Tried a couple of all mahogany guitars

[Tom from Texas]

Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston. Tried out a Guild M120. It played well but had a brighter tone than I expected. Might mellow out with a lot of playing. The finish was very shiny and I think a matt finish would suit it better. While I was there, the sage of Fuller's came into the room and pulled down a Martin 000-15 for me to play. It was a much better guitar with a more mellow and deeper tone. He said it was a 24.9" scale but I thought Martin listed them as 25.4"(?). I compared the scale lengths between the two and the Martin did seem to have a shorter than standard length.

I tried to work a trade/cash deal on the Martin for a Bulldog mandolin I had with me. Almost pulled the trigger and may still do it later. Need to try some more Guild M120 and M20 models first.

Tom from (GAS) Texas

[gtr]

On 2012-08-27 15:26:39 +0000, Tom from Texas said:

> Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston. Tried out
> a Guild M120. It played well but had a brighter tone than I expected.
> Might mellow out with a lot of playing.

A guitar-guy told me that a mahogony guitar will never mellow out.
Just one man's view.

[Tony Done]

On 28/08/2012 1:26 AM, Tom from Texas wrote:

> Tom from (GAS) Texas
>

If you get the chance try a 00-15. I tried one side by side with a
000-15 many years ago and preferred the 0015. Liked the 00-17 even more,
but not easy to find.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[Mouldytone]

Martin advertises their 15 (& 16) series 000 models as having 25.4"
scale lengths where as the 000-18 and up (numerically speaking) models
have the 24.9" scale length (for reasons that I don't understand). Of
course there's a possibility that the 000-15 you played was a custom
order perhaps? Ultimately if it feels right it is right tho? Trying
more of the Guilds is a good idea but I agree with Tony D, if you
liked the 000-15 I recon you should at least give a 00-15 a go. Have
fun with your search.
Tony Moulder

[Carl]

Hmmm, something to think about. Since, to my best knowledge, most of the
"tone" of a guitar comes from its top, and in turn its top bracing, I have
to wonder how much validity that opinion holds.

[gtr]

His argument was that mahogony is such a dense wood that it's ability
to vibrate will always be less than the traditional woods used in
soundboards: There's a reason these woods have traditionally been
selected for resonance--their inherent ability to resonate. He also
asserted his "theory" (his word, not mine) that what allowed wood to
morph over time ("mellow") was the way the wood stored moisture, and
that the more dense the wood the less moisture, the greater the density
and the more limited its ability to change over time: to be endlessly
vibrated into a "looser" material.

He convinced me in the abstract.

Addendum: He later posited that mahogony might work if it was cut thin
enough, but he asserted that if you cut it thin enough for it to have
the requisite pliability for a good soundboard, it would be to
vulnerable to cracks--serious "broken" type cracks.

Here, his theory ends. I had seen a mahogany-topped acoustic/electric
which looked somewhat like the Gibson Howard Roberts--it had a round
sound hole, but was also equpped with a humbucker. I thought it might
be the best of both worlds: I could play it electrically and have it
really sound like an electric as opposed to an amplified acoustic, but
I could also play it acoustically in my living room. But frankly it had
no acoustic projection at all, was light, bright, and had zero aural
personality. I have a Gibson ES175 archtop with a pressed-wood top
that has vastly more projection or personality.

So I asked the guy about it and the above was his frothing assessment.

[Carl]

Ah, who knows. Maybe he's right. Maybe not. There are a lot of guitar
theories out there and much of it is what I call "guitar mythology" thougn
some of it has substance.

At this point, I will qualify that I thought you were talking about mahogany
back and sided guitars, not ALL-mahogany guitars, thus the nature of my
reply.

Now that I'm clearer on that, I'll say two more things regarding your post.

The first is that my son started with an all-mahogany Martin. I always
thought that guitar sounded pretty darn good. I don't know if it will
"mellow" in 50 years, and I guess I won't be around to know either. But it
started its life on the right foot.

The second is that I have an all-original 1967 Epi Howard Roberts. I think
it's a great guitar. It has, of course, mahogany sides and back, but a solid
carved spruce top, and a floating Johnny Smith p/u. It, however, doesn't
project well as, say, a flattop acoustic guitar either. I think that has
more to do with the overall design purpose of the guitar; the thickness of
the top and the way it was braced. On the other hand, I have an Erich
Solomon Phidelity, also a mahogany back/sided guitar with a red spruce top.
It too is an archtop, but it projects much more like a good acoustic
flattop. He designed it to be an acoustic guitar. Mine happens to have a KA
p/u on it, but its original design was as an acoustic archtop. You'd have to
ask him what his technique is for getting to that point.

These are guitar-mystery questions that we have been asking for decades and
may never find the answers to! :-)

[gtr]

Okay; theories, mythology, cockamamie pipe-dream or science. Let's
call it "bleen" se can can set provenance aside.

> At this point, I will qualify that I thought you were talking about
> mahogany back and sided guitars, not ALL-mahogany guitars, thus the
> nature of my reply.

No, I was just talking about soundboards. I understand a master
luthier in Spain built a guitar with a great soundboard on a body of
paper-maché sides and back and it sounded fantastic. So at least one
"bleen" has it that the sides and back are not contributing factors in
the overall guitar sound.

> The second is that I have an all-original 1967 Epi Howard Roberts. I
> think it's a great guitar. It has, of course, mahogany sides and back,
> but a solid carved spruce top, and a floating Johnny Smith p/u. It,
> however, doesn't project well as, say, a flattop acoustic guitar either.

I've played a few and agree, but I thought they were some kind of
layered wood. In any case the lacquer on the one I played seemed thick
as a brick. The top was rigid, and had no projection at all. Very
surprising given it's general structure and a sound hole!

> These are guitar-mystery questions that we have been asking for decades
> and may never find the answers to! :-)

Right. Until then we surmise.

[Tony Done]

Cedar has a similar reputation.

In any event the concept of "mellowing out" worries me, because my quite
respectable new Martin J-40 turned into a dog over a period of about
three years. The experience has discouraged me from buying any
spruce-topped guitar new.

[Tony Done]

> Addendum: He later posited that mahogony might work if it was cut thin
> enough, but he asserted that if you cut it thin enough for it to have
> the requisite pliability for a good soundboard, it would be to
> vulnerable to cracks--serious "broken" type cracks.
>

My kona is all solid sapele (I think, rather than true mahogany), and is
the lightest full-sized guitar I have ever seen. It is loud and bright,
not dissimilar to a good cedar-topped guitar. It isn't showing any signs
of cracking or any other instability.

I think a lot of it comes down to the ability and interests of the
luthier, making the best use of the materials he has.

[David Hajicek]

"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:k1jdku$esa$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Have a good luthier look at it. It could be as simple as the saddle not
fitting properly any more (even contact with bottom, bridge or saddle can
change). I recently changed a poor fitting plastic saddle for a good
fitting bone one and had a huge increase in both loudness and sound quality.
More than I would have thought.

Dave H

[gtr]

On 2012-08-28 21:36:29 +0000, Tony Done said:

>>> Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston. Tried out
>>> a Guild M120. It played well but had a brighter tone than I expected.
>>> Might mellow out with a lot of playing.
>>
>> A guitar-guy told me that a mahogony guitar will never mellow out. Just
>> one man's view.
>>
>
> Cedar has a similar reputation.
>
> In any event the concept of "mellowing out" worries me, because my
> quite respectable new Martin J-40 turned into a dog over a period of
> about three years. The experience has discouraged me from buying any
> spruce-topped guitar new.

I have heard one luthier caution me about a number guitars. His
argument was this: I the store they sound fantastic, because the
soundboard is cut too thin. Once the guitar opens up and "mellows" if
you will, the sound becomes "flabby". His word, not mine. In
explanation he said the soundboard's resonance is too active and gets
in the way of its sound.

Do with that thinking what you will.

I have a spruce-top classical guitar whose sound has only grown better
over the years.

[gtr]

Excellent point! Wherever there is vibration, there is a place for
energy to escape.

[hank alrich]

Sure could have, but who's to say if they didn't hear it for themselves?
Was it strung with steel or nylon?

> So at least one
> "bleen" has it that the sides and back are not contributing factors in
> the overall guitar sound.

McCollum #147 literally quivers all over. I can feel both the back and
sides vibrating. (Braz and Italian). #102 does not. (American walnut and
Italian). Very different sounding instruments.

> > The second is that I have an all-original 1967 Epi Howard Roberts. I
> > think it's a great guitar. It has, of course, mahogany sides and back,
> > but a solid carved spruce top, and a floating Johnny Smith p/u. It,
> > however, doesn't project well as, say, a flattop acoustic guitar either.
>
> I've played a few and agree, but I thought they were some kind of
> layered wood. In any case the lacquer on the one I played seemed thick
> as a brick. The top was rigid, and had no projection at all. Very
> surprising given it's general structure and a sound hole!
>
> > These are guitar-mystery questions that we have been asking for decades
> > and may never find the answers to! :-)
>
> Right. Until then we surmise.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> the concept of "mellowing out" worries me, because my quite
> respectable new Martin J-40 turned into a dog over a period of about
> three years. The experience has discouraged me from buying any
> spruce-topped guitar new.

Yours is the only guitar of which I have heard that has done that. I'm
sure it happens ocassionally, but I wouldn't blame spruce in general.
That sure isn't happening with either of the McCollums I'm beating into
submission.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-28 23:48:47 +0000, hank alrich said:

>> No, I was just talking about soundboards. I understand a master
>> luthier in Spain built a guitar with a great soundboard on a body of
>> paper-maché sides and back and it sounded fantastic.
>
> Sure could have, but who's to say if they didn't hear it for themselves?

There's no arguing that every personal opinion trumps all.

> Was it strung with steel or nylon?

Nylon, bu it's irrelevant since it's all a personal opinion.

>> So at least one
>> "bleen" has it that the sides and back are not contributing factors in
>> the overall guitar sound.
>
> McCollum #147 literally quivers all over. I can feel both the back and
> sides vibrating. (Braz and Italian). #102 does not. (American walnut and
> Italian). Very different sounding instruments.

If you say they are different that's your opinion. The soundboard is
responsible for the sound is my opinion.

[hank alrich]

I can change the sound significantly by letting the back of #147 lie
against my torso, versus placing the instrument away from my body so the
whole thing can resonate.

You may have heard of Tommy Tedesco. He has somewhat of a track record.
If you see picks of him tracking acoustic in sessions, you may note that
he makes sure the body isn't against his considerable girth. He has
stated that it makes a big difference in the recorded sound of his
instrument.l

I play often with Dave Johns, who is an outstanding guitarist. He often
shows folks the difference in resonance with guitar away from torso
contact versus in contact with torso. It isn't subtle on his early '50's
D-28.

I figure that some guitars are heavily enough built that this doesn't
happen. My old J-200 would fit that category.

[David Hajicek]

"gtr" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message news:2012082815312778538-xxx@yyyzzz...

I picked up a good sounding cheap SS guitar for my daughter a number of
years back. It folded up in about a year.

Dave H

[dsi1]

On 8/28/2012 4:34 PM, David Hajicek wrote:
>
> I picked up a good sounding cheap SS guitar for my daughter a number of
> years back. It folded up in about a year.
>
> Dave H

I have a cheap laminated-top guitar that I bought new on eBay for $65.
It's my main guitar and the best deal I ever made. On some hot tropical
nights when it's real quiet, you can sometimes hear a critter, most
likely a termite, chewing on the soft wood braces. That's the creepiest
sound I ever heard. OTOH, I figure it's gonna give me a more responsive
top. :-)

[ple...@nospam.us]

I owned a Guild M20 back in the early 1970s. What a nice little
guitar it was! I ended up selling it in the mid 1970s in order to buy
a Martin 000-28. I'd say it was a good trade, but only because I sold
the 000-28 to get an even better guitar (a Martin HOM-35). I sold
that to get, well, the story is a common one.

I know nothing about the M120 guitars, but I still remember the M20.

Al

[gtr]

On 2012-08-29 01:25:08 +0000, hank alrich said:

>> If you say they are different that's your opinion. The soundboard is
>> responsible for the sound is my opinion.
>
> I can change the sound significantly by letting the back of #147 lie
> against my torso, versus placing the instrument away from my body so the
> whole thing can resonate.

This doesn't invalidate that view that the soundboard is the thing
making the sound. You can shape that sound differently by have no back
or putting your hand over the sound hole. That doesn't mean the
composition of the sides or back lend anything significant to the sound
compared ot other material. Like mahogoney SIDES AND BACK versus
rosewood SIDES AND BACK. (Note emphasis.)

> You may have heard of Tommy Tedesco. He has somewhat of a track record.
> If you see picks of him tracking acoustic in sessions, you may note that
> he makes sure the body isn't against his considerable girth. He has
> stated that it makes a big difference in the recorded sound of his
> instrument.l

So what was the difference he said it maid? Did anybody on the business
end of that sound find a difference? We stated that our opinions are
worth more to us that somebody else's opinion is worth. That was a
critical point in an earlier post. Everybody can make their own
evaluation about EVERYTHING if sound is involved. Just add "not to me,
it don't!" to whatever you like.

> I play often with Dave Johns, who is an outstanding guitarist. He often
> shows folks the difference in resonance with guitar away from torso
> contact versus in contact with torso. It isn't subtle on his early '50's
> D-28.

Repetition fails to bring more validity. It still doesn't address
distinctions in composition. The soundboard provides the resonant
mechanism of the guitar.

> I figure that some guitars are heavily enough built that this doesn't
> happen. My old J-200 would fit that category.

I see.

[hank alrich]

When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
personal experience_. Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to
negate _what I have heard_. That is all. Lance McCollum, who built my
two best guitars, felt that the contribution from back and sides was to
be considered in the choice of woods and the construction of an
instrument.

[Tony Done]

On 29/08/2012 10:44 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> the concept of "mellowing out" worries me, because my quite
>> respectable new Martin J-40 turned into a dog over a period of about
>> three years. The experience has discouraged me from buying any
>> spruce-topped guitar new.
>
> Yours is the only guitar of which I have heard that has done that. I'm
> sure it happens ocassionally, but I wouldn't blame spruce in general.
> That sure isn't happening with either of the McCollums I'm beating into
> submission.
>

And Dave. This all happened about 10 years ago. I don't think it was the
saddle, but I would certainly have tested that idea had it been in the
recent past when my own tinkering skills were better developed. My
suspicion is that it got too dry as we were in the middle years of the
long drought. However,I can't really support that because my basement
music room is cool and relatively humid, and there was no other evidence
of excessive dryness.

I don't blame spruce in general, but it is a question of once bitten
twice shy. In relation to GTR's comment about top thickness and
flabbiness, I more or less agree with his luthier's view. - These days I
avoid open sounding guitars like the plague - I've got used to that
tight typically-Maton sound - they might sound beguiling in the shop,
but I know I would quickly tire of it in the quietness of my home.

[David Hajicek]

"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:k1ke9j$erl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I have a Taylor that gets pretty dead if the humidity gets high enough. I
accidentially exposed it to over 90% RH and I thought it had died
completely. I took it in for a good luthier to look at (warranty repair
guy) and he could find nothing wrong. A couple weeks later, it started
sounding good again. This guitar really likes being dry.

I wouldn't blame Spruce (there are at least 4 kinds of Spruce that are used)
in general. The J-40 is supposed to be Sitka. So unless they either made
the top too thin or something was failing (brace?) I don't see why it would
change dramatically for the worse. I'd have to see the guitar to be able to
say why it turned into a dog.

My experience is that they keep sounding better until the top physically
fails (yes, I've had that happen).

Dave H

[Carl]

Tony Done wrote:
> On 28/08/2012 3:17 AM, gtr wrote:
>> On 2012-08-27 15:26:39 +0000, Tom from Texas said:
>>
>>> Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston. Tried
>>> out a Guild M120. It played well but had a brighter tone than I
>>> expected. Might mellow out with a lot of playing.
>>
>> A guitar-guy told me that a mahogony guitar will never mellow out.
>> Just one man's view.
>>
>
> Cedar has a similar reputation.
>
> In any event the concept of "mellowing out" worries me, because my
> quite respectable new Martin J-40 turned into a dog over a period of
> about three years. The experience has discouraged me from buying any
> spruce-topped guitar new.
>

This is an interesting point TD. There is no guarantee that the "changes" in
the wood of a guitar will always be in a positive direction regarding its
tone. I've never seen that position openly discussed before but it is a
valid one.

[Carl]

I regularly put termites in my acoustic guitars. They scallop those
new-fangled solid braces for me at no extra charge. :-)

[gtr]

On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:

> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
> personal experience_.

In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and
as I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some
years ago.

> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have heard_.

....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what
we've said here, again and again.

[Steve Hawkins]

walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
news:1kpk8zs.bzkwli1n54ay0N%walk...@nv.net:

I second Hank's explanation. The back and sides do contribute, an
exaggerated example would be litening to a speaker in it's enclosure then
taking it out and listening to it unmounted. The soundboard is the
speaker cone.

The B&S material also contributes to the overall sound. Different woods
resonate at different frequencies along with affecting the volume,
sustain and tone. You can hear the difference just by tapping on the
various woods. Walnut sounds like cardboard to me while rosewood rings,
other woods like koa and mahogany add their unique properties to the mix.

The number of variables contributing to the "sound" of an acoustic guitar
are staggering. Even something as trivial as the weight of the tuners
can affect the resonance. And Hank is right, keeping the guitar away
from your body makes a big difference and this is taught to classical
players as part of proper playing technique.

One last thing about Lance, his guitars not only have great tone, they
are loud. I've had many players and luthiers comment on this. I asked
him about it and he said the way he builds the back was a significant
contributor.

Steve Hawkins

[dsi1]

It's my long-term science experiment. My theory is that it's gonna sound
amazing a few seconds before it collapses into pieces.

[Tony Done]

<g> Every time "opening up" comes up I mention it. It may be unusual,
but it happened; it was so bad my music store mate said he wouldn't have
taken it in trade. Norm Draper and I have the same view, buy a guitar on
the sound you like when you hear it, not on some future potential.

It had other problems that may have been related. The top was unstable,
and the fretboard extension used to lift to such an extent that I
couldn't set a low action with the low neck angle it also had. I tried
to get a neck reset under warranty, but the best the importer would
offer was steaming the (prominent) bridge hump down. Anybody's guess
what that would have done to the tone, and it didn't sound like a
permanent fix to me.

[hank alrich]

I walked into Luke's shop, uncased the 000-28 which was strung with JP
medium P-B's. He took one look and started detuning it immediately,
chastising me the whole time. I said, "It sounds great!" He replied,
"Hank a guitar never sounds better than in those last few seconds before
it explodes in your hands". Strung it strictly with lights thereafter.

[dsi1]

My first guitar was an 0-18 and I used Super Slinky strings on that.
What can I say? It was the 60s. These days it's got .012 - .053 strings
which is a light set but it's still a heavy set from what I use to play.
It sounds great but the next set is going to be one size smaller. I am
concerned about termite damage on this Martin. Maybe dropping a mothball
into the soundhole might be a good idea. Old age must be setting in -
I'm getting worried about stuff like that.

[Tony Weber]

opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or
interpretation of facts. It is not the same as observation.

[Carl]

The first vintage amp I ever got was a '68 silver face Princeton. That was
about 12 or so years ago. I knew nothing about vintage amps then.

I used it a little later that week with my band and I turned it up to full
volume to have it cut through the mix. That thing had the most wonderful
tone I had ever heard and I remember saying to myself, "Man, no wonder
people rave about these vintage amps".

The next morning, I was excited to get to it and hear those tones again,
only to turn the amp on, strum a few chords, and have it sound like the
worst thing I had ever heard.

A quick inspection taught me a quick lesson. When I looked at the back, I
could see that I had torn that speaker cone to shreds. It became clear to me
that the night before, the speaker cone had torn just enough to achieve that
nirvana tone, but by the end of the night it had become confetti and was
forever ruined. That speaker had had its 15 minutes of greatness.

I think it was Link Wray who was rumored to have used a pencil to punch
holes in his speaker cone to get that warm fuzz tone.

[Steve Daniels]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:17:41 -0700, against all advice, something
compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:

HUEVOS RANCHEROS

2 ripe tomatoes, quartered
2 tbsp. fresh cilantro or parsley leaves, packed
1 medium red onion, chopped
2 green onions (scallions), chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
a pinch of dried of 1 tbsp. fresh basil
1/2 tsp. sea salt or taco seasoning
1/2 tsp. Tabasco sauce (or to taste)
1/2 cup canned black beans, drained
1 tbsp. apple cider vinegar
6 large eggs
6 tortillas
6 tbsp. shredded cheese blend (Mexican or Italian)

In the bowl of a food processor, chop onion, scallions, and
garlic by pulsing 2-3 times to coarsely chop. Transfer contents
to a serving bowl.

Process the tomatoes and cilantro or parsley, garlic, Tabasco and
basil by pulsing 3-4 times until it resembles chunky salsa.
Transfer to bowl; stir in black beans. Season to taste with sea
salt or taco seasoning (optional).

In a non-stick skillet, bring vinegar to a boil; slide in eggs,
one at a time, being careful not to break the yolk, cooking each
egg for about 90 seconds, or until the white is firm.

Add 1/4 cup salsa to each tortilla and top with an egg. Top with
shredded cheese.

Servings: 6
--

Having Mitt Romney at your cocktail party is the social equivalent of two people not turning up.

- Timothy Stanley 4/25/12

[hank alrich]

It's not just an opinion when I state that Huevos Rancheros can be
extrememly nutritious. It is an opinion when I state that I think they
taste wonderful.

Thank you. I hope you'll be here all week.

[hank alrich]

Without having heard it, you state an opinion about the sound of my
guitar.

As sometimes happens, I have direct experience with the sound of my
guitar.

It is also my opinion when you think your opinion about how guitars make
sound is of a weight comparable to the opinion of someone like Lance
McCollum, at that level you probably don't know what you're talking
about.

[Carl]

All that said, and this debate probably never being resolved, I'll stick my
neck out and remind everyone that this thread began with a question about
whether a particular guitar would mellow out with time, followed by a theory
that mahogany, being denser than other woods, might never "mellow" (or
change with time), that it was argued (by myself) that the TOP of a guitar
is the PRIMARY resonating wood and that its aging determines age-related
"mellowing" more than back/side woods, and it went on from there.

All of that reviewed, I'll say two things:
1. Ovation guitars, with their spruce tops and plastic bowl sides/backs,
often have very decent tone. They were popular for awhile anyway with
players like Glenn Campbell and others. I can't speak on how they aged.

2. Mahogany or otherwise, most of us would give our eye teeth for a 1937
Martin D-18. Tell the owners of those that the guitar didn't mellow with
age 'cause the back/side wood was too dense. :-)

'Nuff said for me. Good luck with this debate. It is interesting.

[Carl]

I'm sorry Hank, but you'd have to define "extremely". :-)

[Carl]

Not the answers you wanted to hear, I'm sure.

I "opened up" one of my guitars once. The problem was, I couldn't get it
closed again. :-)

[gtr]

Parsing the distinctions between opinion and interpretation of facts
and their vast distinctive utility it telling somebody else "You're
wrong! I know!" is really lost on me.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-30 16:20:33 +0000, hank alrich said:

> It's not just an opinion when I state that Huevos Rancheros can be
> extrememly nutritious. It is an opinion when I state that I think they
> taste wonderful.
>
> Thank you. I hope you'll be here all week.

I think you've failed to note the changes such as "Republican Science"
have wrought in American culture. "Extremely nutritious" can be parsed
for secondary meanings, particularly if one is allergic to eggs or has
particularly high cholesterol.

In any case upstream when it still had a minor tether to topic, the
discussion was "sounded good" when a master luthier built a paper-maché
sides and back to prove that the material of sides and back add nothing
significant to the overall sound. In this way we can say, "Sure YOU
say it's extremely nutritious, but I have yet to judge, therefore I am
not convinced there for in my personal "scientific world" it is a
"theory", like global warming, which I can reject without any use of
science.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-30 16:20:35 +0000, hank alrich said:

> gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:
>>
>>> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
>>> personal experience_.
>>
>> In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
>> produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and as
>> I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some years ago.
>>
>>> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have
>> heard_.
>>
>> ....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what we've
>> said here, again and again.
>
> Without having heard it, you state an opinion about the sound of my
> guitar.

Not true: I have no opinion about a guitar I haven't heard. I can make
guesses about them: They don't sound like trombones, it only has one
soundboard, etc.

> It is also my opinion when you think your opinion about how guitars make
> sound is of a weight comparable to the opinion of someone like Lance
> McCollum, at that level you probably don't know what you're talking
> about.

I am only partially sure I understand that syntax, but I think you're
serving a logic I don't buy: Somebody else's opinion is supposed to
trump my own opinion, because they have some kind of bona-fide's. In
this way the experienced professionals well know in an industry tells
me that hip-hop is "good music", overly salted foods are "tasty" and so
forth.

To kick out your underpinning one more time: I haven't heard your
guitar so know nothing about it's sound. Smilarly Lance McCollum's
opinion about guitars as well as hamburgers and comfortable shoe
sizes--not of much value to me in the abstract. If he's recommending I
shop guitar X for a full-spectrum sound I'd certainly consider it; I'd
consider it if I heard it from a no-name without bona fides.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-29 15:27:41 +0000, Steve Hawkins said:

> I second Hank's explanation. The back and sides do contribute, an
> exaggerated example would be litening to a speaker in it's enclosure then
> taking it out and listening to it unmounted. The soundboard is the
> speaker cone.

They soundboard is not a speaker cone. Using metaphors to describe the
realities of the physics of a guitar aren't of value.

> The B&S material also contributes to the overall sound. Different woods
> resonate at different frequencies along with affecting the volume,
> sustain and tone. You can hear the difference just by tapping on the
> various woods. Walnut sounds like cardboard to me while rosewood rings,
> other woods like koa and mahogany add their unique properties to the mix.

Tapping isn't playing.

> The number of variables contributing to the "sound" of an acoustic guitar
> are staggering. Even something as trivial as the weight of the tuners
> can affect the resonance.

I'm sure that's true. I just believe that the soundboard and the
strings are the vast majority of the sound-profile.

> And Hank is right, keeping the guitar away
> from your body makes a big difference and this is taught to classical
> players as part of proper playing technique.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that the sides and the back's COMPOSITION are
the same thing as it being stopped against a solid object. You can
change the sound of the guitar by putting your thumb on the soundboard
too. What does that say about the composition of the soundboard.
Certainly the entire guitar "vibrates" when it is played albeit in very
minor ways in some places. That doesn't mean that every vibration
contributes anything at all to the sound that is projected. Energy
dispersed is simply not audible all the time.

> One last thing about Lance, his guitars not only have great tone, they
> are loud. I've had many players and luthiers comment on this. I asked
> him about it and he said the way he builds the back was a significant
> contributor.

I'm sure they are very nice.

Just to get out of teh Lance knows more than you trough: I have no
significant information to provide regarding the absolutes of the
sides/back composition. Only that I read in a classical guitar
magazine some many years ago about the luthier in Spain and the
paper-maché body. As I recall other significant luthiers were present
in to verify the results.

No one has to believe my memory, believe HIS theory, or generally
accept it, as I generally do since it doesn't mean a damn thing to me
except in the abstract.

You may carry on. And the best of luck to Lance!

[gtr]

On 2012-08-29 21:16:04 +0000, dsi1 said:

> My first guitar was an 0-18 and I used Super Slinky strings on that.
> What can I say? It was the 60s. These days it's got .012 - .053 strings
> which is a light set but it's still a heavy set from what I use to
> play. It sounds great but the next set is going to be one size smaller.

That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
anything. Besides, I like to bend strings occasionally.

> I am concerned about termite damage on this Martin. Maybe dropping a
> mothball into the soundhole might be a good idea. Old age must be
> setting in - I'm getting worried about stuff like that.

Are you serious? Termites really go after guitars? That would be surprising.

[Steve Daniels]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something

compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:

>That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
>always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
>years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
>anything.

I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
prove?

[gtr]

On 2012-08-30 19:43:10 +0000, Steve Daniels said:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something
> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>
>> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
>> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
>> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
>> anything.
>
> I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
> prove?

Perhaps it wasn't obvious from the context, but I wasn't speaking for
you, but for myself.

[dsi1]

On 8/30/2012 8:46 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-08-29 21:16:04 +0000, dsi1 said:
>
>> My first guitar was an 0-18 and I used Super Slinky strings on that.
>> What can I say? It was the 60s. These days it's got .012 - .053
>> strings which is a light set but it's still a heavy set from what I
>> use to play. It sounds great but the next set is going to be one size
>> smaller.
>
> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I always
> used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few years I
> played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove anything.
> Besides, I like to bend strings occasionally.

My friend's old OOO-18 top is completely whackadoodled because of too
thick strings. If it was my guitar, I'd put on one of those brace
thingies to correct the top but that old guitar is probably just going
to sit in it's case until the guy dies. That's the breaks.

>
>> I am concerned about termite damage on this Martin. Maybe dropping a
>> mothball into the soundhole might be a good idea. Old age must be
>> setting in - I'm getting worried about stuff like that.
>
> Are you serious? Termites really go after guitars? That would be
> surprising.

They sure do. I used to have an 0-18 with the soft spruce braces
completely eaten away. That was just the appetizer. The termites were
beginning to go for the main course top. The mahogany was untouched
though. I guess they weren't hungry enough for that.

>

[gtr]

Perhaps you don't know the trade-offs between tension, sound and
physical touch. Depending on what style you play it can be different.
At the time I was playing 14's and even trying 15's I was playing
strictly electric archop, jazz and my conclusion was that the greater
the gauge the better the sound.

I think this is even more true on acoustics since the sound doesn't get
translated through a magnetic pickup and speakders and such.

One of the good things about heavier gauge strings is that one have a
wider range of dynamics possible without it "splatting" when picked too
hard. With the lightest gauges, .09 or .10 and even .11, one can only
pick so hard, especially with a flat pick before it begins to suffer.
So that's one difference in sound between heavy and light strings.
Additionally if you really want to use that dynamic range, you
logically have to jack up the strings distance from the fretboard to
allow greater attack and volume. Eddie Lang's guitar apparently was
WAY off the fretboard. He played VERY heavy gauge strings, and loudly.

But then there is the comfort and flexibility demands. I can't play
for 4 hours with 13's and 14's; it hurts my fingertips and finger/wrist
muscles of my left hand. *Particularly* solo where I am more inclined
to barring. I can do it on a Friday, but then I have to lay off for 3
days. That's no good. Certainly one ethic has it that a little blood
and torn flesh is just the kind of "sacrifice" one has to make for the
art of playing for drunks and disinterested people that don't really
care if you play bop or poka.

And finally I like to bend strings, smoothly and easily up at least a
half step. This is just not feasible with 13's and 14's for me.

I gave the heavier gauge strings up because it was too much work for
the pay back in dynamics and timbre.

[Steve Hawkins]

> paper-mach� body. As I recall other significant luthiers were present

> in to verify the results.
>
> No one has to believe my memory, believe HIS theory, or generally
> accept it, as I generally do since it doesn't mean a damn thing to me
> except in the abstract.
>
> You may carry on. And the best of luck to Lance!

Lance passed away in 2009. BTW, you can make a guitar out of practically
anything and it will make noise, whether it's pleasing to the ear is
entirely up to the individual. There's been a lot of study going on with
the guitar, Al Carruth is a great resource, since "some many years ago".
Tapping is a traditional method used to evalute tone woods and tune tops.
And Like Hank, I know what my guitars sound like, how they want to be
played and what they're capable of.

Steve Hawkins

[dsi1]

On 8/28/2012 8:27 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>
> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my

> personal experience_. Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to
> negate _what I have heard_. That is all. Lance McCollum, who built my
> two best guitars, felt that the contribution from back and sides was to
> be considered in the choice of woods and the construction of an
> instrument.
>

There's builders that design the guitar so that the backs and sides
reflect the energy from the top and do not resonate and builders that
will build a guitar conventionally. Greg Smallman is famous for building
his back and sides like a tank and his top as light as a butterfly wing.
PRS believes in this design philosophy for it's new acoustic line. The
main goal is a guitar with better projection i.e., a loud guitar. I
think it's an idea that will gain acceptance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGRnUYRrsiA

I play mostly nylon strung classical guitar and I like lightweight
guitars and don't really need a loud, heavy, tank.

[Steve Daniels]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:31:00 -0700, against all advice, something

compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:

>On 2012-08-30 16:20:33 +0000, hank alrich said:
>
>> It's not just an opinion when I state that Huevos Rancheros can be
>> extrememly nutritious. It is an opinion when I state that I think they
>> taste wonderful.
>>
>> Thank you. I hope you'll be here all week.
>
>I think you've failed to note the changes such as "Republican Science"
>have wrought in American culture. "Extremely nutritious" can be parsed
>for secondary meanings, particularly if one is allergic to eggs or has
>particularly high cholesterol.

Sweet trout is stuffed with mushrooms, bay shrimp, and vegetables
in a sherry wine glaze, then topped with a light lemon butter
sauce.

Prep Time: 30 minutes

Cook Time: 30 minutes

Total Time: 1 hour

Ingredients:

6 whole trout, boned
Flour
2 eggs, beaten
2 cups bread crumbs
1/4 cup butter
Juice and grated zest of 1 lemon
Salt and pepper

Shrimp Stuffing:
1 large onion, chopped
3 cups sliced mushrooms
2 Tablespoons butter
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon white pepper
1/4 cup diced sweet red pepper
1/4 cup diced green onions
1/2 pound bay shrimp, cooked
2 cups dry sherry
Preparation:

Shrimp Stuffing:
Saute onion and mushrooms in butter in skillet until lightly
browned. Add salt, white pepper, red pepper, green onions,
shrimp, and sherry wine. Simmer over medium heat until liquid is
reduced to glaze, stirring occasionally. Cool.

Make Trout:
Dredge each trout in flour, dip in eggs, then roll in bread
crumbs to coat lightly. Carefully fill each trout cavity with
shrimp stuffing. Secure seams with wood picks. Melt butter in
large skillet. Saute trout in butter, a few at time, until
lightly browned on both sides and stuffing is hot. Remove trout
when done and keep warm.

Add lemon juice and zest to butter remaining in pan and heat few
seconds. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Pour over trout.

Yield: 6 to 8 servings

[Steve Daniels]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:34:24 -0700, against all advice, something

compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:

>On 2012-08-30 20:12:42 +0000, gtr said:
>
>> On 2012-08-30 19:43:10 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something
>>> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>>>
>>>> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
>>>> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
>>>> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
>>>> anything.
>>>
>>> I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
>>> prove?
>>
>> Perhaps it wasn't obvious from the context, but I wasn't speaking for
>> you, but for myself.
>
>Perhaps you don't know the trade-offs between tension, sound and
>physical touch.

Yer Mamma.

[hank alrich]

I don't think I've heard any guitars louder than Lance's, except for one
large, custom Maccaferri-style instrument custom made for Joe Vinikow.
African Balckwood back and sides, intentionally conceived to be the
loudest guitar at jams. It doesn't have the sweetest tone I've ever
heard, but it is the loudest acoustic guitar I've ever heard. Joe plays
the hell out of it, too.

[hank alrich]

gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-08-30 20:12:42 +0000, gtr said:
>
> > On 2012-08-30 19:43:10 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something
> >> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
> >>
> >>> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
> >>> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
> >>> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
> >>> anything.
> >>
> >> I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
> >> prove?
> >
> > Perhaps it wasn't obvious from the context, but I wasn't speaking for
> > you, but for myself.
>
> Perhaps you don't know the trade-offs between tension, sound and
> physical touch. Depending on what style you play it can be different.
> At the time I was playing 14's and even trying 15's I was playing
> strictly electric archop, jazz and my conclusion was that the greater
> the gauge the better the sound.

That really works, IME, on archtops. Dave Johns uses Martin Marquis
heavies on his 1940 Emperor, and it speaks loudly and beautifully.

> I think this is even more true on acoustics since the sound doesn't get
> translated through a magnetic pickup and speakders and such.

With the rosewood McC I've found that medium PB JP's change the tone but
don't get me much in the way of additional output level. I generally run
bluegrass PB JP's on it, which is what it was strung with when Lance
handed it to me. I haven't tried lights on it yet.

I think the higher tension stiffens the whole top up to the point that
it responds more like a bluegrass lead instrument, with a short decay
time. it's already a reasonably loud guitar, if that's what I'm after,
but I was surprised that the heavier strings didn't get me more level.
For most other guitars I've owned the heavier strings certainly did
boost output level.

> One of the good things about heavier gauge strings is that one have a
> wider range of dynamics possible without it "splatting" when picked too
> hard. With the lightest gauges, .09 or .10 and even .11, one can only
> pick so hard, especially with a flat pick before it begins to suffer.
> So that's one difference in sound between heavy and light strings.
> Additionally if you really want to use that dynamic range, you
> logically have to jack up the strings distance from the fretboard to
> allow greater attack and volume. Eddie Lang's guitar apparently was
> WAY off the fretboard. He played VERY heavy gauge strings, and loudly.
>
> But then there is the comfort and flexibility demands. I can't play
> for 4 hours with 13's and 14's; it hurts my fingertips and finger/wrist
> muscles of my left hand. *Particularly* solo where I am more inclined
> to barring. I can do it on a Friday, but then I have to lay off for 3
> days. That's no good. Certainly one ethic has it that a little blood
> and torn flesh is just the kind of "sacrifice" one has to make for the
> art of playing for drunks and disinterested people that don't really
> care if you play bop or poka.
>
> And finally I like to bend strings, smoothly and easily up at least a
> half step. This is just not feasible with 13's and 14's for me.
>
> I gave the heavier gauge strings up because it was too much work for
> the pay back in dynamics and timbre.

[dsi1]

On 8/30/2012 3:32 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>
> I don't think I've heard any guitars louder than Lance's, except for one
> large, custom Maccaferri-style instrument custom made for Joe Vinikow.
> African Balckwood back and sides, intentionally conceived to be the
> loudest guitar at jams. It doesn't have the sweetest tone I've ever
> heard, but it is the loudest acoustic guitar I've ever heard. Joe plays
> the hell out of it, too.
>

My guess is that a loud guitar will have less interaction with the back
and sides and will have a cleaner tone with fewer extraneous tone
coloring and harmonic interactions with the back. I haven't heard one of
these loud guitars but it wouldn't surprise me if it was perceived as
being on the harsh side with an "attacky" sound. It must be a little
startling to hear something like that being played with other
instruments.

[David Hajicek]

"dsi1" <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
news:k1ohle$2se$1...@dont-email.me...

Mahogany and Rosewood are more toxic than Spruce. It takes a tough bug to
eat Rosewood. Cedar is also more toxic than Spruce.

Dave H

[Carl]

You are breaking me up! LOL :-)

[Steve Hawkins]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in news:k1p6su$rs0$1@dont-
email.me:

Your guess would be and is wrong.

Steve Hawkins

[David Hajicek]

"Steve Hawkins" <stephen....@frontier.comREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:XnsA0BFD8772B46st...@74.209.131.10...

Maybe he's thinking of a metal body Dobro?

Dave H

[hank alrich]

In the settings in which I heard it, swing jams at Weiser with a half
dozen or two dozen other instruments, it made good sense. <g>

[gtr]

Touché!

[gtr]

On 2012-08-30 20:57:28 +0000, Steve Hawkins said:

> Lance passed away in 2009.

Sorry to hear that.

> There's been a lot of study going on with the guitar, Al Carruth is a
> great resource, since "some many years ago". Tapping is a traditional
> method used to evalute tone woods and tune tops.

I'm not a luthier nor a connoisseur of vintage instruments. When I tap
the top I can hear the qualities of the top, any potential onnerous
overtones it produces and, in general, it's personality as a
soundboard--a piece of wood. I've never known tapping a piece of wood
to generate anything that would help me assess the sides and back as a
component in the overall sound of the guitar.

> And Like Hank, I know what my guitars sound like, how they want to be
> played and what they're capable of.

Me too. As do many guitarsits, I know what my guitars sound like. But
the inanimate objects I own "want" nothing, and do only what I demand
of them. What they're capable of? Each guitarist is likely their only
limitation.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 01:08:16 +0000, Steve Daniels said:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:31:00 -0700, against all advice, something
> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>
>> On 2012-08-30 16:20:33 +0000, hank alrich said:
>>
>>> It's not just an opinion when I state that Huevos Rancheros can be
>>> extrememly nutritious. It is an opinion when I state that I think they
>>> taste wonderful.
>>>
>>> Thank you. I hope you'll be here all week.
>>
>> I think you've failed to note the changes such as "Republican Science"
>> have wrought in American culture. "Extremely nutritious" can be parsed
>> for secondary meanings, particularly if one is allergic to eggs or has
>> particularly high cholesterol.
>
> Sweet trout is stuffed with mushrooms, bay shrimp, and vegetables
> in a sherry wine glaze, then topped with a light lemon butter
> sauce.

I guess all these non-sequiturs mean you disagree with something.
Wouldn't it be easier just to say what?

[dsi1]

I think you're right about this. OTOH, it's tough for me to accept the
idea of a non-spruce guitar. OTOH, I thought the carbon fiber guitars
were OK. Unfortunately, pickings are slim for carbon fiber nylon string
classical guitars on the used market.

[dsi1]

On 8/30/2012 7:18 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 3:32 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think I've heard any guitars louder than Lance's, except for one
>>> large, custom Maccaferri-style instrument custom made for Joe Vinikow.
>>> African Balckwood back and sides, intentionally conceived to be the
>>> loudest guitar at jams. It doesn't have the sweetest tone I've ever
>>> heard, but it is the loudest acoustic guitar I've ever heard. Joe plays
>>> the hell out of it, too.
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that a loud guitar will have less interaction with the back
>> and sides and will have a cleaner tone with fewer extraneous tone
>> coloring and harmonic interactions with the back. I haven't heard one of
>> these loud guitars but it wouldn't surprise me if it was perceived as
>> being on the harsh side with an "attacky" sound. It must be a little
>> startling to hear something like that being played with other
>> instruments.
>
> In the settings in which I heard it, swing jams at Weiser with a half
> dozen or two dozen other instruments, it made good sense. <g>
>

I can dig that although it's not my nature to try to stand out in a
crowd so just a regular old guitar would be fine with me.

[Wilbur]

>Touch�!


You know who else didn't know the trade-offs between tension, sound
and physical touch?

Hitler.

[Ed Edelenbos iPad]

As to this last point... I think it's a matter of semantics. If you play
every guitar the same way, you are going to go through a lot of guitars to
find one that sounds just so. If you are willing to alter your technique a
little for an individual guitar, you can get out of it what you are going
for. It is the difference between letting the guitar or the guitarist be
in control.

I know what my guitars sound like and I know how to play them to get what I
want out of them. If some combination of my lack of skill and the way a
guitar is built doesn't allow me to get what I want, I find a different
guitar. Very often it's my lack of skill that is the limiting factor.

Ed

--
This is posted from my iPad

[Tony Weber]

On 8/30/2012 11:27 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-08-30 02:22:26 +0000, Tony Weber said:
>
>> On 8/29/2012 8:17 AM, gtr wrote:

>>> On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:
>>>
>>>> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
>>>> personal experience_.
>>>

>>> In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
>>> produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and
>>> as I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some years
>>> ago.

>>>
>>>> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have
>>>> heard_.
>>>

>>> ....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what
>>> we've said here, again and again.
>>>
>>
>> opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or
>> interpretation of facts. It is not the same as observation.
>
> Parsing the distinctions between opinion and interpretation of facts and
> their vast distinctive utility it telling somebody else "You're wrong!
> I know!" is really lost on me.
>
So the actual meaning of words do not matter to you. And by the way,
observation is not the same as interpretation.

[Tony Weber]

On 8/30/2012 11:31 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-08-30 16:20:33 +0000, hank alrich said:
>
>> It's not just an opinion when I state that Huevos Rancheros can be
>> extrememly nutritious. It is an opinion when I state that I think they
>> taste wonderful.
>>
>> Thank you. I hope you'll be here all week.
>
> I think you've failed to note the changes such as "Republican Science"
> have wrought in American culture. "Extremely nutritious" can be parsed
> for secondary meanings, particularly if one is allergic to eggs or has
> particularly high cholesterol.
>

> In any case upstream when it still had a minor tether to topic, the
> discussion was "sounded good" when a master luthier built a paper-maché
> sides and back to prove that the material of sides and back add nothing
> significant to the overall sound. In this way we can say, "Sure YOU say
> it's extremely nutritious, but I have yet to judge, therefore I am not
> convinced there for in my personal "scientific world" it is a "theory",
> like global warming, which I can reject without any use of science.
>

Wrong conclusion. What the experiment proved is that it is possible to
build a guitar where the back and sides added nothing to a guitars
sound. This does not prove that no guitars back and sides add anything
to a guitars sound.

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are women. Do these facts prove
that all tall doctors are women?


TW

[Tony Weber]

On 8/30/2012 11:36 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-08-30 16:20:35 +0000, hank alrich said:

>
>> gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:
>>>
>>>> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
>>>> personal experience_.
>>>
>>> In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
>>> produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_,
>>> and as
>>> I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some years
>>> ago.
>>>
>>>> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have
>>> heard_.
>>>
>>> ....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what
>>> we've
>>> said here, again and again.
>>

>> Without having heard it, you state an opinion about the sound of my
>> guitar.
>
> Not true: I have no opinion about a guitar I haven't heard. I can make
> guesses about them: They don't sound like trombones, it only has one
> soundboard, etc.
>
>> It is also my opinion when you think your opinion about how guitars make
>> sound is of a weight comparable to the opinion of someone like Lance
>> McCollum, at that level you probably don't know what you're talking
>> about.
>
> I am only partially sure I understand that syntax, but I think you're
> serving a logic I don't buy: Somebody else's opinion is supposed to
> trump my own opinion, because they have some kind of bona-fide's. In
> this way the experienced professionals well know in an industry tells me
> that hip-hop is "good music", overly salted foods are "tasty" and so forth.
>
> To kick out your underpinning one more time: I haven't heard your guitar
> so know nothing about it's sound. Smilarly Lance McCollum's opinion
> about guitars as well as hamburgers and comfortable shoe sizes--not of
> much value to me in the abstract. If he's recommending I shop guitar X
> for a full-spectrum sound I'd certainly consider it; I'd consider it if
> I heard it from a no-name without bona fides.

I assume that you use the same logic is choosing a physician. Expertise
does not matter.

[hank alrich]

Those jams are circles of monster players, all with very good
instruments, digging deeply into standards and swinging them to the high
heavens. it's something to behold.

[gtr]

>> Touché!

>
>
> You know who else didn't know the trade-offs between tension, sound
> and physical touch?
>
> Hitler.

And don't forget Jesus.

[jgoska]

On Aug 30, 12:20 pm, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
is firm.

>
> It is an opinion when I state that I think they
> taste wonderful.

“I think they taste wonderful” can be accepted as a statement of plain
fact, although the reader should probably keep in mind at least the
possibility that you are, for some reason, deceiving us about what you
think, or that you have managed in some way to be mistaken about what
you think.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 13:52:45 +0000, Ed Edelenbos iPad said:

>> Me too. As do many guitarists, I know what my guitars sound like. But the

>> inanimate objects I own "want" nothing, and do only what I demand of
>> them. What they're capable of? Each guitarist is likely their only limitation.
>
> As to this last point... I think it's a matter of semantics.

Let the semantics continue...

> If you play every guitar the same way, you are going to go through a
> lot of guitars to
> find one that sounds just so.

That's true, but then it also depends on whether a guitarist that
always plays "the same way" would have the scope of knowing what "just
so" really means. Especially in the world of hobbyist acoustic players
they usually have a very narrow range of approaches. That's a generic
view, I know, but I also happen to think it works well for most
guitarists. One only has so much time in life, better to be a crack
Blind Blake clone than a person that can do five styles poorly.

> If you are willing to alter your technique a little for an individual
> guitar, you can get out of it what you are going for. It is the
> difference between letting the guitar or the guitarist be in control.

I've known a few hundred guitarists in life and find their technical
capacity almost always to be extremely limited by style or genre
(somewhat contingent on their age). I play most general guitar types
and many other stringed and other instruments (reeds, brass, perc. et
al), so I've always tried to play specific to the instrument so it
would perform it's function in the ensemble. For example, I've never
played nylon with a pick, nor on electric bass. And though I finger
pick on both nylon and various electrics I certainly don't use my left
hand the same way; not the same angle or attitude or anything.

*Very generally* I don't find that perspective among many
non-professional guitarists, and even among many pros I've seen them
predominantly pursue one approach only. It's just a question of whether
they pursued diversity or focused on a single approach. The focused
ones were usually very good at it--and likely better than my discursive
"set" of styles. That's the trad-off.

But to your point of "control": My semantic/semiotic perspective has it
that the guitarist is always in control. Their control may be limited,
but the guitar has no control whatever. The guitar is no more in
control than a car, hammer or any other tool.

> I know what my guitars sound like and I know how to play them to get what I
> want out of them. If some combination of my lack of skill and the way a
> guitar is built doesn't allow me to get what I want, I find a different
> guitar. Very often it's my lack of skill that is the limiting factor.

Precisely. A very good example are my two primary guitars right now,
both finger-picked: A solid body (11's) and an archtop (12's). I can't
really *dig* into the strings on the 11's, they'll "splat"; I have to
maintain a very senstive touch to make the attack even and the sustain
consistent. Not the case withe the archtop--and not soley due to the
strings. There, I do have to dig in with the strings to get a full
sound and leverage it's inherent acoustic tonal qualities. If I don't,
it sounds limp and nasal. Additionally I have to change the
pitch/rotation of my right hand in order to dig without grinding up my
nails. With the solid body I pick so lightly that I don't accrue much
damage in normal play anyhow.

[Ed Edelenbos iPad]

So in other words, you are playing the guitar in the way it wants to be
played in order to deliver what you want out of it.

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 14:11:54 +0000, Tony Weber said:

>> Parsing the distinctions between opinion and interpretation of facts and

>> their vast distinctive utility [in] telling somebody else "You're wrong!

>> I know!" is really lost on me.
>
> So the actual meaning of words do not matter to you.

A simplistic and errant conclusion. Words and their meanings always
matter to me. But sometimes I find people using them for a specific
purpose and then their word selection is very much secondary to their
intent. "Breaking the cycle of dependency", a very studied example of
word choice, uses them to exert emotional context, but it's intent is
villifying a specific government program for political gain. I tend to
think about it's intent, rather than get caught in it's emotional net.

So I'll try again: The difference between *opinion* and "interpretation
of facts" as rhetorical device to jockey for position is a waste of
time for "debating" these concepts with me. I disregard the rhetoric
when people try to shift tactics with words for rhetorical advantage.
Frequently their only objective is to convey the meaning: "You're
wrong." What do I care whether they put that in a four-tier cake or
cram it in a dumpling?

Especially if I AM wrong! Or in the case of the "ear is the behearer"
I'm just as wrong or just as right as anybody else in my unique vantage
point. Sure my hearing is different than "the expert", but I will never
live with "the expert's" ears so they don't really mean as much to me
on a day-to-day basis as my own humble flawed realities.

> And by the way, observation is not the same as interpretation.

I didn't note anyone making that assertion.

On the other hand, everyone has just as personal an observation of
complex matters as they do an interpretation of those matters after the
fact. And then, they are also given to secondary considerations,
biases, and cognitive "noise", such as which person they are
emotionally inclined to "side with" or the brand name on the jar, or
their long-term use of a product, and so forth.

Or stench! NYTimes science section had a thing regarding the way
"observations" of visual data can be skewed by the stink in the room.

For example.

[Tom from Texas]

On Aug 30, 10:50 am, Steve Daniels <sdani...@gorge.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:17:41 -0700, against all advice, something

> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>

> >On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:
>
> >> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
> >> personal experience_.
>
> >In my experience neither resonate.  They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
> >produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and
> >as I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some
> >years ago.
>
> >> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have heard_.
>
> >....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own.  That's what
> >we've said here, again and again.
>

> HUEVOS RANCHEROS
>
> 2 ripe tomatoes, quartered
> 2 tbsp. fresh cilantro or parsley leaves, packed
> 1 medium red onion, chopped
> 2 green onions (scallions), chopped
> 3 cloves garlic, minced
> a pinch of dried of 1 tbsp. fresh basil
> 1/2 tsp. sea salt or taco seasoning
> 1/2 tsp. Tabasco sauce (or to taste)
> 1/2 cup canned black beans, drained
> 1 tbsp. apple cider vinegar
> 6 large eggs
> 6 tortillas
> 6 tbsp. shredded cheese blend (Mexican or Italian)
>
> In the bowl of a food processor, chop onion, scallions, and
> garlic by pulsing 2-3 times to coarsely chop. Transfer contents
> to a serving bowl.
>
> Process the tomatoes and cilantro or parsley, garlic, Tabasco and
> basil by pulsing 3-4 times until it resembles chunky salsa.
> Transfer to bowl; stir in black beans. Season to taste with sea
> salt or taco seasoning (optional).
>
> In a non-stick skillet, bring vinegar to a boil; slide in eggs,
> one at a time, being careful not to break the yolk, cooking each
> egg for about 90 seconds, or until the white is firm.
>
> Add 1/4 cup salsa to each tortilla and top with an egg. Top with
> shredded cheese.
>
> Servings: 6
> --
>
> Having Mitt Romney at your cocktail party is the social equivalent of two people not turning up.
>
> - Timothy Stanley 4/25/12

Can I substitute refried beans or ranch-style beans for the black
beans? And do they go well with an all-mahogany guitar?

Tom from Texas

[Steve Daniels]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:12:09 -0700, against all advice, something

compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:

>So I'll try again: The difference between *opinion* and "interpretation
>of facts" as rhetorical device to jockey for position is a waste of
>time for "debating" these concepts with me.

Don't make me break out the lasagna.



--

I have been writing completely legitible English.

Jill Rogers - 2-18-98

[Tom from Texas]

On Aug 30, 11:20 am, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:

> gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > On 2012-08-29 06:27:38 +0000, hank alrich said:
>
> > > When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
> > > personal experience_.
>
> > In my experience neither resonate.  They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
> > produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and as
> > I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some years ago.
>
> > > Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have
> > heard_.
>
> > ....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own.  That's what we've
> > said here, again and again.
>

> Without having heard it, you state an opinion about the sound of my
> guitar.
>

> As sometimes happens, I have direct experience with the sound of my
> guitar.
>

> It is also my opinion when you think your opinion about how guitars make
> sound is of a weight comparable to the opinion of someone like Lance
> McCollum, at that level you probably don't know what you're talking
> about.
>

> --
> shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusichttp://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

I'd like to have personal experience with your guitars. Please, send
them to me so I can have this experience. It could take a few years
to get the full effect.

Tom (I'm sure I'll come to the same conclusions as yall and will back
ye up) from Texas

[Tom from Texas]

> This is posted from my iPad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have a miniMaton that I've been spending some time with lately and
even resting my arm too heavily on the side/top will greatly alter the
sound. It loses a lot of bass and mids, not to mention volume of
sound. I can almost use my arm as a tone knob it is so sensitive to
the pressure. I consciously keep it away from my body so the
Australian blackwood tone can come out.

This is my experience and opinion.... so there.... go suck on that.

No offense... unless ye disagree with me.

Tom from Texas... and Texans (liberal ones anyway) are always right

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 14:19:51 +0000, Tony Weber said:

>> In any case upstream when it still had a minor tether to topic, the

>> discussion was "sounded good" when a master luthier built a paper-mach�

>> sides and back to prove that the material of sides and back add nothing
>> significant to the overall sound. In this way we can say, "Sure YOU say
>> it's extremely nutritious, but I have yet to judge, therefore I am not
>> convinced there for in my personal "scientific world" it is a "theory",
>> like global warming, which I can reject without any use of science.
>
> Wrong conclusion. What the experiment proved is that it is possible to
> build a guitar where the back and sides added nothing to a guitars
> sound.

That's not quite right. The experiment was to prove that the guitar
would sound "good" without side/back materials. We can't know if it
"added nothing" without having the same guitar re-construced with read
sides/back for comparison. Hell, maybe he had backs he could swap out
on that thing for the experiment. I didn't realize I needed to cut out
that article and have it framed.

Hell, perhaps my idle acceptance of their conclusions is wrong, however
the experiment was configured. But now your conclusion is also wrong:

Without two guitars with extremely similar soundboards, one using
paper-mach� sides/back and the other with "good" wood, nothing could be
"proven". And without the acquiescent ears of a world of experts to
"substantiate" one as better or the same as the other, then this too
could not be "proven".

In final conclusion: Nothing can be proven to another who is
intransigent. We can never prove anything tastes good, gooder, goodest.
Nor can anyone prove something sounds good, gooder, goodest. We only
have group acceptance, noted experts, sales figures and other such data
to "infer" success.

By the way, as for my own proof, I bought a Seagull parlor guitar 10
years ago with plywood back and sides. American Airlines crushed it.
Then--amazingly!--they accepted responsibility for it and reimbursed
me. New, it was very cheap then, less than 300 with case as I recall.
So I bought another of the same composition. Sounded just as great. I
still love this guitar.

Now, apparently, Seagull is no longer using plywood, but making them
with cherry back and sides. Playing them in the store, I hear no aural
difference.

Here are some potential conclusions. 1) Plywood produces the same
resonant qualites as cherry. 2) Small-bodied guitars make less use of
the back and sides than do larger-bodied guitars in the overall sound,
so they could be made out of cardboard, who cares? 3) My ears are for
shit and I can't tell the difference between Brahms and Iggy Pop.

There are undoubtedly another 30 ways to interpret that data, I'm sure.

[Tom from Texas]

On Aug 30, 1:46 pm, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-08-29 21:16:04 +0000, dsi1 said:
>
> > My first guitar was an 0-18 and I used Super Slinky strings on that.
> > What can I say? It was the 60s. These days it's got .012 - .053 strings
> > which is a light set but it's still a heavy set from what I use to
> > play. It sounds great but the next set is going to be one size smaller.
>

> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years.  I
> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's.  For a few
> years I played 13's and 14's.  But then lost the will to prove

> anything.  Besides, I like to bend strings occasionally.
>

> > I am concerned about termite damage on this Martin. Maybe dropping a
> > mothball into the soundhole might be a good idea. Old age must be
> > setting in - I'm getting worried about stuff like that.
>
> Are you serious?  Termites really go after guitars?  That would be surprising.

change strings?

Yer supposed to do that?

Tom from Texas
PS How did I lose control of this thread? And can ye use thread for
strings?

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 14:22:31 +0000, Tony Weber said:

>> I am only partially sure I understand that syntax, but I think you're
>> serving a logic I don't buy: Somebody else's opinion is supposed to
>> trump my own opinion, because they have some kind of bona-fide's. In
>> this way the experienced professionals well know in an industry tells me
>> that hip-hop is "good music", overly salted foods are "tasty" and so forth.
>>
>> To kick out your underpinning one more time: I haven't heard your guitar
>> so know nothing about it's sound. Smilarly Lance McCollum's opinion
>> about guitars as well as hamburgers and comfortable shoe sizes--not of
>> much value to me in the abstract. If he's recommending I shop guitar X
>> for a full-spectrum sound I'd certainly consider it; I'd consider it if
>> I heard it from a no-name without bona fides.
>
> I assume that you use the same logic is choosing a physician.
> Expertise does not matter.

Didn't I just say "I'd consider" their opinions above? I just don't
reject my own opinion based on an expert's *opinion*.

So you're completely wrong again, with this sad and bogus rhetorical
cliché. I wonder why it's always doctors of all things that are used to
compare to "expert" guitarists, luthiers, disc jockeys and magazine
critics in order to "trump" differing opinions.

Perhaps you discard all your opinions when you read an article about a
guitar you played and didn't like. Now that an expert has give you the
"truth" you just accept it without further consideration. Not me--I'm
arrogant enough to depend on my own ears while living my own life.
Audacious, right?

For rhetorical purpose, I'll "assume" you never get a second opinion
from a doctor or car mechanic? After all--they're experts, right?

When it comes to food, wine, the sound or playability of a guitar,
quality in movies, books and music, I find these all personal matters
that I don't need substantiated by experts to validate. Certainly I
used all their views in cobbling together a perspective over 50+ years.
Now, for whatever reason, I've begun to trust my own thoughts. Call me
a free thinker!

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 15:44:44 +0000, Ed Edelenbos iPad said:

> So in other words, you are playing the guitar in the way it wants to be
> played in order to deliver what you want out of it.

I thought my words worked very well. No. I guitar does not have the
capacity for "want'. I do what I do and it works or doesn't work to
the degree which the guitar is capable as a tool.

[Tom from Texas]

On Aug 28, 10:39 pm, ple...@nospam.us wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom from Texas
>
> <trisne...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston.  Tried out a Guild M120.  It played well but had a brighter tone than I expected.  Might mellow out with a lot of playing.  The finish was very shiny and I think a matt finish would suit it better.  While I was there, the sage of Fuller's came into the room and pulled down a Martin 000-15 for me to play.  It was a much better guitar with a more mellow and deeper tone.  He said it was a 24.9" scale but I thought Martin listed them as 25.4"(?).  I compared the scale lengths between the two and the Martin did seem to have a shorter than standard length.
>
> >I tried to work a trade/cash deal on the Martin for a Bulldog mandolin I had with me.  Almost pulled the trigger and may still do it later.  Need to try some more Guild M120 and M20 models first.
>
> >Tom from (GAS) Texas
>
> I owned a Guild M20 back in the early 1970s.  What a nice little
> guitar it was!  I ended up selling it in the mid 1970s in order to buy
> a Martin 000-28.  I'd say it was a good trade, but only because I sold
> the 000-28 to get an even better guitar (a Martin HOM-35).  I sold
> that to get, well, the story is a common one.
>
> I know nothing about the M120 guitars, but I still remember the M20.
>
> Al

Sounds like a story of mine where I had a '30s Martin 00-17 in the
'70s that I sold to some Brit at the Dallas Guitar Show. I used the
money for a '56 Martin 000-18, that I traded for a '18 Gibson A-1 and
cash; then later bought a '68 Martin 000-18 from the proceeds of a '25
Gibson Jr snakehead.

Tom from Texas

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 16:32:57 +0000, Tom from Texas said:

> I have a miniMaton that I've been spending some time with lately and
> even resting my arm too heavily on the side/top will greatly alter the
> sound. It loses a lot of bass and mids, not to mention volume of
> sound. I can almost use my arm as a tone knob it is so sensitive to
> the pressure. I consciously keep it away from my body so the
> Australian blackwood tone can come out.
>
> This is my experience and opinion.... so there.... go suck on that.
>
> No offense... unless ye disagree with me.

As said before: The fact that you can stop or limit the vibration of
the soundboard by limiting the any sympathetic vibrations of the bank
and sides is not contested. It's more or less the same as putting your
thumb on the top: You're limiting the tops vibration by limiting the
sides vibration.

The question is whether the composition of the sides and back changes
the aural qualities of the guitar. This assumes in both cases that
neither is limited by a body, a block of concrete, submersion in water
or no sides/back at all.

Once last time: Not the limiting of vibration of the material, but the
inherent composition of the material in free vibration. In the initial
apparently incendiary example, it was paper maché. Paper maché
undoubtedly vibrates some way or other, as does plywood, cherry and
mahogany.

The question--the ONLY question I've addressed in this issue--is
whether they vibrate differently in a way that effects the audio
profile of the instrument.

[hank alrich]

Tom from Texas <tris...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'd like to have personal experience with your guitars. Please, send
> them to me so I can have this experience. It could take a few years
> to get the full effect.
>
> Tom (I'm sure I'll come to the same conclusions as yall and will back
> ye up) from Texas

If we can both wind up at Al & Cea's for a WSSC, then you could have a
short and public affair with at least one of my guitars.

--

[Wilbur]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:18:24 -0700, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>On 2012-08-31 11:48:30 +0000, Wilbur said:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:35:34 -0700, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-08-31 01:11:37 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:34:24 -0700, against all advice, something
>>>> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-08-30 20:12:42 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-08-30 19:43:10 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something
>>>>>>> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
>>>>>>>> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
>>>>>>>> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
>>>>>>> prove?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps it wasn't obvious from the context, but I wasn't speaking for
>>>>>> you, but for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you don't know the trade-offs between tension, sound and
>>>>> physical touch.
>>>>
>>>> Yer Mamma.
>>>

>>> Touch�!

>>
>>
>> You know who else didn't know the trade-offs between tension, sound
>> and physical touch?
>>
>> Hitler.
>
>And don't forget Jesus.

And Esteban.

[Tony Done]

I've pretty much lost track of this thread, so I'm lumping a few
comments into this one reply - not particularly targeted at you.

Here's thread Tony and you might find interesting re the papier mache
guitar:

> http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29408&start=0

My favourite bit is the comment about taking his reasons to the grave.

Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular
string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very
heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for
reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in
the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now
players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to
scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings, eg
the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds
better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an
electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I prefer
the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many dreads come
with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the impression that
they would sound better with 13s.

You can hear differences in B&S materials provided you choose reasonably
comparable guitars, eg, a Martin D-18 and and Martin D-28 (I mostly
prefer the former), but the differences are blurred by differences in
makes, models etc. If I did a blind test on my Bourgeois I would guess
mahogany, not rosewood, based on prior experience with Martins.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 19:49:12 +0000, Tony Done said:

> I've pretty much lost track of this thread, so I'm lumping a few
> comments into this one reply - not particularly targeted at you.
>
> Here's thread Tony and you might find interesting re the papier mache guitar:
>
> > http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29408&start=0

Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of
the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands
of it all.

> Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular
> string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very
> heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for
> reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in
> the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now
> players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to
> scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings,
> eg the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds
> better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an
> electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I prefer
> the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many dreads come
> with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the impression that
> they would sound better with 13s.

Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.

[David Hajicek]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1kpomcf.1wk8hrdcbxdy2N%walk...@nv.net...

And unless you are amplified, they seem to suck up the sound. So louder is
a definite advantage. Speaking from experience.

Dave H

[Tony Done]

<g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than
action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck
profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois
feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.

[dsi1]

On 8/31/2012 5:04 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>
> Those jams are circles of monster players, all with very good
> instruments, digging deeply into standards and swinging them to the high
> heavens. it's something to behold.
>

Sounds amazing!

[gtr]

On 2012-08-31 20:38:13 +0000, Tony Done said:

> On 1/09/2012 5:59 AM, gtr wrote:
>> On 2012-08-31 19:49:12 +0000, Tony Done said:
>>
>>> I've pretty much lost track of this thread, so I'm lumping a few
>>> comments into this one reply - not particularly targeted at you.
>>>
>>> Here's thread Tony and you might find interesting re the papier mache
>>> guitar:
>>>
>>> http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29408&start=0
>>
>> Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of
>> the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands of
>> it all.

Just read this in total and the divergence of views on the details
makes the topic that much more interesting and less argumentativ.e

>> Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.
>>
>
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than
> action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck
> profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois
> feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.

Don't I know it. At some point over the last year I decided that I
wanted every guitar I had to fell more or less the same so I scurried
around putting 11's on every thing I owned. And they all continued to
feel suprisingly different: Springy, loosey, full tone,
"splatty". The whole scope.

As with so many things with guitar I just rolled over, said fuck it and
went on to my next stupid idea.

[Tony Done]

<Sigh> And another. The concept of loud has to be somewhat qualified.
Resos are loud in the high registers, muddy in the bass. Some guitars
have a loud boomy bass end (which I hate) and are distinctly limp
wristed in the high registers. What I really notice in a guitar is
presence or absence of hot and cold spots and wolf tones. The Bourgeois
is loud, but what I really hear is the tightness and evenness across its
whole range. The Maton with cedar top and lam b&s isn't that far behind
it, except for being a bit to open sounding for my tastes.

I'm sure I'll think of a few other things to rave about before the
morning is over, including the relative merits of black beans.

[David Hajicek]

"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:k1r7bt$1ej$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
snip>

> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than action
> height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck profile.
> Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois feels hard,
> and the other two dreads moderate.
>
> --
> Tony Done
>

I've noticed that too. No idea why this might be the case. Maybe the body
or neck flexes in response to the change in string tension? That's a good
one for Al Carruth.

Dave H

[dsi1]

On 8/31/2012 10:47 AM, Tony Done wrote:
> <Sigh> And another. The concept of loud has to be somewhat qualified.
> Resos are loud in the high registers, muddy in the bass. Some guitars
> have a loud boomy bass end (which I hate) and are distinctly limp
> wristed in the high registers. What I really notice in a guitar is
> presence or absence of hot and cold spots and wolf tones. The Bourgeois
> is loud, but what I really hear is the tightness and evenness across its
> whole range. The Maton with cedar top and lam b&s isn't that far behind
> it, except for being a bit to open sounding for my tastes.
>
> I'm sure I'll think of a few other things to rave about before the
> morning is over, including the relative merits of black beans.
>

That's one of the things I don't care for in most classical guitars -
too much bias towards the low end. What I look for is some life in the
8th to 12th fret area on the G and the other 2 treble strings.

If your steel string guitar has too boomy a sound, I recommend an O-Port
which cuts that down right nicely by creating a secondary resonance. I
got mine for about $20 on eBay.

[dsi1]

On 8/31/2012 10:38 AM, Tony Done wrote:
>
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than
> action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck
> profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois
> feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.
>

Mostly it has to do with scale length and string length. Longer scale
length means a higher tension is required for a given string gauge at a
reference pitch.

String length is the points at where the string terminates. If the scale
length and string length are close to each other, you'll have a stiffer
feel that's more responsive to string bending. You'll get a looser, more
compliant, feel that's less responsive to bending as the string length
to scale length ration gets larger - as it would be on an archtop
guitar. Well, that's my theory anyway.

[Tony Done]

Dunno, but that would plausibly explain the effect in resos. The
Bourgeois is hard to explain, because the bridge is fairly centered in
the lower bout, and it is lightly braced. In any event it works well,
because it was primarily designed for playing slide. I recall that
Thomas Humphrey mentioned it in an article in AG mag. - That some of his
early guitars had too soft and action, and he had to change the design.
Unfortunately I can't remember the details.