I would like to start a discussion on what you think makes your acoustic guitar sound so good - FRETS.NET2024-03-29T14:28:27Zhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/forum/topics/i-would-like-to-start-a-discussion-on-what-you-think-makes-your?commentId=2177249%3AComment%3A106084&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks Steve, I am delighted…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-21:2177249:Comment:1060862013-03-21T20:57:35.930ZJeff Highlandhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/JeffHighland
<p>Thanks Steve, I am delighted with the guitar and very happy to have Jamie around</p>
<p>This one was built with Falcate braces (curved with CF above and below) live back, and uses a lightweight bridge of Koa with CF.</p>
<p>Thanks Steve, I am delighted with the guitar and very happy to have Jamie around</p>
<p>This one was built with Falcate braces (curved with CF above and below) live back, and uses a lightweight bridge of Koa with CF.</p> The Gore method uses a simple…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-21:2177249:Comment:1060842013-03-21T20:53:44.696ZJeff Highlandhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/JeffHighland
<p>The Gore method uses a simple form of tap testing on raw materials recorded into Visual Analyser which enables you to determine material properties and make decisions on plate thickness etc</p>
<p>It also uses analysis of tapping at the bridge on the completed guitar for fine tuning of the resonant modes. VA gives you a graph of the response which shows the resonant peaks</p>
<p>NOT to be confused with other tap tuning methods.</p>
<p>The Gore method uses a simple form of tap testing on raw materials recorded into Visual Analyser which enables you to determine material properties and make decisions on plate thickness etc</p>
<p>It also uses analysis of tapping at the bridge on the completed guitar for fine tuning of the resonant modes. VA gives you a graph of the response which shows the resonant peaks</p>
<p>NOT to be confused with other tap tuning methods.</p> Really nice guitar Jeff. Nice…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-21:2177249:Comment:1059872013-03-21T20:36:13.346ZSteve Williamshttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/SteveWilliams53
<p>Really nice guitar Jeff. Nice technique Jamie has too. </p>
<p>Really nice guitar Jeff. Nice technique Jamie has too. </p> I would just to thank all you…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-21:2177249:Comment:1058872013-03-21T18:14:56.719ZWilliam F.Edenhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/WilliamFEden
<p>I would just to thank all you fine people for all your interest in the subject of building a fine Instrument Bill............</p>
<p>I would just to thank all you fine people for all your interest in the subject of building a fine Instrument Bill............</p> I have offten wunderd if ther…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-20:2177249:Comment:1055572013-03-20T14:26:52.953ZWilliam F.Edenhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/WilliamFEden
<p>I have offten wunderd if there wasn't some sort of way you could test say a brace or a top or any part of the Guitar for that matter. A nd get a graft of the sound like they do with so many other things , Bill............. </p>
<p>I have offten wunderd if there wasn't some sort of way you could test say a brace or a top or any part of the Guitar for that matter. A nd get a graft of the sound like they do with so many other things , Bill............. </p> Like Mark McLean above, I hav…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-20:2177249:Comment:1056472013-03-20T02:37:17.827ZJeff Highlandhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/JeffHighland
<p>Like Mark McLean above, I have been incorporating Trevor Gore's principles and methods into my latest builds.</p>
<p>Modal tuning, Falcate bracing, heavy sides, live back, material testing etc.</p>
<p>I am finding it really makes a difference.</p>
<p>The last steel string guitar I built (on my classical body shape) is a huge sounding little guitar.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MU_j5lGyA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MU_j5lGyA</a></p>
<p>Like Mark McLean above, I have been incorporating Trevor Gore's principles and methods into my latest builds.</p>
<p>Modal tuning, Falcate bracing, heavy sides, live back, material testing etc.</p>
<p>I am finding it really makes a difference.</p>
<p>The last steel string guitar I built (on my classical body shape) is a huge sounding little guitar.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MU_j5lGyA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MU_j5lGyA</a></p> First of all... the info and…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-19:2177249:Comment:1056352013-03-19T22:52:54.676ZPaul Verticchiohttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/PaulVerticchio
<p>First of all... the info and personal perspectives from all the posters have been not only interesting but rooted in real world facts and experience. Good & interesting stuff guys :)</p>
<p>As I’ve mentioned before, I am not a builder...just a tech. I view dedicated builders as deserving of the most prestigious thrones on Olympus. If I built an acoustic, I’m pretty sure it would sound a lot like a cinder block with a neck & strings attached.</p>
<p>My comments are based solely upon…</p>
<p>First of all... the info and personal perspectives from all the posters have been not only interesting but rooted in real world facts and experience. Good & interesting stuff guys :)</p>
<p>As I’ve mentioned before, I am not a builder...just a tech. I view dedicated builders as deserving of the most prestigious thrones on Olympus. If I built an acoustic, I’m pretty sure it would sound a lot like a cinder block with a neck & strings attached.</p>
<p>My comments are based solely upon my experience as a player. For the sake of context, I flatpick with an admittedly medium to heavy touch. My finger style is much more refined and dynamic.</p>
<p>Important aspects to me are:</p>
<p>Playability: Not necessarily the ‘lowest action possible’ but an action that allows the player’s personal technique to integrate with and maximize the response of the instrument. My personal acoustic instruments have a medium action that some players consider “excessively high”. I guess they never played a Bluegrasser’s pre-war D-18, eh? I espouse the notion that the higher the action can be set on an acoustic [without affecting playability or intonation], the better the tone.</p>
<p>Also, neck shape & feel are my personal “deal makers & deal breakers”. I think you all understand that one without further explanation needed.</p>
<p>Structural integrity: ‘nuff said.</p>
<p>The ‘comfort’ factor: size, shape, balance and scale length so the instrument melds into the player.</p>
<p>Tonal balance: I am not a personal fan of a Dreadnaught’s ‘boom’. For me, all frequencies should combine to produce a homogenous range of fundamental tones. I am also a sucker for instruments with what I call “overtones (harmonics) that dance in front of you”. These overtones add “high definition” sparkle and ambient depth. For me, overtones are the most important aspect of a quality acoustic guitar.</p>
<p>Fresh strings: not new strings, but ones that have a couple hours of playing time on them. Y’know..ones that have had the ‘exaggerated high frequency zinginess’ played out of them.</p>
<p>Although this may be OT: There’s also a significant environmental factor that few consider when discussing sound -- the room in which the instrument is played. I have played brilliantly designed & built guitars in rooms with “good’ acoustics” and they sounded like the wooden wonders they are. I have played those same instruments in rooms with “lousy acoustics” and they sound like a $59 beginner’s pack special. It is an important interactive factor.</p>
<p>As many of you know, I am NOT ‘brand loyal’. With that in mind, the only other thing I’d like to add is...I find examples of great sounding and playing instruments in ALL price ranges. The same can be said about “stinkers”. I also truly believe that, thanks to the builders on this forum & elsewhere, we are in a new “Golden Age” of acoustic instrument building & design. I think the best is yet to come.</p>
<p>So, in closing, I offer a collective “thanks sooooo much” to all builders for designing and building instruments which allow me to enjoy one of my life’s GREATEST pleasures.</p> One of my players is a 12th f…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-19:2177249:Comment:1058282013-03-19T20:00:12.722ZNed Knepphttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/NedKnepp
<p>One of my players is a 12th fret, forward X with scalloped braces. In all honestly, it not my favorite but it's a very close second. My Favorite is much lighter in build with an semi-scalloped X brace in the standard position. I like both guitars for different things. Both have a lot of volume and wonderful tone but the light one is much louder without killing tone. I usually run light to extra light gauges of strings and both are plenty loud without moving to heavier strings. I like the…</p>
<p>One of my players is a 12th fret, forward X with scalloped braces. In all honestly, it not my favorite but it's a very close second. My Favorite is much lighter in build with an semi-scalloped X brace in the standard position. I like both guitars for different things. Both have a lot of volume and wonderful tone but the light one is much louder without killing tone. I usually run light to extra light gauges of strings and both are plenty loud without moving to heavier strings. I like the first for fingerstyle playing with some flat pick and do the opposite with the second. What I have found is that the lighter guitar affords me a wider range of style than the heaver guitar. It responds very well to a light touch but can also be pushed harder than the other with a pick. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Over the years, I've grown pretty fond of the X forward/short scale format. I like the feel of these even if the neck sometimes gets a bit short. While I haven't tried one, I'm fairly convinced that this would be a very good combo for a smaller bodied guitar ( both of the guitars I mentioned here are dreds.) If I EVER get around to actually building a guitar from scratch, rather than spending my time fiddling around with broken bits, I think this is the format I would like to try. A couple of years ago, we had a thread or two about 13th fret model guitars. Paul H. has great information about them on his site. This might be a good trade off on the neck "space" issue. </p>
<p></p>
<p>It seems a bit cliche on this forum but my experience has been that great building technique will usually win out over great materials. Usually a guitar made with good building technique will be a superior guitar regardless of the materials used. I have guitars with rosewood, mahogany, maple and Mystery wood bodies. Some are plywood and some are hardwood. I like most of them for different reasons but I do realize that different materials impart different characteristics. I have to wonder just how many players can really hear the difference. I know that most of my friends, admittedly casual players, can't hear the difference between my two best guitars, one rosewood and the other mahogany. They haven't been as exposed to many different guitars as I have and don't come primed with the knowledge of construction and materials I have so maybe it's only to be expected. It does make me think about how much marketing dictates what people "like" and that this is why martin can sell plastic/pressed paper guitars as well as some amazing solid wood guitars. </p> There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-19:2177249:Comment:1055292013-03-19T19:46:40.015ZMark McLeanhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/MarkMcLean
<p>There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo spoken about guitar sound - because it is a very subjective phenomenon if the only instrument that you use to evaluate it is your ears. Fortunately there are now some ways to actually measure what is going on acoustically in a guitar that you really love, or in one that you hate, so that you can then try to build to that acoustic specification. I have recently been dipping a toe into this by reading the brilliant explanations Trevor Gore and Gerard Gilet's…</p>
<p>There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo spoken about guitar sound - because it is a very subjective phenomenon if the only instrument that you use to evaluate it is your ears. Fortunately there are now some ways to actually measure what is going on acoustically in a guitar that you really love, or in one that you hate, so that you can then try to build to that acoustic specification. I have recently been dipping a toe into this by reading the brilliant explanations Trevor Gore and Gerard Gilet's book (Contemporary Acoustic Guitar Design and Build). Trevor has an engineering background and he has completely demystified the assessment of guitar sound by applying some science and reproducable measurement. It is true that you need to come to grips with some theory and equations here - and there are slabs of Volume 1 of the book (the design volume) which look like a physics text. However, in practice you can get past the theory and use some fairly simple tools and free software to analyze the acoustic properties of assembled instruments or free plates during the construction of an instrument. I went to a weekend course with Trevor (it helps that we live on the same continent, and in fact in the same city) which made the whole thing make sense and seem usable to this non-tech-head amateur luthier. If you are interested in reading a bit more there is a whole section of the ANZLF devoted to discussion of these theories from down-under. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Of course, most guitar building factories do not build a guitar to a sound specification. If you are doing a tour of the Taylor or Martin factory, ask them where the plate tuning department is, or the brace optimization section? Of course, they have to run their production according to a dimensional specification, not a sound specification. With CNC machines thay can be very precise at making every 000-28 or 714-CE have precisely the same thichness top, and brace dimensions, and so on. But every piece of wood is different. Have you ever stood in a tone wood supplier and held 20 sitka soundboards in your hands one after another and felt the variation in their weight and stiffness? There is a lot of variation - so when they get turned into 20 guitars with exactly the same dimensional specifications they won't sound the same. Some might be great, but many won't. </p> Well Mark the reason for me s…tag:fretsnet.ning.com,2013-03-19:2177249:Comment:1058242013-03-19T14:15:41.712ZWilliam F.Edenhttps://fretsnet.ning.com/profile/WilliamFEden
<p>Well Mark the reason for me starting this topic is to give some one just thinking about starting to build some idea what they mite start of with. There are a few things I would still like to give a try but my age just seems to be getting in the way if you know what i meen. Thanks for your help Bill...........</p>
<p>Well Mark the reason for me starting this topic is to give some one just thinking about starting to build some idea what they mite start of with. There are a few things I would still like to give a try but my age just seems to be getting in the way if you know what i meen. Thanks for your help Bill...........</p>