Scalloped Braces
Paul
I was looking at 2 different Martin OM models one with scalloped
braces. (OOO16GT & SWOM). Thanks
Wade Hampton Miller
>Can someone explain the effect of scalloped braces on a guitar?
Basically, the idea is to give structural support and torsional strength with
less added mass than you'd get with straight braces. The tonal effect is
generally to give you more bass response and sustain, and an overall "warmer"
sound.
Which is NOT automatically a good thing, particularly on a dreadnought design
which may be bass-heavy to begin with.
But most folks prefer the sound of scalloped brace guitars over straight,
depending on the design and accounting for differences in the tonal response of
individual sets of woods, of course.
The downside from the structural standpoint is that scalloped brace guitars can
be adversely affected by string pull and other stresses more easily than
straight brace instruments. And there are certainly plenty of individual
straight brace Standard Series Martins that sound better than individual
scalloped brace Martins - a lot just depends on the guitars themselves.
So nothing's automatic, there are no guarantees, and everything's a trade-off,
when you come right down to it.
But - again - the general effect of scalloping the braces is to impart more
bass and mids and overall "warmth."
Usually.
Hope that makes sense.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Remove the "Howdy" to reply...
Ken Cashion
I can't...but I am interested in the answer and would like to
ask another of whomever answers this question.
Knowing that it is difficult to compare guitars objectively, I
am interested in differences that can be heard. At TX4 I asked a
guitarist if he could tell a difference in the sound of his guitar
after he had installed an arm rest. He said that he thought he could.
So...if I had two guitars that were otherwise identical, could
most good guitarists tell the difference in one with scalloped braces
as opposed to the one without?
Or, even better, could the luthier guy who built the guitars
pick out the scalloped guitar by sound alone?
There is one other thought...good guitars have been "honed" to
an optimum sound for the materials and design and it might be that no
one thing would make an appreciable difference to such a guitar, but
rather, such a change would be just a small contribution to the
overall contribution to the sound quality.
Stated another way, scalloping may be just one of many steps
necessary to produce the "better" guitar.
Keep in mind that I have had a neck reset on a '55 Silvertone
and have just completed full fret replacement and I am installing a
new and different style bridge on it. So you can see that my ear is
certainly not one of the critical.
A bad ear reduces the cost of GAS.
Thoughts?
Cheers -- Ken
JD
news:20031031093545...@mb-m28.aol.com
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain the effect of scalloped braces on a guitar?
>
>
> Basically, the idea is to give structural support and torsional
> strength with less added mass than you'd get with straight braces.
> The tonal effect is generally to give you more bass response and
> sustain, and an overall "warmer" sound.
Wrong on the bass response. The decreased mass allows the highs to better
express since higher frequencies have less energy to get the top moving in
the first place.
>
> Which is NOT automatically a good thing, particularly on a
> dreadnought design which may be bass-heavy to begin with.
I've always found it a good thing on a dred. The bass does get unmuddied but
the highs balance out better
>
> But most folks prefer the sound of scalloped brace guitars over
> straight, depending on the design and accounting for differences in
> the tonal response of individual sets of woods, of course.
>
> The downside from the structural standpoint is that scalloped brace
> guitars can be adversely affected by string pull and other stresses
> more easily than straight brace instruments.
Only if they're improperly scallopped. You can remove half the weight of a
square brace without adversely affecting structural integrity.
And there are certainly
> plenty of individual straight brace Standard Series Martins that
> sound better than individual scalloped brace Martins - a lot just
> depends on the guitars themselves.
>
> So nothing's automatic, there are no guarantees, and everything's a
> trade-off, when you come right down to it.
I doubt you'll find many boutique luthiers using straight bracing which
kinda tells me that there are a few things you can count on when scallopping
is properly designed and executed. One of Jamie Kinscherff's guitars had
some ultra light graphite composite braces thatlet the top respond very
well; clean unmuddied bass with ringing highs.
>
> But - again - the general effect of scalloping the braces is to
> impart more bass and mids and overall "warmth."
Better balance and clarity.
>
> Usually.
>
> Hope that makes sense.
Nope.
JD
Carlos Alden
>> Can someone explain the effect of scalloped braces on a guitar?
>> I was looking at 2 different Martin OM models one with scalloped
>> braces. (OOO16GT & SWOM). Thanks
>
> I can't...but I am interested in the answer and would like to
> ask another of whomever answers this question.
> Knowing that it is difficult to compare guitars objectively, I
> am interested in differences that can be heard. At TX4 I asked a
> guitarist if he could tell a difference in the sound of his guitar
> after he had installed an arm rest. He said that he thought he could.
> So...if I had two guitars that were otherwise identical, could
> most good guitarists tell the difference in one with scalloped braces
> as opposed to the one without?
> Or, even better, could the luthier guy who built the guitars
> pick out the scalloped guitar by sound alone?
I had a hand built guitar, an Augustino dreadnought, that was built for me
and my playing style (hard picking bar bluegrass, I call it). Nice big
voice with some strength behind in, not all woody and prissy. Played it
that way for years and years, and it got better and better. About 15 years
later and many style changes later, a good luthier friend suggested he do a
bit of tweaking. I sat with him while he delicately shaved a bit off the
braces, then re-strung, and I played it and commented. It was really
artfully and slowly done, and the guitar did sound different - more open
with more apparent overtones and harmonics.
My conclusion is that in an ensemble environment you'd want a guitar that
was stronger on fundamentals and the basic character of the guitar, and in a
solo situation you'd want the more nuanced sound with flavors and colors.
My guess is that straight, telephone pole type bracing has less volume and
more fundamentals, and shaved - more flexible - braces let more subtle
things happen with the sound.
Right now this Don H. on this group knows where this guitar of mine is, and
maybe he could comment on what it sounds like.
Carlos
Sherm
wrote:
>You can remove half the weight of a
>square brace without adversely affecting structural integrity.
I helped my rockin' and rollin' little nephew find a used Ovation last
year. (His main criteria was that it had to be black.) One of the
braces fell out and he threw it away.
Sherm
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Thanks, Carlos, this is exactly what I was asking for...a
familiar guitar with "straight" braces being compared to "scalloped"
braces and in this case, it was the same guitar.
I think the braces do more than add structural rigidity
without an increase in acoustic mass.
Braces of oak compared to spruce, could have the same
structural rigidity and keep the acoustic mass similar, yet I would
think the wood fibers of the brace materials would be so different as
to affect the sound.
When we have wanted rigidity with low weight, we have gone to
carbon filament at the top and bottom of a smaller cross-section of
spruce. Adding carbon to the top and bottom of a spruce strip gives
the strip the complexion of an I-beam...but then I am talking about
sailplane wing spars.
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>On 10/31/03 6:44 AM, Ken Cashion eloquently wrote:
Thanks, Carlos, this is exactly what I was asking for...a
paul asbell
JD wrote:
"Wade Hampton Miller" <hoj...@aol.comHowdy> wrote in message news:20031031093545...@mb-m28.aol.com
Basically, the idea is to give structural support and torsional strength with less added mass than you'd get with straight braces. The tonal effect is generally to give you more bass response and sustain, and an overall "warmer" sound.
Wrong on the bass response. The decreased mass allows the highs to better express since higher frequencies have less energy to get the top moving in the first place.
Which is NOT automatically a good thing, particularly on a dreadnought design which may be bass-heavy to begin with.I've always found it a good thing on a dred. The bass does get unmuddied but the highs balance out better
But most folks prefer the sound of scalloped brace guitars over straight, depending on the design and accounting for differences in the tonal response of individual sets of woods, of course. The downside from the structural standpoint is that scalloped brace guitars can be adversely affected by string pull and other stresses more easily than straight brace instruments.Only if they're improperly scallopped. You can remove half the weight of a square brace without adversely affecting structural integrity.
It's obviously a trade-off... responsiveness and "scalloped-brace tone characteristics" vs. guaranteed long-term structural integrity. Scallop the braces, and it's likely that lighter strings will sound fuller... but, then, mediums might then be more than the guitar can handle w/o deforming somewhat.
It's inherent that you'll gain tonal responsiveness by losing some structural rigidity ... that, I think, was Wade's point.
-- Best regards Paul Paul Asbell pas...@paulasbell.com www.paulasbell.com
madgamer
Lane
Guild D25 and had the braces scalloped by a luthier - the difference was
stunning! A huge improvement and now it sounds better than my more
expensive Taylor and Martin - amazing - but then, he knew what he was
doing...
My question - I now have an identical Guild, but in a 12 string - I am
thinking of having the same done becuase I'm not happy with it's sound -
can the same be done to a 12 without weakening the structure too much?
Lane
"Paul" <pa...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0bc3c95...@news.videotron.ca...
Julian Templeman
> A bad ear reduces the cost of GAS.
Not necessarily....
Went to the audiologist earlier this week to get my hearing checked --
as I've been meaning to for several years -- and as I suspected, both
ears are pretty shot on the high frequencies, probably as a result of
too many over-loud gigs in earlier days. Not quite hearing aid
territory yet, but it is getting closer.
But I haven't noticed GAS decreasing one little bit... :-)
jt
in london
Templeman Consulting Ltd.
London and North Wales
Ken Cashion
wrote:
I don't know how I post twice but sorry for the doublet.
Cheers -- Ken
I don't know how I post twice but sorry for the doublet.
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>I can tell you my experience and pose a question - I have a 30 year old
>Guild D25 and had the braces scalloped by a luthier - the difference was
>stunning! A huge improvement and now it sounds better than my more
>expensive Taylor and Martin - amazing - but then, he knew what he was
>doing...
Good. This is another mod to a familiar guitar yielding
noticeable improvement.
Is the scalloping that hard to do?
Why doesn't all manufacturers do this?
I know why Gibson doesn't. (I would be satisfied if they had
just sanded my braces.)
Cheers -- Ken
JD
"paul asbell" <paul....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3FA27818...@verizon.net...
JD wrote:
"Wade Hampton Miller" <hoj...@aol.comHowdy> wrote in message news:20031031093545...@mb-m28.aol.comBasically, the idea is to give structural support and torsional strength with less added mass than you'd get with straight braces. The tonal effect is generally to give you more bass response and sustain, and an overall "warmer" sound.Wrong on the bass response. The decreased mass allows the highs to better express since higher frequencies have less energy to get the top moving in the first place.Boy- this is counter to what I've experienced, and heard luthier friends say. I'm no physicist, but...
I guess we don't hang with the same luthiers. While scallopping will have an effect across the frquency range, the high end has always been the most dramatic change in my experience. I've done computer models that seem to support this.
Again, counter to what I've experienced and heard. My experience is consistent w/ Wade's comments.Which is NOT automatically a good thing, particularly on a dreadnought design which may be bass-heavy to begin with.I've always found it a good thing on a dred. The bass does get unmuddied but the highs balance out better
But most folks prefer the sound of scalloped brace guitars over straight, depending on the design and accounting for differences in the tonal response of individual sets of woods, of course. The downside from the structural standpoint is that scalloped brace guitars can be adversely affected by string pull and other stresses more easily than straight brace instruments.Only if they're improperly scallopped. You can remove half the weight of a square brace without adversely affecting structural integrity.This is kinda self-evident, JD. If the guitar suffers structurally over time, they were "improperly scalloped".
Half the weight of a square brace has absolutely no structural value and serves only to increase mass which dampens sound, especially higher frquencies. Figuring out which half to take out is basic rocket science.
It's obviously a trade-off... responsiveness and "scalloped-brace tone characteristics" vs. guaranteed long-term structural integrity.
Thinking like that would have never got us past Kitty Hawk. Like aircraft structure (something I know more than a little about), overbuilding braces may make for a guitar that will never break but it won't fly or sound good. Better a lighter brace with the same strength.
Scallop the braces, and it's likely that lighter strings will sound fuller... but, then, mediums might then be more than the guitar can handle w/o deforming somewhat.
It's inherent that you'll gain tonal responsiveness by losing some structural rigidity ... that, I think, was Wade's point.
By doing the job *properly* you don't have to give up *any* structural rigidity.JD
Carlos Alden
>>
>> Cheers -- Ken
>
> I don't know how I post twice but sorry for the doublet.
>
> Cheers -- Ken
>
> I don't know how I post twice but sorry for the doublet.
>
> Cheers -- Ken
Ken, you don't live in Walla Walla, do you?
C
Ken Cashion
<jul...@templeman-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>> A bad ear reduces the cost of GAS.
>
>Not necessarily....
>
>Went to the audiologist earlier this week to get my hearing checked --
>as I've been meaning to for several years -- and as I suspected, both
>ears are pretty shot on the high frequencies, probably as a result of
>too many over-loud gigs in earlier days. Not quite hearing aid
>territory yet, but it is getting closer.
>
>But I haven't noticed GAS decreasing one little bit... :-)
Julian, I guess there are other considerations than
sound...have you ever seen one of Kathy Wingert guitars? They are
just lovely to look at.
My wife has started pointing out nice doors on British telly
for me. I used to see some old program and someone would walk out a
door (Castle Howard...Brideshead Revisited) and I would exclaim, "Wow!
Look at the wood in that door!"
Now she does it for me. So, nice woods in a guitar is much
better than nice woods in a door.
My hearing on the starboard side is at the border of
hearing-aid country while the port side is only a little better. I
spent a lot of my professional career wearing headsets and mics and I
am good at picking out voices when they all seem to come from one
place, still, I am putting the ear-amps off as long as possible.
My mother's family was virtually deaf at 80; my father's side
was dead at 60 so I don't know about their hearing.
Cheers from southern South Mississippi -- Ken
JD
news:vq54okj...@corp.supernews.com
> I can tell you my experience and pose a question - I have a 30 year
> old Guild D25 and had the braces scalloped by a luthier - the
> difference was stunning! A huge improvement and now it sounds better
> than my more expensive Taylor and Martin - amazing - but then, he
> knew what he was doing...
>
> My question - I now have an identical Guild, but in a 12 string - I
> am thinking of having the same done becuase I'm not happy with it's
> sound - can the same be done to a 12 without weakening the structure
> too much?
>
> Lane
>
Guild 12's seem to use mast spars for bracing. There's enough meat on them
to take off a fair amount without weakening the strucure at all. The trick
is finding the person who knows the difference between excess and structure.
JD
Wade Hampton Miller
>I now have an identical Guild, but in a 12 string - I am >thinking of having
the same done becuase I'm not happy with it's sound - >can the same be done to
a 12 without weakening the structure too much?
Well, it's hard to say, Lane, and it IS a risk.
The problem is that you can't really tell how strong a spruce top is by looking
at it, tapping it, sniffing it or anything else. A strong top can look and tap
identically to a weaker one.
So maybe one guitar could withstand it, but another couldn't, and there's no
genuine way to know ahead of time.
12 strings are such unstable instruments to begin with, I certainly wouldn't
risk it.
JD
Lane, 12 strings are not inherently unstable, only the cheap ones and even
then a top of the line one will demostrate severe instability as my
Breedlove did. I've had Framus, Guild and Taylor 12 strings that were rock
solid and a quick check with my repair goddess confirms my impression that
12 strings don't wind up in the shop anymore than anything else. Having your
Guild scallopped is a matter of finding a tech who really has a handle on
which part of the brace is structural and which is unneccesary detritis.
Your Guild has a lot of wood in there to work with but the consequence of
cutting into the structural part of the brace is a *lot* more dramatic with
a 12.
JD
Lane
The guy that did my Guild 6 might be able to work the same magic on this
12 - but I dont' want to chance a structural failure! Too much tension on
that bridge to be reckless. Or maybe I should try something else - this axe
sounds OK, but just doesn't have much volume (and I dont need a LOT, I just
play folk and fingerstyle stuff) I'm going to make a new nut and saddle
with bone, try different strings, before I send it to surgery.... any other
suggestions?
Lane
"JD" <jdbnos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Zazob.39750$AU.3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Tom Loredo
>
> JD wrote:
> > Wrong on the bass response. The decreased mass allows the highs to better
> > express since higher frequencies have less energy to get the top moving in
> > the first place.
> >
> Boy- this is counter to what I've experienced, and heard luthier friends say. I'm no physicist,
Neither is JD, evidently. His observation may be correct, but the
explanation is erroneous. I'd love to hear more actual observations
about what happens tonewise when one scallops braces on a guitar that was
originally not scalloped, because I don't think it's at all obvious
a priori what should happen, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that
what *does* happen depends on the bracing pattern and guitar size.
Peace,
Tom
--
To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.
JD
> That makes sense, JD - thank you.
>
> The guy that did my Guild 6 might be able to work the same magic on
> this 12 - but I dont' want to chance a structural failure! Too much
> tension on that bridge to be reckless. Or maybe I should try
> something else - this axe sounds OK, but just doesn't have much
> volume (and I dont need a LOT, I just play folk and fingerstyle
> stuff) I'm going to make a new nut and saddle with bone, try
> different strings, before I send it to surgery.... any other
> suggestions?
>
A good bone saddle and nut can go a long way to improving your volume and
tone perhaps to the point where you won't feel a need for a scallop job. One
niggling but critical detail with saddles that many techs overlook is that
the bottom of the slot must be perfectly flat to mate with the saddle. Any
gaposis will result in degraded transmission of the vibration to the
soundboard.
JD
Lane
Hoping that will, in fact, make a big difference and I won't need to mess
with the bracing.... I understand your point about the bottom of the saddle
slot - but how do you assure that it is flat and void of "gaposis"?
"JD" <jdbnos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QKzob.40233$AU.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Tony Done
Scalloping the braces improved the bass response, as expected, with having
much effect on the highs and mids. This was an "exact" test of scalloping
insofar as nothing else was changed.
A small bodied guitar I had needed extensive repairs, and the whole lower
bout (unscalloped) bracing was replaced with scalloped bracing and a larger
bridgeplate in rosewood. It sounded better in all registers, but most
noticeably in the bass.
My take on this is that scalloping, **all else being equal** (which it never
is), will improve the bass response. This could be too much of a good thing
on a big guitar, and make it "boomy" and unfocussed, which I wouldn't want
for fingerstyle. On the other hand a small bodied guitar might benefit from
the increased bass of scalloped braces. But (this is a big but), if the top
is thin and springy anyway, even a small guitar might sound better with
plain braces. This is certainly true of my kona which has a mahogany top and
unscalloped braces , and I can't imagine it sounding any better than it
does. Another consideration is the style of music you play. If you play eg
fingerstyle blues, you might prefer the tighter, punchier sound of
unscalloped braces - one of the best sounding (to me) guitars I have played
was a new Martin 000-18 with unscalloped braces, but I don't suppose that a
strummer or flatpicker would like it.
Guitars with scalloped braces may be more prone to top lifting, again all
else being equal, and more responsive with light guage strings.
In regard to the guitars you mention, the SWOM is different in many ways
from the 000-16, and the choice of unscalloped braces may have been for
mechanical and/or tonal reasons. I don't think that you can make a
comparison between the two models based on their bracing.
Tony D
news:MPG.1a0bc3c95...@news.videotron.ca...
JD
news:3FA2C6AC...@somewhere.cornell.edu
> paul asbell wrote:
>>
>> JD wrote:
>>> Wrong on the bass response. The decreased mass allows the highs to
>>> better
>>> express since higher frequencies have less energy to get the top
>>> moving in
>>> the first place.
>>>
>> Boy- this is counter to what I've experienced, and heard luthier
>> friends say. I'm no physicist,
>
> Neither is JD, evidently. His observation may be correct, but the
> explanation is erroneous.
Do tell, I'd love to hear your explanation. I suppose a career of failure
analysis in vibrating environments has taught me nothing. The greater mass
of a lower vibrating string *will* overcome the resistance of the top far
more easily than a the vibration of a light weight string.
> I'd love to hear more actual observations
> about what happens tonewise when one scallops braces on a guitar that
> was
> originally not scalloped, because I don't think it's at all obvious
> a priori what should happen, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that
> what *does* happen depends on the bracing pattern and guitar size.
Those factors will certainly have a bearing on how much change will occur in
any area of the range but the tendency overall is to add clarity to the bass
and improve high end response.
JD
JD
> I'm going to make my own nut and saddle, JD - both are old and
> plastic. Hoping that will, in fact, make a big difference and I won't
> need to mess with the bracing.... I understand your point about the
> bottom of the saddle slot - but how do you assure that it is flat and
> void of "gaposis"?
I've used Plastigage. If you get a uniform "squish" you're pretty flat. If
it's an old guitar that may have some possibility of the bridge warping over
time it's easier (if you have the proper jig and tool) to clean up the slot
with a Dremel tool. Make sure to break the edges of your saddle to fit the
fillets at the bottom of the slot.
JD
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>On 10/31/03 9:12 AM, Ken Cashion eloquently wrote:
No No. Funny funny.
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
<snip>
>Guitars with scalloped braces may be more prone to top lifting, again all
>else being equal, and more responsive with light guage strings.
Tony, are we saying that the scalloping is only on the top
braces and not on the back braces?
I have a Framus 12-string and it has braces (front and back)
that are major chunks of lumber. It has the ringing sound I like in
12-strings but the bass could be a little better, but to get it, I
could just put fatter 5ths and 6ths on it.
I keep it tuned to pitch and it seems OK for its age.
Cheers -- Ken
paul asbell
>
>
>Those factors will certainly have a bearing on how much change will occur in
>any area of the range but the tendency overall is to add clarity to the bass
>and improve high end response.
>
>JD
>
>
>
>
while the rest of us watch... BUT...
I have heard consistently from pro luthiers, observed myself, and I will
cautiously state that it is "conventional wisdom" that scalloping the
braces of a guitar (all else being equal..) will increase the bass
response of a guitar.
This is directly opposite to what you're saying. Perhaps you're speaking
from your empirical experience... but most other observers and
authorities have observed exactly the opposite.
Lane
Also, I'm not familiar with Plastigage .... this is an 80s vintage Guild
and the bridge looks good, flat so I wont try to mess with cutting the slot
out - would be likely to do more harm than good, I think. But I DO want to
try everything I can to beef up the sound and volume - thinking the saddle
is a good place to start..
Lane
"JD" <jdbnos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhAob.26741$%e3.1...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Wade Hampton Miller
JD is telling you what you want to hear, and so I'm not going to interfere with
the male bonding moment you guys are having.
But I will reiterate - I think it's unwise to scallop the braces on a 12 string
guitar. I stand by that and everything else I posted earlier.
Admittedly, I proceed from a conservative basis on these instruments, and
that's clear to anyone who has read my posts over the years - I don't much care
for scalloping six string guitars, and have said as much many times.
But on 12 strings, I think it's dangerous.
Of course, if this DOES screw up your 12 string, maybe JD will be a sport and
pay to have it completely retopped for you.
Don't hold your BREATH, though...
SPAMN...@dunwellguitar.com
> Can someone explain the effect of scalloped braces on a guitar?
> I was looking at 2 different Martin OM models one with scalloped
> braces. (OOO16GT & SWOM). Thanks
Scalloped braces tend to damp the sound and give the guitar a kind of watery sounding sustain. I used to scallop my braces but even though they are slow, the do actually move around so it was hard to keep them on the nodes where I wanted them and the collectors kept picking them off and....Oh you don't mean _those_ kind of scallops!
Sorry couldn't resist. Scalloping the braces, along with other methods and tweaks, is part of plate tuning. The idea is to get the plate to respond better and minimize losses, etc. I'm sure Al C. will have a much more detailed description in a minute complete with the partial differentiation and nodal correspondence to the Lyra Galaxy <g>. [Geeez, I'm just full of it today aren't I?]
Normally there isn't time for this in a production type guitar so they take a best guess and shape the braces in a way that will give a good sound to most boxes. In the production guitars that are scalloped, most are just a refinement on this same idea by providing a standard scalloping in a way that will probably make the guitar sound better. Some of the small production or better shops actually tune the tops and backs to each other. Of course all the hand builders do some type of plate tuning and brace carving or shaping to get the sound they want.
Alan D.
Dunwell Guitar
1891 CR 68-J, MSR
Nederland, Co. 80466
Tony Done
highs and mids".
It's a while since it was done, but as I recall the (very good) tech who did
the work basically copied the Martin scalloping system, so it would have
been the back of the top main braces and the tone bars. I think that before
anyone embarks on this kind of mod, they need to find a tech who knows what
he is doing. Mine did a lot of tapping and pushing on the top of the guitar
before he did the work, and he noted that neither guitar had any noticable
top lifting, and plenty of saddle room to allow for a little lift as a
result of scalloping. . He also rebraced my L-00 with scallops. All the work
was done through the soundhole (this reminds me a of a gynaecologist joke),
and he has big arms. He had the marks for days afterwards. I visited him
again a few months later and he told me that he had done a modern Gibson
L-00, resulting in great improvement in tone.
A good starting point might be to do the tone bars first, then the bass main
brace, then the treble side. The reason I suggest this is because one local
luthier uses scalloped tone bars, but not scalloped braces, while Dana
Bourgeois scallops the bass side only. Both of them use braces that taper
towards the apex, ie tending towards a triangular cross section, as on the
newer Martin models (eg 16s).
But beware, YMMV.
Many thanks for the uke stuff . OE blocked the attachment, but you gave me
enough info to follow up.
Tony D
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3fa2d23b...@news.datasync.com...
Julian Templeman
>still, I am putting the ear-amps off as long as possible.
Me too.... especially when I find that the tiny, modern, all-digital
models run at about 2000UKP -- say 3000 bucks -- *per ear* !!
Sheesh.
But I suppose the hearing damage could explain why I can't hear a lot
of the subtle difference that other folks can hear in various
geetars...
John Sorell
news:bnulil$9vs$1...@peabody.colorado.edu:
Alan,
I think you mean the Lycra Galaxy. BTW - glad you guys are safe.
John
Matt Hayden
Perhaps the point here is that bracework on a 12 needs a bit more care
and caution than bracework on a 6 due to the consequences of increased
string pull. Bracework can certainly be done, but the consequences
(bellying top, possible reduction in overall structural rigidity) need
to be considered prior to taking the sandpaper/scorp to the inside of
the instrument.
mh
JD
JD
It can't help but to improve response across the range, including the bass
but my observations have consistently shown the overall balance to shift
toward the treble. As for "authorities", I'm in the habit of patronizing the
best I can find and I could give you a long list who'd tell you the same
thing I have.
JD
JD
> Woah.... you lost me there, JD - "break the edges to fit the fillets"?
The bottom of the slot will most likely have radii at the intersection of
the vertical side and the bottom (a fillet if you will). If you were being
precise about sanding the bottom of the saddle on a surface plate, you'd
wind up with a sharp edge that would interfere at that radius, preventing
the saddle from resting on the bottom of the slot.
> Also, I'm not familiar with Plastigage ....
Usually available at most automotive parts places, used for checking
clearance on crank bearings.
this is an 80s vintage
> Guild and the bridge looks good, flat so I wont try to mess with
> cutting the slot out - would be likely to do more harm than good, I
> think.
*Definitely* more harm than good if done without the proper fixture. This is
one of those seemingly obsessive points of attention to detail that
cumulatively can make a huge difference in how good your guitar sounds. You
can do a perfectly servicable job with going to that extreme.
But I DO want to try everything I can to beef up the sound
> and volume - thinking the saddle is a good place to start..
It *always* makes good sense to start with the easy stuff.
JD
JD
> Lane -
>
> JD is telling you what you want to hear, and so I'm not going to
> interfere with the male bonding moment you guys are having.
>
> But I will reiterate - I think it's unwise to scallop the braces on a
> 12 string guitar. I stand by that and everything else I posted
> earlier.
<Yawn> A quick comparison of the dimensional lumber bracing in your Guild to
the bracing in a Taylor will suggest that perhaps in the interest of
manufacturing expediency and a desire to eliminate any possiblity of
warranty claims, Guild grossly overbuilt their 12's.
>
> Admittedly, I proceed from a conservative basis on these instruments,
> and that's clear to anyone who has read my posts over the years - I
> don't much care for scalloping six string guitars, and have said as
> much many times.
I, obviously, am not so conservative but you can rest assured that I
wouldn't trust the job to just any guitarpenter.
>
> But on 12 strings, I think it's dangerous.
That's a blanket statement based on fear of the unknown. I would be hesitant
to scallop a more recently designed 12 string but I'd shave a Martin or
Guild in a heartbeat.
>
> Of course, if this DOES screw up your 12 string, maybe JD will be a
> sport and pay to have it completely retopped for you.
Tell ya what, I'll spring for the unlikely re-top provided I choose who does
the scallopping work *and* if Wade re-imburses you for the cost of the work
when the guitar doesn't fold up in say, 6 months.
>
> Don't hold your BREATH, though...
Put up or shut up.
JD
misifus
> Ken said...
>
>
>>still, I am putting the ear-amps off as long as possible.
>
>
> Me too.... especially when I find that the tiny, modern, all-digital
> models run at about 2000UKP -- say 3000 bucks -- *per ear* !!
Gee, for that much you could buy a louder guitar, no?
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rsei...@cox-internet.com
http://www.ralphandsue.com
madgamer
means I have a ringing in the ears ALL the time. It has not kept me
from getting GAS either(sigh)
Julian Templeman wrote:
> Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>
>> A bad ear reduces the cost of GAS.
>
>
> Not necessarily....
>
> Went to the audiologist earlier this week to get my hearing checked --
> as I've been meaning to for several years -- and as I suspected, both
> ears are pretty shot on the high frequencies, probably as a result of
> too many over-loud gigs in earlier days. Not quite hearing aid
> territory yet, but it is getting closer.
>
> But I haven't noticed GAS decreasing one little bit... :-)
madgamer
much good.
madgamer
son had a harmony project. They bought a old harmony at a garage sale
for $25. The removed the top and shaved the braces and reset the neck.
The difference was nothing short of amazing. I am looking forward to
playing it when I go to pick up my guitar In Jan. 03. The whole
process cots about $600 for all you folks who own old harmony guitars.
JD wrote:
> "Lane" <lwin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:vq54okj...@corp.supernews.com
>
>>I can tell you my experience and pose a question - I have a 30 year
>>old Guild D25 and had the braces scalloped by a luthier - the
>>difference was stunning! A huge improvement and now it sounds better
>>than my more expensive Taylor and Martin - amazing - but then, he
>>knew what he was doing...
>>
>>My question - I now have an identical Guild, but in a 12 string - I
>>am thinking of having the same done becuase I'm not happy with it's
>>sound - can the same be done to a 12 without weakening the structure
>>too much?
>>
>>Lane
>>
>
>
> Guild 12's seem to use mast spars for bracing. There's enough meat on them
> to take off a fair amount without weakening the strucure at all. The trick
> is finding the person who knows the difference between excess and structure.
>
> JD
>
>
madgamer
F412-Bld(1976) Due to age the 412 needed to have some major work done.
When I asked the tech about working on the braces he told me the same
thing. Do not mess with them. I am wondering why this guild does not
have good volume. I have never seen many 89's guild 12's that suffer
from this. Is it a 212 by chance?
Ken Cashion
<rsei...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>Julian Templeman wrote:
>> Ken said...
>>
>>
>>>still, I am putting the ear-amps off as long as possible.
>>
>>
>> Me too.... especially when I find that the tiny, modern, all-digital
>> models run at about 2000UKP -- say 3000 bucks -- *per ear* !!
>
>Gee, for that much you could buy a louder guitar, no?
Raf, why do you think I recently started playing my Framus
12-string and harmonica more? :o)
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
<jul...@templeman-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>Ken said...
>
>>still, I am putting the ear-amps off as long as possible.
>
>Me too.... especially when I find that the tiny, modern, all-digital
>models run at about 2000UKP -- say 3000 bucks -- *per ear* !!
Julian, this sounds like what my brother got and his were $5K
US for the two.
But as is so typical, he can tell you how wonderful they are
and if you would like to see them, he will take them out of his pocket
and show them to you. ??
"I only need them for soft women's voices."
"Does that include Carretta?"
"What?"
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Sorry about the typo - it should have read "without having much effect on
>highs and mids".
>
>It's a while since it was done, but as I recall the (very good) tech who did
>the work basically copied the Martin scalloping system, so it would have
>been the back of the top main braces and the tone bars. I think that before
>anyone embarks on this kind of mod, they need to find a tech who knows what
>he is doing. Mine did a lot of tapping and pushing on the top of the guitar
>before he did the work, and he noted that neither guitar had any noticable
>top lifting, and plenty of saddle room to allow for a little lift as a
>result of scalloping.
Oops! When these guys start tapping and pushing, they are
applying experience and that would leave me out. I wouldn't shave
braces because I wouldn't know how much to remove, and the way I treat
my guitars, heavy bracing may be necessary.
>He also rebraced my L-00 with scallops. All the work
>was done through the soundhole (this reminds me a of a gynaecologist joke),
>and he has big arms. He had the marks for days afterwards. I visited him
>again a few months later and he told me that he had done a modern Gibson
>L-00, resulting in great improvement in tone.
>
>A good starting point might be to do the tone bars first, then the bass main
>brace, then the treble side. The reason I suggest this is because one local
>luthier uses scalloped tone bars, but not scalloped braces, while Dana
>Bourgeois scallops the bass side only. Both of them use braces that taper
>towards the apex, ie tending towards a triangular cross section, as on the
>newer Martin models (eg 16s).
>
>But beware, YMMV.
>
>Many thanks for the uke stuff . OE blocked the attachment, but you gave me
>enough info to follow up.
I am glad I could help. As I recall, the attachment was a
little jpg of Janet Klein and her custom uke. You can see this jpg on
her web site and google can get you there. I have made arrangements
that when we go to dinner in December, she will bring me a good
publicity print of that image and I will use it and a few other Klein
things for a display in my pub...not unlike what I made of some of Ian
Whitcomb's things.
Cheers -- Ken
JD
What's next, bagpipes?
JD
Chris Mullin
...
"madgamer" <madg...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:NXFob.73316$HS4.637240@attbi_s01...
> at least you can use them. With the ringing I have they would not do
> much good.
>
I have been wearing hearing aids for ... about 15 years or so... I have
ringing in me ears so loud my wife can almost hear it. The ringing can be
very disturbing *BUT* ... it is neutralized by my hearing aids. Rarely do I
experience any ringing when I am wearing my hearing aids.
Go check it out but keep in mind, hearing devices are typically not covered
by medical insurance. They can be quite expensive.
Best of luck...
Chris
Ken Cashion
wrote:
No. Bodhran. I have it already and I got the instruction vhs
to explain how to do it. Bodhran is good and tape is very good. I am
only doing a spasmodic "thump-thump-thump-plop." (The "plop" is when
I drop the tipper.)
Cheers -- Ken
madgamer
this by others. It seems my loss is very selective and not the usual
type of loss. The doctor told me I could use such a device as you
describe but the gain would not justify the cost. Like all things the
new advances in the field my bring something but not in the near future.
thanks again.
Julian Templeman
>Gee, for that much you could buy a louder guitar, no?
Yeah... I *knew* there was a reason why I'm being attracted to
Nationals more and more... :-)
Julian Templeman
> No. Bodhran.
Ah... the instrument everyone wants to play, and no-one wants to
listen to :-)
Chris Mullin
> thanks for the reply but I have seen a specialist as I had been told
> this by others. It seems my loss is very selective and not the usual
> type of loss. The doctor told me I could use such a device as you
> describe but the gain would not justify the cost. Like all things the
> new advances in the field my bring something but not in the near future.
> thanks again.
>
Sorry to hear that they would not be helpful. I struggled without them for
years not wanting to get them. Now I wonder how I got on without them. I
hope that somehow you find a solution.
Best of luck
Chris
madgamer
G5832
considering a Martin D-35 or its scalloped brother, the HD-35. I received a
lot of helpful advice. Thanks again everyone.
For my 2 cents, I bought the D-35 because I preferred the less bassy sound of
the non-scalloped 35 over the HD-35. It was a hard choice, but I was searching
for a certain sound and the D-35 was it (a little more bassy than a HD-28, but
not too much). FWIW, Martin uses thinner braces on the 35s than their 28s,
which might account for some of the extra bassiness.
Randy
Lane
ask???
Lane
"madgamer" <madg...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:5bGob.73155$Fm2.58446@attbi_s04...
Ken Cashion
<jul...@templeman-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>Ken said...
>
>> No. Bodhran.
>
>Ah... the instrument everyone wants to play, and no-one wants to
>listen to :-)
Julian, this might be because every one wants to play them
well and few can. :o)
Cheers -- Ken
madgamer
sounding and play well but are not known for the volume they produce.
They were a intro level guitar. I have played one that had a greater
volume but I think it was an exception. In 1976 when I decided to buy a
12 string I played every guild I could find. None of them sounder like
what I wanted( loud, and ringing)till a friend told me to get a F412-Bld
and I bought one sight unseen or played and have loved it ever sence. I
would not recomend a new 412 but if you find one used in good condition
I woul becomend you buy it.
Tom Loredo
>
> Do tell, I'd love to hear your explanation.
As I thought I made clear, I don't have one. It's a complicated situation
and I personally would like to have more "observational data" before
claiming to have a good explanation.
> I suppose a career of failure
> analysis in vibrating environments has taught me nothing.
If the scalloping is so serious that the guitar falls apart, I will
defer to your explanation of why the vibrating system failed. 8-)
> The greater mass
> of a lower vibrating string *will* overcome the resistance of the top far
> more easily than a the vibration of a light weight string.
JD, as a vibrations expert I *know* you have to have a more nuanced
understanding of what is going on than this. Changing the mass of
what's vibrating affects *all* frequencies. Whether it affects some
more than others, and which ones it affects, requires saying more
about the system than whether the mass has changed. Scalloping
braces changes not only mass, but also stiffness and damping. It
will thus change the frequencies and Q's of the resonances of the
top, which will affect the guitar's response in a complicated way.
It is not obvious to me that anything generic can be said
about this that applies to all bracing patterns and body geometries,
at least not without significantly more explanation than "it
decreases the mass, therefore...."
Peace,
Tom
--
To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.
JD
news:3FA6B671...@somewhere.cornell.edu
> JD wrote:
>
>> The greater mass
>> of a lower vibrating string *will* overcome the resistance of the
>> top far more easily than a the vibration of a light weight string.
>
> JD, as a vibrations expert I *know* you have to have a more nuanced
> understanding of what is going on than this. Changing the mass of
> what's vibrating affects *all* frequencies. Whether it affects some
> more than others, and which ones it affects, requires saying more
> about the system than whether the mass has changed. Scalloping
> braces changes not only mass, but also stiffness and damping.
It won't affect the stiffness much until you cut too much away. Think of it
as compression brace; the high point of the scallop should taper down to the
adjacent cross braces. Between a triangular cross section and the taper the
mass is reduced by more than half with no appreciable loss in stiffness but
the damping effect will be greatly reduced. Less mass=less inertial
restance=more rapid response from the top. I think of this more rapid
response as "clarity" and certainly the bass end benefits from it but not to
the point that the mids and highs are overshadowed by it.
It
> will thus change the frequencies and Q's of the resonances of the
> top, which will affect the guitar's response in a complicated way.
> It is not obvious to me that anything generic can be said
> about this that applies to all bracing patterns and body geometries,
> at least not without significantly more explanation than "it
> decreases the mass, therefore...."
The mass of a vibrating low E contains more energy than a high E 2 octaves
up and will be less affected by the inertial resistance from mass of the
braces. The effect will be greater as the frequency goes up.
JD
>
> Peace,
> Tom
Bob Alman
more bass. Frets.com discusses this, and intuitively it seems to
make sense to me, but I am not a mechanical engineer. I do have
experience in spring design, and I know that tapered beams have
drastically different stress distributions, and correspondingly
different displacements. Simple models like a triangular taper and a
uniform cantilever beam have very different shape equations given
similar simple loads. I get a feeling that the increased flexibility
of the top when driven, would allow more amplitude for a given force,
and favor lower frequency response, and a higher Q. I am curious how
much the reduction in inertia from the removal of material would affect the
frequency response. In a thought experiment, if the top were
replaced with a diaphragm, it seems that higher frequencies would
respond better to a stiffer, less flexible diaphragm, and,
conversely, lower frequencies would favor a more flexible diaphragm.
What makes it more difficult to see the results, is that one would
need to look at the natural response of the top from am impulse
response, compared to being driven by the strings. I know the two
are related, but I have a feeling that the natural response will
be affected differently than the forced response.
So in one hand, I can see that reducing the mass of the system could
make it easier to move the top faster, but the change in the stress
displacement would allow more amplitude as well. If one went in the
other direction, and changed the cross-section so that the height
were 2X the original, and half the original width, the mass would be
identical, but the stiffness of the beam (brace) would be (8X / 2)=4
times as stiff, and clearly (I think) favor the higher frequencies,
and squelch the low frequencies.
OK, I'm done now. Carry on.
--
Bob Alman
Tom Loredo
>
> Also, I'm not familiar with Plastigage ....
Same here. Found this:
http://www.dana.com/perfectcircle/Plastigage.htm
...but I'm still not clear on what it is. JD, can you elaborate and
perhaps point out a source. This sounds like it could be handy.
Dai V
(usually in bearings). It can be found at virtually any auto parts store.
I learned the importance of it when I rebuilt my VW engine. Proper clearance
between crank and bearing, and the right amount of "end play" is extremely
important as I found out when I mistakenly had too little "play" and proud
of myself, I started the engine and went for a test ride. I just got a few
miles down the road when the engine seized up as the parts heated up and
expanded. When the mechanic took it apart(I wasn't about to make that
mistake again), the crankshaft had literally "welded" itself to the main
bearings.
Plastigage is the brand of a small plastic "string" and it comes in various
calibrated diameters depending on the anticipated clearance you wish to
measure. You place a piece of between the two pieces and assemble them as
usual and the plastic is "crushed" between the two pieces. Then you take the
assembly apart and using a cardboard template, you measure the width of the
flattened piece and a chart will convert it to a number representing the
thickness of the plastic piece, which in turn is the clearance between the
two objects.
If, as in a saddle/bridge fitting you want a clearance of "zero" than the
plastigage won't do you much good. It's designed for when you want a
specific clearance, as required for heat expansion, oil flow between bearing
surfaces, things like that.
It should work though if your bridge isn't exactly flush as it will tell you
how much surrounding material needs to be removed. If the plastigage is
virtually crushed into oblivion, or it's at least crushed evenly along the
bottom of the slot, then the fit should be right.
Hope this helps,
David
"Tom Loredo" <lor...@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3FA9594E...@somewhere.cornell.edu...
Steve Hawkins
> Lane wrote:
>>
>> Also, I'm not familiar with Plastigage ....
>
> Same here. Found this:
>
> http://www.dana.com/perfectcircle/Plastigage.htm
>
> ...but I'm still not clear on what it is. JD, can you elaborate and
> perhaps point out a source. This sounds like it could be handy.
>
> Peace,
> Tom
>
Tom, I've used Plastigage in my former life as a mechanic. The URL
cited gives a very good description of what it does and how it's used. Are
you asking about it's chemical composition?
Steve Hawkins
Tom Loredo
>
> Tom, I've used Plastigage in my former life as a mechanic. The URL
> cited gives a very good description of what it does and how it's used. Are
> you asking about it's chemical composition?
I didn't really get it from the site. But...
Dai V wrote:
>
> Plastigage is the brand of a small plastic "string" and it comes in various
> calibrated diameters depending on the anticipated clearance you wish to
> measure. You place a piece of between the two pieces and assemble them as
> usual and the plastic is "crushed" between the two pieces. Then you take the
> assembly apart and using a cardboard template, you measure the width of the
> flattened piece and a chart will convert it to a number representing the
> thickness of the plastic piece, which in turn is the clearance between the
> two objects.
That explained it a lot more clearly than the web site! Thanks a lot, Dai!
-Tom