My latest experimental guitar has the back and sides finished in Catalyzed Polyester, the top is French Polished and the neck is Danish Oil... it also happens to be a tone monster OM. Stop by and play it sometime!
Aromatic Instruments by Roland Vinyard, 2008
Aromatic instruments is a subject dear to my heart, no - dear to my nose. My first Martin had a cedar top, though at the time I took it for spruce. Wonderful smell, as cedars will. When I replaced it with a better instrument, the lack of that smell was noticed right away. And when I replaced that one with a better instrument, a Goodall, I chanced upon a Port Orford cedar top (actually, it is not a cedar, but a member of the cypress family). It smells nicely of spice and ginger, though far from overwhelming. My Moreira classical guitar has an Alaskan yellow cedar top and has the same aroma that my original Martin had.
Back and side woods can have odors too - witness myrtle, narra, cherry, imbuya, along with the rosewoods (named for their rose-like odor), cocobolo (some like it, some don’t), and bubinga (not such a nice smell here, but at least it fades quickly). There is a tendency of some woods to smell good when relatively fresh or freshly cut, but for the smell to fade with time. Others maintain their smell seemingly forever.
There is no connection between the sound that a particular wood exhibits and its fragrance or lack thereof), at least none of which I have ever heard, no more than a wood’s stability, ease of working, gluing abilities and so forth are related. But to get an instrument that plays, sounds, and looks good and to also get it to smell good - what can be better! Most of the senses can be covered in one guitar, other than taste... And tasting guitars is a subject I won’t get into...
Martin Myths and Other Nonsense by John Greven
There are vast quantities of totally bogus information about Martin guitar construction details found all over the internet, particularly on the various guitar forums. Even builders who should know better promote inaccurate information either through lack of direct experience or perhaps as part of their marketing agenda. Whatever the root cause, the basics need to be discussed and better information provided. I was fortunate enough to be the shop foreman at Gruhn Guitars from 1970 through 1976 during the very beginning of the vintage instrument renaissance. Nashville and Gruhn Guitars were the epicenter of this new movement for the country and the world. It was a time when great old guitars carne out of the woodwork daily and into our hands for repair and restoration. We took it for granted that on any given day we would be working on prewarMartins; l8's, herringbone D's, 42's or 45's as well as many one of a kind special models. It was during this time I restored Charlie Monroe's pre-war D-45 and Red Smiley's D45 before they left for Japan. Both guitars were tonally awesome, iconic instruments, even by the best of pre-war Martin standards...There was not a better place to be working on instruments then, or since. It was an unparalleled educational opportunity for which there is no modern equivalent.. From this perspective, along with fifty years of building instruments including 2100 acoustic guitars, I offer up these insights.
Overview: Here is the thing to remember: Martin was a conservative, pragmatic small business. For them, warrantee repairs were a major drag on their bottom line, and when guitars came in for service, someone from the line had to stop their work and attend to it as Martin had no dedicated repair department back then. It is obvious to me after looking at hundreds upon hundreds of vintage Martin guitars, that every change in structure over the decades had everything to do with solving an engineering problem and nothing to do with TONE. Martin already felt that they had the best possible tone in the marketplace, but they could ill afford instruments coming back with similar structural problems and not address the issues proactively for the future. Martin was always thinking STRUCTURE, not TONE when changes were made.
The X Brace: The position of the crossing of the X relative to the bridge placement has two basic forms; the Advanced X which is closer to the soundhole and further from the bridge and the Back Shifted X, which moved the X much closer to the bridge. While this positioning of the X crossing is a tonal factor if one uses the same top material for both, the primary reason Martin altered the X position over time had everything to do with the changing structural qualities of their tops. The light, scalloped bracing of the 20's and 30's under stiff Adirondack tops gradually gave way to wider, taller less scalloped bracing as more top deformation issues arose. By the time Sitka replaced Adirondack, bracing was significantly heavier than before. Moving the X toward the bridge was just part of the solution for reducing excess top deflection. It was not a tonal consideration. As a side note, the best sounding guitars from the 1930's represent a kind of perfect storm of great materials coming together with small shop production performed by highly skilled and dedicated craftsmen at a point where Martin's structural evolution hit a sweet spot of not too heavy, not too light.
The Tongue Brace: The tongue brace had but one function, to help prevent the top from cracking along the edges of the fingerboard, a very common problem. This upper bout region of the top is primarily structural, holding the rotational pressure of the neck at bay and preventing body collapse. Between the heavy main cross brace by the upper soundhole and the dense, massive fingerboard end glued firmly to the top, this is not a major tone generating part of the top. A 6 gram slip of quartered spruce is not going to have any measurable effect on the output of the instrument. Think Structure, Not Tone. Lloyd Loar was never on staff at Martin.
The T Bar: There is much ballyhoo about this little T shaped bar of high strength steel that Martin went to after the ebony neck support proved insufficient for heavy steel strings. Again, if it had worked so well, Martin could still be using it, but they don't. The same is true of all steel beams they changed to over the decades until they finally replaced all with adjustable truss rods. In this case, function is more important long term. The T bar is a relic to be noted and discarded. It is not a tonal factor in and of itself.
Braces: Contrary to the ongoing mythology, Martin did not use Adirondack bracing, it was always Sitka. Again, it was a simple decision on their part. They were way ahead of their time developihg very local wood sources. The Adirondack came from nearby New York State and upper New England. All other spruce came from the suppliers to the shipyards of New York, where wonderful perfectly quartered Sitka was plentiful and cheap.
Hide Glue: There is much to do about hide glue in today's market. It has been for many generations of wood workers of all sfripes, the glue of choice. It was not the only glue available, but the other options, like fish glue and rabbit glue, all had limitations for wood applications and ended up in book binding, case lining and many other less stress related joinery. So how does it apply to the modern era? Martin, along with all other makers of musical instruments as far back as you choose to look, used hide glue exclusively from their beginnings to the late 1960's, when they began experimenting with the Titebond-like poly glues (but very limited applications). All body work and most neck work was held together with hot hide glue with great success. But because HHG is more difficult to work with in a production setting and takes longer to cure out than the modern "white" glues, even Martin is only using the HHG for the top of the line builds and charging extra for it. My personal thoughts on HHG are that it is a fun and challenging material to work with but I do not find it to be stronger than the modern glues in terms of holding strength and it tonally a wash, despite many vociferous claims to the contrary. It does make for a nice addition to a maker's profit margin above and beyond the actual difference in production time involved. There is one difference between HHG and all modern adhesives that is important. It cures hard like glass or flake shellac. Modern aliphatics and poly's retain a degree of elasticity when cured and are subject to stretching under load over time. With good wood to wood joinery, however, it is a moot point as the ultimate bond strength is at the molecular level in a super thin film between two surfaces. I use HHG if asked and do not charge extra for it, but prefer the carpenter's best friend, the yellow glues. Again, tonally, it is not a factor, there are far more important things that make up the voice of an instrument.
Tops: John Caulkin has often said: "Spruce is spruce, get over it!" A great deal of truth to that. I only disagree to a small degree as I find different species of spruce and different tops within a given species do differ a bit both structurally and tonally, but only a little bit. I use this variation in my voicing process but coupled with brace material choice. I talk at length with my top material sources and they all know what I like to see and hear in my top wood. I am all about the tonal outcome of an instrument, not just the visuals and I choose my spruce with that as my prime directive. That is also true of spruce brace stock, but that's a whole other story. The thing to remember about tops is that the grading of them is essentially about cosmetics; how perfect the grain lines, how clean and defect free. Those clean, clear, fine grained, perfectly quartered materials command the highest prices and become AAAA or Master grade. They are rare. Only a small portion of any group of logs will yield sets this perfect. (As time goes on, this quality of material will be virtually extinct due to ever diminishing resources world wide.) It is important to remember that in the end, it is the skill and experience of the guitar maker that will determine the quality of the sound the instrument makes, not the grade of the top material. A lesser build with a $400 top is still a lesser build while a master maker can easily make an A grade top into an incredible sounding instrument. The appearance of a top is its least important characteristic tonally.
Conclusions: I estimate over my working life span of 50 + years that I have played about 5000 gurtars. I have actually hand made over 2300. Of all of those many guitars (5000), a handful stand out as exceptional sounding. There were many hundreds of really good ones and far more that were only quite average. All makes, all models, all makers; it didn't make much difference. Price was not a factor. Some killer cheap guitars sounded just as good as many of the more expensive ones. (Much of that is about the person PLAYING the instrument more than the instrument itself.) The conclusion I draw from this 50 year database is, oddly enough, most guitars sound like guitars that sound like guitars etc., etc. and that there are only a very small percentage of instruments that stand head and shoulders above the crowd. Maybe 1% of the total. From my work bench, hands on building perspective, I have come to the conclusion that a truly successful guitar has more to do with the luck of the draw, the confluence of materials and skills, the alignment of the stars perhaps, than the Intent of the Maker. We guitar makers have far less control over the final voice on an instrument that most will admit to. Certainty is an illusion. Speaking of our work as though we had any degree of absolute knowledge or control over the outcome is delusional thinking. There are too many variables at work both known and utterly mysterious to exercise much "control"'over the tonal outcome. Structure, the nuts and bolts side of guitar building, no problem. Making it physically "perfect" is the relatively easy part. Making it into a singing, responsive, and tonally multi-dimensional Musical Instrument is far more difficult. History proves that. I liken guitar making to cooking. Both the luthier and the chef seek out fine materials for a particular "recipe", assemble and work with them with skill and imagination, and prepare the "meal" for their client. Experience counts very heavily in both endeavors. Bon appetite.
Like LIttle-Bodied Guitars? by Roland Vinyard, 2011
A letter to a friend who does.....
1) I mentioned that getting a smaller waist was more important then a small body. A deeper than usual body will give you more bass even though the small body size may say to the audience that it will be lacking in bass.
2) I also mentioned the "Manzer Wedge" which tapers the body so it is narrower near your shoulders and wider near your hips. Those two things should make a huge difference in comfort without a sacrifice in sound or volume. You are very unlikely to find the wedge in any store or even boutique.
3) But there is another thing you can have (that you won't find in stores) and that is a custom neck.
A) Obviously narrower will help and it could be quite a bit more so, maybe as much as 1/4" (that's a LOT). If you rarely fingerpick and don't seem to play up the neck, this may be an easy sacrifice to make.
B) Secondly, a 12 fret neck will be more comfortable for you than the usual 14 fret neck and you could even arrange to get the bridge shifted backwards some to accommodate the same scale. These things allow the left hand to be extended less.
C) Or you could go to say, a ~24" scale, which will do the same thing in another way. Not sure if I like that idea as much.
D) Next, you could change the neck geometry, make it shallower for instance (a carbon fiber road inserted in the neck can allow this with no loss of strength) or you can actually change the shape of the neck. Most necks are like a "D" in cross-section, but they do not have to be proportional; the belly of the "D" can be shifted to one side or another to fit your hand better. OR it could be more "V" shaped. Or....
4) Guitars can be made VERY light as well and still keep a larger body, if that is important. You could probably have one that is about full-sized and 3 lbs if you went with an all Port Orford Cedar guitars, back and side, neck, as well as top. (That would be VERY pungent!) The point is that materials vary considerably in weight as well as other characteristics. My 000 is quite a bit heavier than my jumbo, despite being much smaller. And it is the combination of woods that make the difference in those two.
5) You can go to light or extra-light strings. The lighter the strings, the easier they are to push down and the less tired your left hand fingers will get. And also the guitar will get quieter, it's a tradeoff. But it doesn't have to be. With lighter bracing and certain materials, a guitar can be made to be louder.
You can probably see where I am leading. Manufacturers like Martin, Gibson, Taylor, Larrivee and so on have to overbuild because they have no idea who will end up owning their guitars and how they will be treated. But they know they have warrantees that they will be expected to honor. A luthier personally knows the end user and can build a guitar which would implode if you put on medium strings, but would respond nicely to light strings. I don't care for extra light strings like I have on the Weymann parlour guitar. I feel they don't get out of my way quick enough. But if you are not playing blazingly fast like I do (joke), that may not be an issue for you. The point is that it is possible to get better sound from an extra light string than you might expect.
All these things can be yours in a custom-made guitar, one made specifically for you, your size, and your style of playing. Generally these things start at $3000, even $4000 and go up for there, but there are luthiers who do fine work who are much cheaper, often ones who are working part time or are trying to build a reputation. Or they may have developed more efficient and quicker build times. Or they may not work to quite the same degree of perfection in the finish. Two examples whom I have personally met are Nick Apollonio who built my 12 and Kim Griffin who built Brenda's guitar. There are others.
If any of these ideas have merit in your opinion, what I would highly recommend is to attend one of the big three guitar shows. There is one in April in Newport near Miami, another over July 4th in Montreal (where I go) and every two years, the biggest of all, in Healdsburg, California. This year the Healdsburg one will be held in mid August. Google them and check out the web sites. The shows are designed for luthiers to show off what they can do and you will literally see millions of dollars worth of fine guitars in one room: many avant guarde or a bit experimental, others very traditional, but all are things of beauty. You can go in and play any of them, for as long as you wish. They are all for sale and often unsold ones will go comparatively cheap toward the close of the show. You can talk with many, many luthiers, all of whom have been vetted by the Show's organizers and found to be among the best in the world. Most of them are super nice folks who love what they are doing, and also enjoy helping solve particular problems. They may have quite different approaches to achieve the same ends, so it is worth spending lots of time talking to many of them and getting ideas. You can take one person's idea to another and often they will be receptive, though I wouldn't advertise whose idea it originally was. I'd approach each one and say something to the effect that - here's what I play and how I play and here's the problem that I want solved (the discomfort you have in larger-bodied guitars). Then ask what they suggest.
You'll get to play hundreds of guitars if you wish, talk to dozens of luthiers who are absolutely the cream of the crop, get their ideas, and learn what you like and don't like. Take notes, too. As an aside, you will find these shows are very cheap to get into, much less than a festival. And there is as much music going on. Mini concerts, more formal concerts, workshops, after-hours jamming and so forth, all designed with a different focus than festivals have - and that is to showcase the builders and how they built. There is little vocal music, but a huge variety of simply amazing playing. Even if you never visit the rooms where the luthiers display their wares and never talk to any of them, it would be a steal of a value to attend - just for the listening. But the real reason for me to go is to be informed on what is happening in the world of fine instruments and to see who makes guitars that are truly amazing and to learn what they do.
Scattered across the US are shops that specialize in fine instruments (ones that come to mind are Cathedral Music in Troy, a place in Boston whose name eludes me, Mandolin Brothers in Staten Island, a place - Melody Music - in Bryn Mawr, Dream Guitars near Asheville, The Podium in Minneapolis, the Picking Parlour in the Denver area, another near Santa Fe, Sylvan Music and Buffalo Brothers in California). While these are great spots to look, you have only slightly better than a zero chance of finding something that is an exact fit for you. But they can give you ideas as well. But it is at these elite guitar shows that you will find folks who can solve your problems (for the appropriate fee). Or you can take their ideas and find someone elsewhere who may do it far cheaper. The materials selected or the quality of build does not affect the price as nearly as much as the reputation of the luthier.
I would definitely make plans to attend one of these shows, and spend a couple days or more taking to luthiers and handling instruments. And then you will know if you can have both the comfort you want along with acceptable sound and playability in one instrument.
Dry House Syndrome - What It Can Do to Instruments
by Roland Vinyard, 2010
It's that time of year again. Cold and dry, and neither one is good for fine wooden instruments. In 1978, I bought my first fine instrument, a Martin M38. The care and feeding instructions that came with it warned me of the dangers of extreme temperature changes. That was inconvenient, as I was on a long Fall-Winter-Spring road trip, living out of the back of my truck. The guitar was my companion at night, something to do after dark. But I took extreme care, kept it safely locked tight in its case and when I changed from one temperature to another, meaning indoors to outside, and vice versa, I always let it warm or cool slowly, for an hour or more, inside its case. That worked - somewhat. I did not develop any cracks in the wood, not a one. But Martin did not warn me of the dangers of cold and that took a toll. The entire top was severely crazed by the cold, little mini-cracks in the finish, going in all directions. It hurt me when it came time to part with it 20-some years later; it did not command the price I had hoped for, even though the guitar played and sounded perfect and had no structural or other issues.
After that trip, I have exercised even more care. I bought a beater guitar for those times when I would be unable to care for it properly. Living in the Northeast, there are special precautions that all of us need to exercise. Most of the year, it is humid, humid anyhow as opposed to that which the Southwest experiences. That is good, our instruments do not dry out and they are happy. Come heating season, that is another matter. Heat dries out the house, whether it be electric, oil, gas, or wood. Wood is the worst.
So, naturally, here, we use wood for most of our heat, a simple wood stove in the center of the house. It makes my office icy as that is on a floor below it. But the bedrooms above stay warm enough. Oil backup comes on at 60 degrees. And our whole house stays at 40-42% moisture. How do we do it? First we kept a kettle of water evaporating all the time on the stove. That made no measureable difference and moisture levels would get below 11% for much of the winter. I had to keep everything in cases with humidifiers in the soundholes. Then we put in a whole house humidifier on the furnace. I thought that would do the trick, but there was still no difference. Then we bought a humidifier. It proved noisy and difficult since our mineral levels plugged it up. Still no meaningful difference. Then we added a greenhouse for Janet's orchids. We keep a door between the home and the greenhouse partly open to allow exchange of heat and humidity. The floor was built to absorb moisture and we would pour 10 gallons a day of water on it to keep things in there moist. Now, that definitely helped and it shortened the humidifying season for my instruments. Then she bought a commercial humidifier for the greenhouse. She uses rainwater or melts snow for it to lessen the mineral buildup. That did the trick for the entire house. No more pouring water on the floor. When it goes on, the whole greenhouse turns into an extreme fog. So, the obvious lesson is that orchids are good for guitars; there's a symbiotic relationship, a real but unintended benefit.
What did I do in our pre-orchid days? I kept a humidity meter out and working every day , placing it in the room where I keep my instruments. Without a measurement, you don't know where you are or what you need. It measured only so low, 11%, and for long periods that's what it would read. The house used to get so dry that beams would crack and the panels in doors pulled apart so far you could stick a credit card through them. I did NOT want this to happen to my guitars! In each valuable instrument, I kept a humidifier. I have quite a collection of them, various brands, and have found that they all serve the purpose. I am told you can also make your own, a damp sponge in a baggy or plastic case with many pin holes in it. I have not used these and don't trust them. For one thing, I don't like plastic coming into contact with the finish on my instruments. Once a week, I would go through my corral of guitars and fill each humidifier with distilled water (no minerals to bugger up things). We have minerals in our water which would eventually plug up the humidifiers and make them less effective. This was all a necessary chore. Unless I was playing them, I kept them each one in its case, tightly closed, and stored in a closet, in a warm room.
The result? Not a single crack, not a single craze, and few problems with being out of tune or needing neck adjustment. Every scientific trial needs a control, a base upon which we can make real judgments. My wife's concertina served this purpose. She keeps it downstairs, in its case, but unhumidified. Oh yes, when I'd bug her, she might toss an apple slice in there, but how much water can that hold? She rarely plays it and it's mostly out of sight, out of mind. When she pulled it out after a very long nap, what did she find? You guessed it, cracks in the wood, ones serious enough to justify a fast trip to the luthier, who does not work cheap.
Need more proof? I restored a Yang Chin, removed by sanding an ugly coat of some horrible material and discovered underneath just spectacular wood, which I lacquered. I never strung it up, but would take it out of its case once in a great while to admire the woods. A longer while transpired and when I opened the case, I found something I didn't like. A huge crack, monstrous and gaping in its cover. It must have opened up 3/16". Not a good sign. I removed the cover to look at the instrument itself, yes there was another, almost as big. And another. And another. My fine instrument now a curious wall hanging, it was off to eBay where I received a fraction of what I would have had I sold it a few months earlier.
Though I don't use them, I keep my gallon of distilled water and my collection of humidifiers around - just in case. Maybe she'll get tired of orchids and want to grow cactus.
Terminology by James Goodall, www.goodallguitars.com
...I thought I should make a list of some of the guitar tone terminology I use. Here is a condensed list in alphabetical order ( I added a few superlatives not directly related to anything specific). You can use a dictionary for clarification on some of these: Balanced, bassy, boomy, brilliant, bright, cool, excellent, even, fat, fantastic, focused, full, fundamental, harmonics, incredible, gnarly, loud, lyrical, majestic, midrangey, musical, open, overtones, phenomenal, powerful, rich, responsive, sensational, sensitive, strident, superior, sustain, sweet, trebly, and wonderful....
A Guide to Figure in Woods by Don Savoie www.theadirondackwoodfloorco.com
_
What is figured wood? Wood has always been appreciated for its decorative value. Some wood has particularly lively pattern or figure , due mainly to deviations in wood grain. These distortions in wood grain give rise to the decorative figure found in burls and well-known wood varieties such as curly birch, bird’s eye maple, and quilted maple, among many others.
It is important not to confuse figure with grain. Grain refers to the alignment of the wood elements in relation to the timber's longitudinal axis, the contrast in density and color between early and late wood in Timbers such as Douglas fir is a grain characteristic, Grain is only one of the features that contribute to figure.
Although each piece of wood in unique, there are recognized pattern of figure markings that have become accepted - many of them associated with particular woods such as birds eye figure in maple. The names of these patterns often give a good clue to their appearance.
(Editor's Note: If you have photos of the few missing figure patterns, I would appreciate a copy to publish here.)
What is figured wood? Wood has always been appreciated for its decorative value. Some wood has particularly lively pattern or figure , due mainly to deviations in wood grain. These distortions in wood grain give rise to the decorative figure found in burls and well-known wood varieties such as curly birch, bird’s eye maple, and quilted maple, among many others.
It is important not to confuse figure with grain. Grain refers to the alignment of the wood elements in relation to the timber's longitudinal axis, the contrast in density and color between early and late wood in Timbers such as Douglas fir is a grain characteristic, Grain is only one of the features that contribute to figure.
Although each piece of wood in unique, there are recognized pattern of figure markings that have become accepted - many of them associated with particular woods such as birds eye figure in maple. The names of these patterns often give a good clue to their appearance.
(Editor's Note: If you have photos of the few missing figure patterns, I would appreciate a copy to publish here.)
_
Angel Step -
A staircase like curly figure caused by cutting across the stump or butt sections of a tree, frequently found in walnut, ash and maple.
Angel Step -
A staircase like curly figure caused by cutting across the stump or butt sections of a tree, frequently found in walnut, ash and maple.
_
Bee's Wing -
A small scale, very tight mottle figure found in East Indian satinwood, mahogany, narra, bubinga,and some eucalyptis. Black Mottle is similar, but larger in scale.
Bee's Wing -
A small scale, very tight mottle figure found in East Indian satinwood, mahogany, narra, bubinga,and some eucalyptis. Black Mottle is similar, but larger in scale.
_
Bird's Eye -
A pattern of small, rounded, lustrous spots found almost exclusively in hard maple.
Bird's Eye -
A pattern of small, rounded, lustrous spots found almost exclusively in hard maple.
_
Blister -
A figure resembling clouds, or on occasion bubble-like forms; the surface looks blistered, even when perfectly smooth. An uneven contour in the growth rings can create this effect when a log is rotary - or half round cut for veneer. It is similar to pommele but with sparser, larger figure,
Blister -
A figure resembling clouds, or on occasion bubble-like forms; the surface looks blistered, even when perfectly smooth. An uneven contour in the growth rings can create this effect when a log is rotary - or half round cut for veneer. It is similar to pommele but with sparser, larger figure,
_
Burr (Burl) -
A wart like, deformed growth, normally on the root or trunk, but sometimes on the branches. These usually form as the result of some injury to or infection under the bark, or an unformed bud that does not grow properly. As the tree grows, the burrs can grow with it, causing the surrounding growth wood to be twisted or wavy which results in a very beautiful figure. Burr figure is often found in European elm, ash, poplar, California redwood and walnut amongst others.
Burr (Burl) -
A wart like, deformed growth, normally on the root or trunk, but sometimes on the branches. These usually form as the result of some injury to or infection under the bark, or an unformed bud that does not grow properly. As the tree grows, the burrs can grow with it, causing the surrounding growth wood to be twisted or wavy which results in a very beautiful figure. Burr figure is often found in European elm, ash, poplar, California redwood and walnut amongst others.
_
Button -
A pattern of buttons or flakes against a straight-grained background, revealed when wood with large medullary rays in quarter sawn to expose the hard shiny rays. Found particularly in American sycamore, white oak, and lacewood.
Button -
A pattern of buttons or flakes against a straight-grained background, revealed when wood with large medullary rays in quarter sawn to expose the hard shiny rays. Found particularly in American sycamore, white oak, and lacewood.
_
Cat's Paw -
A variety of pippy or burr wood which looks as though a cat has walked over it and left footprints, found particularly in oak and cherry
Cat's Paw -
A variety of pippy or burr wood which looks as though a cat has walked over it and left footprints, found particularly in oak and cherry
_
Crossfire -
Any marking that goes across the grain in a rolling curl, such as fiddleback and mottle. It can look very spectacular.
Crossfire -
Any marking that goes across the grain in a rolling curl, such as fiddleback and mottle. It can look very spectacular.
_
Curly -
Contortions in grain direction give the appearance of undulating waves as they reflect light differently. Curly figure is particularly common in maple and birch.
Curly -
Contortions in grain direction give the appearance of undulating waves as they reflect light differently. Curly figure is particularly common in maple and birch.
_
Fiddleback -
A form of curly figure exposed by quarter sawing, giving very straight-grain with almost perpendicular curls from edge to edge. The name derives from the use of this figure for the backs of violins.
Fiddleback -
A form of curly figure exposed by quarter sawing, giving very straight-grain with almost perpendicular curls from edge to edge. The name derives from the use of this figure for the backs of violins.
_
Flake, Fleck or Ray Fleck (not to be confused with the better-known Bela Fleck)
A lustrous effect found in lacewood, oak, and sycamore when the wood is cut parallel to the medullary rays, thus exposing some parts of the rays.
Flake, Fleck or Ray Fleck (not to be confused with the better-known Bela Fleck)
A lustrous effect found in lacewood, oak, and sycamore when the wood is cut parallel to the medullary rays, thus exposing some parts of the rays.
_
Flower Grain -
A diagonal ripple pattern, occurring in small, irregular patches.
Flower Grain -
A diagonal ripple pattern, occurring in small, irregular patches.
_
Mottle -
Another type of cross grain figure, where spiral interlocked grain combines with wavy grain to give a blotchy, wrinkled effect. The pattern can be random, or in something of a chessboard form and a smaller form known as bee's wing.
Mottle -
Another type of cross grain figure, where spiral interlocked grain combines with wavy grain to give a blotchy, wrinkled effect. The pattern can be random, or in something of a chessboard form and a smaller form known as bee's wing.
_Peanut Shell -
Some woods that are susceptible to quilted or blister figure can be rotary cut to produce a peanut figure which has some similarity to a quilted or pommele figure. The wood surface appears bumpy and pitted even when flat. Peanut-shell figure is found particularly in Japanese ash but can occur in other woods.
Some woods that are susceptible to quilted or blister figure can be rotary cut to produce a peanut figure which has some similarity to a quilted or pommele figure. The wood surface appears bumpy and pitted even when flat. Peanut-shell figure is found particularly in Japanese ash but can occur in other woods.
_
Pippy -
A random scattering of numerous little spots; typical in yew and sessile oak
Pippy -
A random scattering of numerous little spots; typical in yew and sessile oak
_
Pommele -
A pattern of small circles or ovals that sometimes overlap each other, it has been likened to a puddle surface during light rain. Resembling a finer form of blister figure, it is common in some African woods.
Pommele -
A pattern of small circles or ovals that sometimes overlap each other, it has been likened to a puddle surface during light rain. Resembling a finer form of blister figure, it is common in some African woods.
_
Quilted -
A pillow like, three dimensional effect caused when an uneven or wavy interlocking pattern forming a bumpy surface on the log, it is rotary or half round cut. It is the larger more emphatic form of pommele or blister figure.
Quilted -
A pillow like, three dimensional effect caused when an uneven or wavy interlocking pattern forming a bumpy surface on the log, it is rotary or half round cut. It is the larger more emphatic form of pommele or blister figure.
_
Ribbon Stripe -
An effect resembling a slightly twisted ribbon, found in quarter sawn mahogany and sapele
Ribbon Stripe -
An effect resembling a slightly twisted ribbon, found in quarter sawn mahogany and sapele
Ripple -
Any figure with a ripple- like appearance, such as fiddleback.
_
_
Roe or Roey Figure -
Short, broken stripe or ribbon figure in certain quarter sawn hardwoods, arising from interlocking grain.
Roe or Roey Figure -
Short, broken stripe or ribbon figure in certain quarter sawn hardwoods, arising from interlocking grain.
_
Roll -
A pattern of large rolls or twists that can run diagonally - if book matched, the resulting pattern is known as Herringbone.
Roll -
A pattern of large rolls or twists that can run diagonally - if book matched, the resulting pattern is known as Herringbone.
_
Swirl -
A gentler type of crotch figure, where the grain swirls, meanders and sometimes appear to fold in on itself - common in cherry, mahogany, maple and walnut.
Swirl -
A gentler type of crotch figure, where the grain swirls, meanders and sometimes appear to fold in on itself - common in cherry, mahogany, maple and walnut.
What is the Function of the Back & Sides? Trevor Gore & Alan Carruth
(These are quotes from the Acoustic Guitar Forum pages in response to this question: What are the back and sides actually doing ... are they moving? The sides move? Only the back? Is the back nothing more than a deflector of the moving air from the sound board?)
Trevor Gore:
The last time I gave a detailed response to that question it took me 150 pages (no kidding). It's that complicated. So what's here misses A LOT out.
First, your going in assumption about how the top works is not very accurate. As the strings vibrate they exert varying forces on the bridge which sends bending waves across the top somewhat like waves across a pool of water. As the waves hit the edges of the top they mostly reflect back into the top with some transmission down the sides depending on the impedance mismatch between the top and sides. At certain frequencies the waves interact, producing standing waves in the top which can be visualized using Chladni patterns. Because these are standing waves (i.e. they appear not to translate) the guitar top appears to be pumping up and down at these frequencies and the Chladni patterns show different sets of standing waves forming at different frequencies and these different forms are called modes of vibration. These modes are active not only at their resonant frequencies, but either side of them also, just not as efficiently, and the summation of all this standing wave activity is responsible for varying degrees of sound radiation at the different frequencies and consequently the peaks and troughs in a guitar's frequency response curve. The peaks are at the resonant frequencies (which I hope is sort of obvious).
The top is coupled to the air cavity, the sides and the back and when that coupling takes place things get pretty complex pretty quick, so this is the simplified, short version of the story.
The top excites the air inside the guitar as various parts of the top pump in and out. For the monopole modes of vibration (the top basically acting as a single piston) the enclosed air increases and decreases in pressure with top movement and at certain frequencies (approximately half the natural frequency of the top) the air cavity resonates (like a bottle does if you blow across its top) and air moves in and out of the sound hole, but mainly only at frequencies relatively close to the resonant frequencies (and a little at its first partial). These are the only frequencies of sound in the low range that escape substantially from the sound hole. For other frequencies to escape, a sound wave has to develop inside the guitar, and (apart from the sound associated with the air resonances) the lowest frequency of sound that can be established and therefore escape has a half wavelength about the same as the depth of the guitar. This occurs at ~1.5kHz and if you do enough testing (I have) you can measure this. So the concept of radiating and reflective backs is of little use; they all reflect above ~1.5kHz and none do below that frequency.
For guitars with relatively flexible backs (I call them "live" backs), the pressure change in the guitar will cause the back to vibrate (not the whole story, but this is the abridged version). This colours the sound of the guitar, but because energy is being extracted from the top to make the back move the guitar looses some loudness. Having the top and back flexible also reduces the resonant frequency of the air modes, because they make the "box" appear larger (similar in effect to having a longer organ pipe). The vibrations of the back are additive to those of the top, but much above ~250Hz are out of phase with the top and so reduce sound radiation. Guitars with stiff backs don't vibrate as much, (hardly at all), appear stiffer in the coupled system and so result in higher air resonant frequencies than flexible backs, but also produce louder guitars. Very simplistically, live backs give "tone" whilst non-live back give "volume".
The sides do a lot more to tone than most people think, but it is mainly the mass of the sides which changes things rather than their stiffness. Here the story gets really complicated, but the net result is that heavy sides tend to give greater loudness and projection and lower the main monopole resonant frequency of the top. Varying the mass of the sides is a great way to tweak the sound of a guitar. There's a lot of physics behind these explanations and they hold up to testing, measurement, mathematical modelling and guitar building experience. If you want the details, Google my name and look up the references.
Alan Carruth:
In the low range guitars are 'bass reflex cabinets', but by speaker standards they are not very good ones. The main drawback is that the response is far from being 'flat': they're "lousy-fi" speakers. You can check this out by clipping the coil from a speaker to the bridge of a guitar, and driving it with the signal from a radio or some such. People talking tend to sound like they're under water. OTOH, guitars tend to be much more efficient than most bass reflex cabs. There are reasons for all of this.
The differences between 'good' bass reflex cabs and guitars are due to two things in general:
1) speaker cabinets are heavy and rigid, and guitars are not, and
2) speaker cabinets are made with as few resonances as possible, and those are highly damped, while guitars are the opposite.
The reason for these differences is that speakers are supposed to have a 'flat' frequency response, while guitars are not. The idea with a speaker cabinet is that what you hear is exactly the same as the signal you put in, as close as possible. A guitar that sounded like that would be boring: like a Les Paul played at low level through a really 'clean' flat amp and speaker. All you'd be hearing is the string sound.
One way to build in some resonances in an enclosure is to make an odd shape, with lots of curves. From what I have seen the shape of the guitar is a big part of the reason it sounds like a guitar, and not, say, a six-string Bouzouki. It's interesting that simpler shapes catch on from time to time, but they always end up being fads that don't last: there has to be a reason for that. So that's one of the jobs the sides do: they define the shape. To do that they need to be reasonably rigid, so that the internal resonances are pretty well defined and easy to maintain, but a little flexibility can actually contribute to the 'interesting' sound. The nearly flat section of the sides just below the waist can vibrate, usually at a fairly high frequency, and color the sound.
If you compare the guitar to a bass reflex speaker enclosure, the top is the 'speaker' and the rest is the 'enclosure'. The top is the only part of the guitar that's driven directly by the stings that's also a reasonably effective sound producer. Everything else, and the back in particular, has to get energy via the top in some way if it's to produce sound. There are two ways the top can drive the back:
1) through pressure changes in the box, and
2) through forces transmitted by the sides.
Both the pressure changes in the box and the forces on the sides are highest in the bass reflex range, when the top is moving in and out like a speaker cone. The back responds to these changes, and can move like a speaker itself. Note that the force on the back from air pressure changes and the force from the sides is out of phase: the air pushes on the center of the back (mostly) while the sides push on the edge. If they're both pushing in the same direction the back just moves in translation, rather than pumping air.
Near the 'main air' resonance the movement of air through the hole is 'out of phase' with the top motion: the air moves 'out' while the top moves 'in'. Some of the air just slides over to where the top was, and this reduces the amount of sound the guitar produces. If the back is 'active' in this range, and is mostly driven by the air pressure change in the box, it can help move air through the hole, and enhance the output of the guitar. This is usually the case with most 'normal' guitars; Ovations have backs that don't move enough in this range to help, and it's one of the reasons they sound the way they do.
As you get above the bass reflex frequency range (say, from about the open G string up) the back tends to be a 'loser': any energy that you feed into it is less likely to make sound than the same amount of energy fed into the top, so back resonances usually show up as 'dips' in the response curve. This is not all bad. Like the internal air resonances (which also tend to be 'losers' because most of them don't 'talk' to the sound hole) the higher back resonances contribute to 'tone color'. Those dips in the spectrum make some overtones of the strings weaker than others, giving each note it's own sound. Since our senses are set up to detect differences, this gives us something to home in on.
The trick here is to make sure there are enough of these dips so that every note 'sees' one or more that are different from the other notes around it. For this to happen the dips need to be narrow, and that correlates with low losses in the back. You don't want them to be too deep: we don't have a lot of power to spare, and wasting any more than the amount that will just be audible is a waste. Since damping is a function of movement you want the back to move some, but not too much, and that's best done by making the back both heavy and stiff. Rosewoods are materials that are dense, stiff, and have low losses, and that's one reason they make good guitar backs.
I hope this has not been too confusing. As you can see, the guitar is actually a pretty complicated machine, and it's tricky to get just the right balance. As with the shape, a lot of it has been worked out empirically over a long period of time by people who tried anything they could think of. Once in a while, when something worked, everybody else adopted it, and it became part of the 'standard'. Now that we have better tools for looking at this stuff we're starting to figure out why the standard designs work the way they do.
Grain Orientation Dana Bourgeois
“Quartersawn” is a term mistakenly used to describe guitar tops—which are actually riftsawn. Imagine the round end of a log. To quartersaw, first split the log into equal quarters. From each quarter cut parallel boards. A riftsawn board is sawn from the center to an edge, rotating the log around its center to produce radially oriented boards. On the end of a riftsawn board, annular growth rings run perpendicular to its face; on the face, annular rings appear as straight lines running parallel to the long edge.
Spruce, cedar, and redwood guitar tops are riftsawn, with the familiar annular grain pattern running parallel to the strings and the perpendicular end grain visible on the edge of the soundhole. On the face, cross-grain, medullary rays, or “silk,” run perpendicular to the annular rings, though only when the top is perfectly oriented relative to the radius of the log. Backs and sides are usually either quartersawn or flatsawn, but rarely riftsawn.
Again, imagining the end of our log, a flatsawn (sometimes called plainsawn) board is cut from edge to edge without passing through the center. The face of a flatsawn board appears quartersawn on both edges. Grain in the middle, or heart, of the face might be wider than at the edge, or it may travel in strange directions; sometimes, it appears as a series of nested arches. Unless carefully cured, flatsawn boards are prone to cracking through the heart.
Differences between riftsawn, quartersawn, and flatsawn wood can be significant. Stiffness to- weight ratio, highest when boards are perfectly riftsawn, drops noticeably when a top is cut even slightly different. Velocity of sound— the ability to vibrate efficiently—corresponds closely with stiffness-to-weight ratio.
Still, it’s important to keep in mind that different logs have varying stiffnesses and corresponding sound velocities. A perfectly riftsawn top may be less stiff than a not-so-perfectly sawn top from a different log. I recently ran into a prewar D-28 that had nearly a 45-degree (vs. 90-degree) grain on the edge of the soundhole— a top that most contemporary luthiers would reject on sight alone. The D-28 had a classic mid-’30s voice, illustrating that grain orientation doesn’t always trump all other factors.
In some higher-density woods, grain orientation has less effect on velocity of sound. Flatsawn Brazilian rosewood may well have greater velocity of sound than riftsawn or quartersawn examples of softer woods such as mahogany, walnut, or maple. Some luthiers, including my violinmaker friend Jonathan Cooper, actually prefer flatsawn backs for the particular way they color sound—again suggesting that ingredients are only important in the context of a recipe.
Happily, there are many ways to season the stew. My recommendation to players is to let the luthiers worry about how wood gets sawn and to select a guitar for its sound, rather than by orientation of grain.
“Quartersawn” is a term mistakenly used to describe guitar tops—which are actually riftsawn. Imagine the round end of a log. To quartersaw, first split the log into equal quarters. From each quarter cut parallel boards. A riftsawn board is sawn from the center to an edge, rotating the log around its center to produce radially oriented boards. On the end of a riftsawn board, annular growth rings run perpendicular to its face; on the face, annular rings appear as straight lines running parallel to the long edge.
Spruce, cedar, and redwood guitar tops are riftsawn, with the familiar annular grain pattern running parallel to the strings and the perpendicular end grain visible on the edge of the soundhole. On the face, cross-grain, medullary rays, or “silk,” run perpendicular to the annular rings, though only when the top is perfectly oriented relative to the radius of the log. Backs and sides are usually either quartersawn or flatsawn, but rarely riftsawn.
Again, imagining the end of our log, a flatsawn (sometimes called plainsawn) board is cut from edge to edge without passing through the center. The face of a flatsawn board appears quartersawn on both edges. Grain in the middle, or heart, of the face might be wider than at the edge, or it may travel in strange directions; sometimes, it appears as a series of nested arches. Unless carefully cured, flatsawn boards are prone to cracking through the heart.
Differences between riftsawn, quartersawn, and flatsawn wood can be significant. Stiffness to- weight ratio, highest when boards are perfectly riftsawn, drops noticeably when a top is cut even slightly different. Velocity of sound— the ability to vibrate efficiently—corresponds closely with stiffness-to-weight ratio.
Still, it’s important to keep in mind that different logs have varying stiffnesses and corresponding sound velocities. A perfectly riftsawn top may be less stiff than a not-so-perfectly sawn top from a different log. I recently ran into a prewar D-28 that had nearly a 45-degree (vs. 90-degree) grain on the edge of the soundhole— a top that most contemporary luthiers would reject on sight alone. The D-28 had a classic mid-’30s voice, illustrating that grain orientation doesn’t always trump all other factors.
In some higher-density woods, grain orientation has less effect on velocity of sound. Flatsawn Brazilian rosewood may well have greater velocity of sound than riftsawn or quartersawn examples of softer woods such as mahogany, walnut, or maple. Some luthiers, including my violinmaker friend Jonathan Cooper, actually prefer flatsawn backs for the particular way they color sound—again suggesting that ingredients are only important in the context of a recipe.
Happily, there are many ways to season the stew. My recommendation to players is to let the luthiers worry about how wood gets sawn and to select a guitar for its sound, rather than by orientation of grain.