Scale Length
GuitarsWeB
him.
Paul McGuffin
David Schramm's post
There is a difference in length between 660 and 650.
Although the difference between 660 and 650 is only 5mm on each side of
the
12th fret, over the length of the fingerboard each position has a
difference
in the four fret range. Each position shift difference is shorter by
less
than a tenth of a mm. In the first position the four fret stretch
difference
between 660 and 650 is about 1.505mm(1/16"); Second position dif is
1.417mm.; Third position dif is 1.338mm. etc.
Now if you put a capo on the first fret of a 660 it would be like
playing on
a 623mm guitar. Food for thought.
Personally I don't worry about the scale length because I can play on
any of
them except 670+ without any problems. The bottom line is the sound and
playability of the instrument. If the set up is bad even a 640 can be
difficult. With a good set up and feel a 660 can play just as easy as a
shorter scale. One scale isn't better than the other. Find what works
for
you. No big deal.
--
David Schramm
Clovis, CA
http://schrammguitars.com
http://onlineapprentice.com
Andrew Schulman
> This was an earlier post by David Schramm. I must say, I do agree with
> him.
> Paul McGuffin
>
>
Eliot Fisk told him he no longer plays anything over 650mm, and he has
huge hands.
I've had guitars with 640, 650, 652, 654, 655, and 660 lengths. 654
and up generally proved a little more difficult in the 1st and 2nd
positions, and when playing very difficult pieces this can prove to be
more of a problem than is worth it. At least for me it's that way. On
the other hand (no pun intended) longer string length makes upper
positions more comfortable.
A few years ago I started getting guitars with 652mm. This length has
proved ideal; comfortable in all positions and a little over 650mm has
been good for my 7th & 8th bass strings too.
Andrew
Kevin Hall
just relative to the hands' physical stretching. The longer scales feel
'tighter' and can be more difficult for smaller and/or weaker hands to
operate. They also put more tension into the top, which means that most
builders will use stiffer or heavier bracing in those than in their shorter
scales. That may result in an instrument which provides good projection
but less than scintillating response to gentle hands.
It is just about as difficult to get sensitive response out of a long scale
design as it is got get concert-hall projection and volume from a short
scale. First rank luthiers can probably do either, but the majority
cannot. The result is a lot of short-scale guitars which are sweet but
quiet, and a vast array of long scale brutes which are loud but must be
beaten up in order to produce a decent tone.
Like virtually every other aspect of luthiery, scale lengths pose a
compromise with which both builders and players must come to terms.
KH
"Andrew Schulman" <abac...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1167517989.8...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Tashi
Kevin Hall wrote:
> Actually scale length is a very important design consideration, and not
> just relative to the hands' physical stretching. The longer scales feel
> 'tighter' and can be more difficult for smaller and/or weaker hands to
> operate.
I agree with you Kevin 100%, longer scale guitars feel much stiff.
Although, David Schramm claims the opposite.
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
>
> I agree with you Kevin 100%, longer scale guitars feel much stiff.
>Although, David Schramm claims the opposite.
>
>MT
So do I. http://www.hago.org.uk/faqs/formulae-2.html
Robert
Tashi
What does it all mean?
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
It means that short scales feel stiffer than longer scales because it
takes more force to move the strings sideways the same amount.
That's why my short scale (62cm) Bohlin feels stiffer at the same
pitch than my regular scale Hippne(65cm). It just the physics of the
thing.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
Robert
Tashi
Does it take the same amount of time, for a short string verse a
long string, to reach it's true pitch once it is plucked?
Happy New Year to you too!
Michael
GuitarsWeB
feels better...to me. But, that's what make the world go around. We
have our differences and opinions. I own a 650mm cedar that I really
like. But my 660 mm feels better.. to my right hand.
Paul McGuffin
GuitarsWeB
instruments that would blow your socks off. I have played 660 mm that
were dogs. Point being, Eliot Fisk included, people are making too big
a deal over a few millimeters. That was the reason of Schramm's
original post.
Paul McGuffin
David Schramm
> It means that short scales feel stiffer than longer scales because it
> takes more force to move the strings sideways the same amount.
>
> That's why my short scale (62cm) Bohlin feels stiffer at the same
> pitch than my regular scale Hippne(65cm). It just the physics of the
> thing.
Exactly!!! Thank you. That is what I've said all along.
Oribe talks about it in his book as well.
John Nguyen
Actually, given the same type of string, the longer scale lenght
requires MORE tension on the string to produce the same frequency to a
shorter scale length. More tension means stiffer! Fundamental frequence
of a string is inversely proportional to the string length and linearly
proportional to the square-root of the tension, as in here (String
Equation):
http://www.hago.org.uk/faqs/formulae.html
Cheers and Happy New Year,
John
Tashi
GuitarsWeB wrote:
> Kevin, I don't agree with you at all. I have played 650mm spruce tops
> instruments that would blow your socks off. I have played 660 mm that
> were dogs. Point being, Eliot Fisk included, people are making too big
> a deal over a few millimeters. That was the reason of Schramm's
> original post.
> Paul McGuffin
Paul, There might be a few here and there, that don't mind a longer
string length, but when you include makers like Ruck, and myself, as
well as many others, say they haven't made anything over 650 the past
20 years it seems to say something.
Either everyone is crazy, and you David, and some others are sane, and
rational. If that's the case, I know a lot of crazy guitar players.
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
Since the displacement of the string from zero is negligible I would
suspect the time to return to zero is also negligible. It's a "feel"
thing.
I think many people can feel (and hear) things that can't really be
measured, but still do exist to them. I must confess that my senses
are not keen enough to tell much difference between instruments, be
they lute or guitars, except by how they feel and sound.
Why they do, or do not sound good is not in my noggin to understand.
That's for you builder guys.
Robert
Tashi
So John, does that mean I won the debate?
MT
David Schramm
Kevin Hall sells the best Western Red Cedar on the planet. Have you ordered
from him?
John Nguyen
Yes, I would think so, if my Physics 101 still holds water.
Let's take this example.
Let's pretend we have a 613mm scale by putting a capo on the 1st fret
of a 650 mm scale. Tune it, with the capo in place, to A440. Now remove
the capo. Your guitar should be lower than A440 by ½ step. In order to
make it in tune with A440, we need to tune the strings UP. That means
more tension is put on the strings. So the longer scale needs more
tension to produce the same frequency. That means more tension on the
soundboard and more tension on the fingers.
Cheers,
John
Tashi
Yea, this is true, but what Crim was saying is that a shorter string
takes more energy to set into motion than a longer string.
This is kinda demonstrated by a violin, and a cello, which one has a
stiffer first string? which has a more immediate response?
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
>
> Yea, this is true, but what Crim was saying is that a shorter string
>takes more energy to set into motion than a longer string.
>
> This is kinda demonstrated by a violin, and a cello, which one has a
>stiffer first string? which has a more immediate response?
>MT
I think you've got it pretty well understood. Tension doesn't mean
stiffness. I'm afraid Physics 101 is not a good basis for this stuff.
Maybe Physics 201?
Robert
John Nguyen
It's a different thing. Crim, I think, was refering to the string
deflection property, which said longer string gives out more amplitude
when exited the same defection force (from right hand fingers). So
longer scale length gives out more volume, but it's taxing on the left
hand fingers and on the soundboard because of higher total string
tension.
Cheers,
John
GuitarsWeB
people buy. I remember when the 650 craze all started. The big kick off
was the Romanillos book on the Torres guitar; early 1980s. I have the
book, and most others. Oribe sells everything but a 650mm. He seems to
make what he wants. If you like an Oribe, you buy it. Players don't
tell him how to build, he doesn't tell them how to play. He is not a
small time builder. If John Williams stated playing pine top guitars,
with ears, and 666mm scale; everyone would have to have one. Luthiers
would start making guitars with ears, follow the money. Ruck makes 650
because they sell. As I have stated, I've played many 650 that I love.
I just happen to think it's a lot of "hype." Have you ever heard of
guitar hype? Just read some of the ads published by the dealers. I know
what 'I" like, I like the way Eliot Fish plays. I could care less what
he plays it on. We, in the USA, are too in love with the guitar. We
need to be MORE in love with the music. But, from a maker's standpoint,
they would like us more in love with the instrument....always follow
the money. Who said that?
Paul McGuffin
John Nguyen
Tashi wrote:
John
>
> Yea, this is true, but what Crim was saying is that a shorter string
> takes more energy to set into motion than a longer string.
>
> This is kinda demonstrated by a violin, and a cello, which one has a
> stiffer first string? which has a more immediate response?
> MT
Well, if you tune the cello to the SAME pitch of a violin, you will
break it to pieces way before you come even close to the pitch, right?
Cheers,
John
Robert Crim
wrote:
>
>Well, if you tune the cello to the SAME pitch of a violin, you will
>break it to pieces way before you come even close to the pitch, right?
>Cheers,
>
>John
Put the violin strings on the cello.
Robert
alcarruth
opinions, and tend to use the same words with different meanings.
Sometimes it's hard to see through the fog.
Physically, for a given string material, pitch, and diameter a longer
string will have to have higher tension. It will be a little closer to
its theoretical breaking point, and it will have a higher impedance.
All of these effect both the tone and the playing characterisics.
With higher tension, a tighter string will have more energy at a given
amplitude of vibration. The overall mass of the string is closer to
that of the bridge, too, so it's easier for the string to move the top:
that's part of what higher impedance means. Thus at a given action
height you might get a little greater dynamic range, and probably do
get a higher sound level with more fundamental. Or, you can lower the
action a little, which can make the string easier to fret, despite the
higher tension. There's no free lunch, of course, that extra energy has
to come from your right hand, unless it shows up in shorter sustain.
Being closer to its breaking point, the longer string 'bends' less in
pitch; the tension changes less as a percentage of the total when it's
displaced by fretting or whatever. Thus the intonation tends to be
better. Also, because the stiffness of the string material counts for
less of the total restoring force, the overtone series is closer to
truely 'harmonic', which gives a 'clearer' or 'richer' tone, depending.
This is also helped by the fact that the losses, to things like
internal friction and the viscosity of the air, are proportionally less
in a relatively tighter string.
Finally, proportional change in tension as it vibrates is less for the
longer string, just as the tension change in fretting is less. The
tighter string puts out less of its energy in torqueing the bridge and
top, and more in the transverse inward push that is the most effective
way to drive the guitar for sound (assuming you plucked it right in the
first place!). This is likely another of the reasons for the more
'fundamental' tone of heavier strings, since the tension change occurs
twice per cycle.
All of this is the physics of the thing. Changes in the material, and,
for wound strings, the construction of the string, will alter all of
these things, obvoiusly. Not all of these changes are easy to
compensate for in construction: there's no way, for example, to
eliminate the greater anharmonicity of slack strings.
On the shorter string, then, we may find that a slightly higher action
is needed to get the same power and dynamic range as a longer one. This
means that the string will have to be pushed further to fret it, and,
because it's shorter, a given sideways displacement amounts to a larger
angle of displacement. It's possible (I haven't done the measurements)
that this would actually require as much or more force on the shorter
string than the longer one, and could be why people feel that the
shorter string has 'more tension'. Gotta look into that one.
I'll close with a short plug for Alicia Kofpstein-Penk's book: 'The
Healthy Guitar', wherein she gives guidelines for figuring out the
'proper' scale length for your hands. I find her advice is usually
quite conservative, recommending a shorter scale than most people find
they really 'need', but at least it is a basis for discussion.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
GuitarsWeB
Peacemakers.
Paul McGuffin
John E. Golden
I don't think this is correct.
If one compares 650 and 664 mm Scale Length Guitars, both strung with
the same D'Addario EJ45 Normal Tension Strings, it requires about 4.5%
higher Tension to tune the 664 mm Scale Length String to the same
correct frequency. It depends which of the six strings we are talking
about, but 4.5% higher is a good average for the six guitar strings.
The String Length for the 664 mm Scale Length is 2.15% longer than the
650 mm Scale Length.
Entering these ratios into the force for small string deflections
formula predicts that for the longer scale (664 mm) string, a 2.3%
higher force is required to make the same small deflection, and thus the
Longer Scale Length should feel stiffer.
However, before you 650 mm boys (and girls) try to use this to pound
another UNDESERVED nail into the coffin of longer scale length guitars,
let me point out that we're separating pepper from 'fly sh*t' here. Who
among us can feel this 2.3% difference in force?
Regards,
John E. Golden
John Nguyen
GuitarsWeB wrote:
> Think of a bow and arrow. Are there any bow shooters here? I like the
> Peacemakers.
> Paul McGuffin
You're right! The longer string eases the effrot to defect the string
on a bow, just like your RH fingers on a longer scale guitar. But if
you want the twangy slapping sound of the string bow of the longer one
to vibrate to the same frequency of a shorter bow's slapping sound, you
need to put a lot of tension on the long bow to do that :-).
Kevin Hall
low-density, very pale stuff that you seem to favour right now.
I am, however recovering nicely from the lightning-generated fire which
gutted my shop. The new machines are all in, set up and running and I'll
be resawing tops again right after the silly season.
A truckload of western red billets is on it's way from the Queen Charlottes
right now, all from the same massive tree which was blown down about 15
years ago. Like all my cedar and spruce it's a storm-damaged 'salvage' log
taken from one of the remaining old-growth areas which are now off-limits to
large commercial logging operators.
All the best for 2007.
KH
"David Schramm" <ddsc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qeidndl2js6C9wXY...@comcast.com...
Robert Crim
<johnis...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I don't think this is correct.
Work it out for your self. The physics is sound and not really up for
debate. That "restorative force" is the stiffness one feels.
It is what it is. End of story.
Robert
Kevin Hall
660 mm example may be canine in nature is irrelevant. I may have ridden
one or two Harley Davidsons that amused me in a lifetime of motorcycling,
but that doesn't mean they are all good bikes.
There are too many variables in play get an accurate understanding of the
whole picture from one or two examples of each.
In my experience long-scale guitars can have their actions set up lower than
a similar short-scale guitar without encountering string buzz, probably due
to the fact that the string is under greater tension and produces more power
with a shorter excursion so it doesn't hit the frets the way a slacker
string may.
That lets the instrument play well, but the physical effort of pushing the
string to the fret, even though it's lower, may well feel tougher.
The shorter scale needs to be set up slightly higher, so even though
tension on the string is less, you may have to shove it further. Two
different players may feel comfortable in one situation but not the other,
and vice versa.
The other purely subjective matter of neck contour also comes into play.
Some players like quite a thin neck with a flat back, while others find a
beefier neck with more rounded contour to be much more relaxing.
One of the easiest playing nylon-strung guitars I ever built was a flamenco
with a very thin neck, and a 670mm scale. Everyone who ever plays that
thing comments on how easy it is to operate, and even the most experienced
players do not believe me when I tell them it's a 670 scale until I get the
scale rule out. The neck is very straight, contoured very thin, and the
action is extremely low. Anyone playing that one example would come to the
immediate conclusion that long scale guitars are much easier to play than
most 650 scales. It's a fluke.
KH
"GuitarsWeB" <Guita...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1167614221.7...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
John Nguyen
There are others who think long scale has more tension, including
D'Addario.
http://www.12fret.com/fret/fv4n7.htm
http://daddario.com/Resources/JDCDAD/Videos/StringTension.pdf
http://www.hawaiiansteel.com/learning/gauges.html
Cheers,
John
Tashi
Flamenco guitars are always esaier to play because they are
generally made with thinner woods and cypress which is lighter, as
well.
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
>There are others who think long scale has more tension, including
>D'Addario.
Tension does not equal stiffness.
R.
John Nguyen
OK, partner! Have another drink for the New Year.
Cheers,
John
P.S. I always said "Tension does not equal stiffness" to my
watchamacallit in certain situation, hehe :-)
Robert Crim
wrote:
>
>Robert Crim wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2006 19:46:21 -0800, "John Nguyen" <old...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There are others who think long scale has more tension, including
>> >D'Addario.
>>
>> Tension does not equal stiffness.
>>
>> R.
>
>OK, partner! Have another drink for the New Year.
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>P.S. I always said "Tension does not equal stiffness" to my
>watchamacallit in certain situation, hehe :-)
?????????
Robert
Tashi
>
> >
> >Robert Crim wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 2006 14:46:42 -0800, "Tashi" <michae...@starband.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you Kevin 100%, longer scale guitars feel much stiff.
> >> >Although, David Schramm claims the opposite.
> >> >
> >> >MT
> >>
> >> So do I. http://www.hago.org.uk/faqs/formulae-2.html
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> > What does it all mean?
> > MT
>
> It means that short scales feel stiffer than longer scales because it
> takes more force to move the strings sideways the same amount.
>
> That's why my short scale (62cm) Bohlin feels stiffer at the same
> pitch than my regular scale Hippne(65cm). It just the physics of the
> thing.
>
> Happy New Year to you and yours.
>
> Robert
Robert, one of the reasons your Bohlin feels stiffer, is because
there is a lot more mass under the strings in the form of a bridge, an
11 string guitar's bridge spans more across the top....... one reason I
make the bridges on multi string guitars from plum wood..... it's
lighter.
MT
Tashi
Kevin Hall wrote:
> Thank you for that David. Unfortunately I have almost none of the
> low-density, very pale stuff that you seem to favour right now.
>
> I am, however recovering nicely from the lightning-generated fire which
> gutted my shop. The new machines are all in, set up and running and I'll
> be resawing tops again right after the silly season.
>
> A truckload of western red billets is on it's way from the Queen Charlottes
> right now, all from the same massive tree which was blown down about 15
> years ago. Like all my cedar and spruce it's a storm-damaged 'salvage' log
> taken from one of the remaining old-growth areas which are now off-limits to
> large commercial logging operators.
>
> All the best for 2007.
> KH
Thanks David! Kevin good to know about you. However, I just got a
bunch of billets from a guy up in Canada... I forget his name right
now, there very nice too.
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
You guys need to go find a high school science teacher to explain it
all to you. My Bohlin feels stiffer because it is shorter. You guys
are arguing with basic science.
I quit......I'm outta here. Discuss amongst't your selves.
Robert
GuitarsWeB
forget, the string length is longer so it feels looser. Think of the
the bow & arrow, a longer bow vs. a smaller bow.
Paul McGuffin
Tashi
alcarruth wrote:
> This is one of those 'can of worms' subjects where people have strong
> opinions, and tend to use the same words with different meanings.
> Sometimes it's hard to see through the fog.
You just made alot more fog.
>
> Physically, for a given string material, pitch, and diameter a longer
> string will have to have higher tension. It will be a little closer to
> its theoretical breaking point, and it will have a higher impedance.
> All of these effect both the tone and the playing characterisics.
Theortically speaking unless you know the diameter and the tension
you don't know what the breaking point is. Of course Enstein, if you
tune a string higher, you are " Closer" to the breaking point.
>
The overall mass of the string is closer to
> that of the bridge,
What???
too, so it's easier for the string to move the top:
> that's part of what higher impedance means. Thus at a given action
> height you might get a little greater dynamic range, and probably do
> get a higher sound level with more fundamental.
So what you are saying is, with higher tension you get more
fundamental...... I don' think so. There is really too much to go over
here so I'll leave it at that. Blah, Blah, Blah.
MT
Tashi
I said ONE of the reasons!!!! and if you doubt that, I could cares
less amigo!
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
>
> I said ONE of the reasons!!!! and if you doubt that, I could cares
>less amigo!
> MT
Have a safe and Happy New Year.....without a lot of snakes and such.
Robert
Tashi
With 2 feet of snow here in Santa Fe in the last 2 days, safe to
say, there are no snakes around.
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
Are you sure they aren't crawling in to keep warm in your boots and
such? 2 feet of snow? Better you than me.
Robert
David Schramm
This is my experience, and that of my customers, on how my guitars behave
with short and long scales. With the short scale the string has less tension
but feels tighter because there is less movement between the contact
points(nut/saddle). Also the action can be made lower with less buzzing
because the strings are stiffer on short scales.The opposite is true with a
longer scale. With a longer scale there is more tension but it feels softer
because there is more movement between contact points. This is why regular
tension strings feel like hard tension on shorter scales and hard tension
strings feel like regular tension on long scale guitar. What works for me
might not work for other builders.
bobby...@verizon.net
>... bottom line is the sound and
> playability of the instrument. If the set up is bad even a 640 can be
> difficult. With a good set up and feel a 660 can play just as easy as a
> shorter scale. One scale isn't better than the other. Find what works
> for
> you. No big deal.
There are so many posts on this that I may have missed this, so let me
ask - All these comparisons are concerning longer scale guitars but
equal tension strings; however they seem to imply that the longer scale
guitar would respond more similarly to the shorter scale if strung with
thinner diameter strings. Yes?/ No?
happy 2007 to all,
Bob
David Schramm
> Thanks David! Kevin good to know about you. However, I just got a
> bunch of billets from a guy up in Canada... I forget his name right
> now, there very nice too.
I just bought 50 tops from Canada, Ed Dicks. I need to order more. I'm not
set up to resaw so I don't buy billets. What density do you like to use? I
like 18 lbs/cu.ft. I found the ultra light 16lbs/cuft too bass oriented for
my liking.
David Schramm
> Thank you for that David. Unfortunately I have almost none of the
> low-density, very pale stuff that you seem to favour right now.
Well, if you will consider selling some or all to me my email is
ddsc...@comcast.net
> I am, however recovering nicely from the lightning-generated fire which
> gutted my shop. The new machines are all in, set up and running and
> I'll be resawing tops again right after the silly season.
Great to hear you and your shop are up and running. Seems like this was the
year for shops burning down. I know several others who lost their shops and
almost their lives in 2006.
How do you like the new machines? What did you get? :-)
Happy New Year!!!!....Well, at least in a couple hours on the left coast.
John Rimmer
>
>> Thanks David! Kevin good to know about you. However, I just got a
>> bunch of billets from a guy up in Canada... I forget his name right
>> now, there very nice too.
>
> I just bought 50 tops from Canada, Ed Dicks. I need to order more. I'm
> not set up to resaw so I don't buy billets. What density do you like to
> use? I like 18 lbs/cu.ft. I found the ultra light 16lbs/cuft too bass
> oriented for my liking.
>
>
wood that grew during a period of volcanoe induced global cooling? This
wood was denser because it grew slower. Of course, you are not making
fiddles...on the other hand, if this was true, then you would want wood
grown in the Northen-most regions of Canada. How does that work out, in
practice?
John
John E. Golden
news:Xns98AAE0CABCAC5jo...@207.115.17.102:
Guitar String Tension and deflection formulas:
http://www.hago.org.uk/faqs/formulae.html
The Tension formula can be rewritten as:
T = [UW*(2*L*f)**2]/386.4
where:
T= string Tension in pounds.
UW= String Mass per Unit Length in pounds/inch. [0.00002092 pounds/inch
for a D'Addario EJ45 Normal Tension high E (1st) String.]
L= Scale Length in inches.
f= Frequency in Hertz (or cycles/sec).
Masses per unit length for the other five strings of a D'Addario EJ45
Normal Tension String Set are available on the D'Addario website.
So, for each of the six strings in a set (8 strings for Andrew Schulman),
one would first calculate the Tensions for 650 mm (25.59055 inches) and 664
mm (26.14173 inches) Scale Lengths.
Then, one would use the second formula to calculate the "restorative
force" for the same small deflection for both Scale Lengths.
Regards,
John E. Golden
Tashi
GuitarsWeB wrote:
> Well, what can a say? This goes round and round. Luthiers make what
> people buy. I remember when the 650 craze all started. The big kick off
> was the Romanillos book on the Torres guitar; early 1980s. I have the
> book, and most others.
Luthiers make what people want!!! Until 1960 or so the "craze: as
you call it ( I call it the standard ) was 650mm guitars. Ramirez, and
the Madrid makers, introduced 664mm and up scales. If anything I would
consider what Ramirez did to be a "craze" and Romanillos reintroduced
sanity, however I don't go along with your logic here as Fleta,
Fredrich, Rubio,. Hauser, Bouchet, I could go on, and on, were 650's.
Everyone played 650's..... Bream, Williams, etc. until the Madrid
thing. Romanillos was in no way responsible for that. Like a rooster,
claiming responsibility for the sun coming up!
BTW, Paul, what scale do you think Bream was using ? He is said to
have recorded on a 642mm Hauser, as well. All of Breams guitars were
650 that I'm aware of. Do you think Rominilios told Bream what to
do..... or was it the other way around?
You seem to imply a vast conspiracy on the part of luthiers to ram
650's down every ones throat. What the hell difference does it make to
a luthier what scale guitar we make, I could care less. Luthiers make
what players want. I'm getting tired of hearing this is all the fault
of luthiers.
>Oribe sells everything but a 650mm. He seems to
> make what he wants. If you like an Oribe, you buy it. Players don't
> tell him how to build, he doesn't tell them how to play. He is not a
> small time builder.
I certainly admire Oribe's guitars, but can't remember the last time
I hear one in concert, or at a GFA competition, but then again I'm not
from southern Calif. At $14,000 a pop I can't see many serious young
players using them..... He seems to be aiming at the elite novice
player, and they wouldn't know the difference.
>If John Williams stated playing pine top guitars,
> with ears, and 666mm scale; everyone would have to have one. Luthiers
> would start making guitars with ears, follow the money. Ruck makes 650
> because they sell.
And why do they sell again?... answer, that what players want!!!
>As I have stated, I've played many 650 that I love.
> I just happen to think it's a lot of "hype." Have you ever heard of
> guitar hype? Just read some of the ads published by the dealers.
Hyping the mystic of a maker, and sound qualities, is one thing,
but you really can't hype playability and a mathematical measurement.
There are many guitarists that need that kind of hype, to feel
satisfied. Guitar Pimps, are the smart guys, the dumb ones, are the
people who fall for this stuff.
> But, from a maker's standpoint,
> they would like us more in love with the instrument....always follow
> the money. Who said that?
> Paul McGuffin
Whoa! I didn't realize I held so much power in my hands.......
I'll try your theory Paul, next time someone wants me to lower the
action because their having difficulty playing, I'll just tell them
their not good enough. If they continue whining, I'll tell them they
are just a bunch of wimps, and real men could handle it.
MT
> Tashi wrote:
> > GuitarsWeB wrote:
> > > Kevin, I don't agree with you at all. I have played 650mm spruce tops
> > > instruments that would blow your socks off. I have played 660 mm that
> > > were dogs. Point being, Eliot Fisk included, people are making too big
> > > a deal over a few millimeters. That was the reason of Schramm's
> > > original post.
> > > Paul McGuffin
> >
> > Paul, There might be a few here and there, that don't mind a longer
> > string length, but when you include makers like Ruck, and myself, as
> > well as many others, say they haven't made anything over 650 the past
> > 20 years it seems to say something.
> >
> > Either everyone is crazy, and you David, and some others are sane, and
> > rational. If that's the case, I know a lot of crazy guitar players.
> > MT
Tashi
John, the little ice age was from 1600 to 1750 or so. Stradivari
would not be able to benefit from this. I once gave a piece of Italian
spruce to a violin maker whom I greatly admire. He looked at it and
said, Stradivari would never use a piece of spruce with this close a
grain. If you study his violins it seems he preferred wider grain wood.
MT
John E. Golden
> John, the little ice age was from 1600 to 1750 or so. Stradivari
> would not be able to benefit from this. I once gave a piece of
> Italian spruce to a violin maker whom I greatly admire. He looked at
> it and said, Stradivari would never use a piece of spruce with this
> close a grain. If you study his violins it seems he preferred wider
> grain wood.
Is this some kind of hogwash you luthiers spout to enable you to use your
stores of cheaper wood or what?
Regards,
John E. Golden
GuitarsWeB
read my very first post, that David Schramm wrote. I am agreeing with
David that, there is not that much difference between a 650mm and a
660-664mm. especially from the nut to the 12th fret. That's what I'm
trying to say. I can't debate you about guitar building. You are a well
known maker. I am just a player of weddings and elevator music in
restaurants; FAR from the concert stage of Fisk, Bream, Williams and
many more. I'm not saying the 650mm scale is hype. I own one, but most
of the time I use a 660mm for my elevator music. Now, here's what I'm
hearing for you. 650mm guitars are like formula cars, drive by world
class drivers; 660-665mm guitars are like NASCARs, if you're playing
one, you are no better than some Budweiser drinking redneck, waving the
Stars & Bars at Talladega, rooting for Dale Junior. You are in the
small 10% of ignorant players, if you knew ANYTHING at all, you would
get with the players in the know, the serious ones, and move down to a
standard 650mm. Well, is this what you are saying? Yes? or No? Don't
start writing the Gettysburg Address;That gets like "Who's On Firts."
Yes or No. As I have stated, I'm NOT a concert guitarist. That takes a
completely different talent than weddings and elevator music in
restaurants. I don't play a macho Ramirez with 5mm string height and a
664 scale. I play a cedar top, 660mm with a low action; 3mm at the
12th. bass side, some wish to call it a flamenco action. But, over the
last fifty years, I have owned a number of top guitars, Ramirez, Oribe,
Etc.I have played tons of well know guitars. I know what I like, what
MY experiences have been. Maybe the demands of the concert stage
require a different instrument and feel. That could well be. In
restaurants, we play three to four hours. I like a guitar that's easy
to play the last hour of work. I have used 650mm many times and 660mm
many times. I just don't see that much difference. From now on, I'll
leave the guitar building arguments to you and the rest of the builders
on our group. I have only played one of your instrument. I though it
was very nice. I will stick to the topics on elevator music, and leave
the serious stuff to others.
Paul McGuffin
Kevin Hall
That's an interesting way to try to get accurate information out of
luthiers; accusing them of spouting hogwash.
Some of the very finest guitars, both steel and nylon strung, that I've
ever played in a long career had quite wide annular ring spacing. The
'hogwash' in this equation is the endless stream of written opinions by
self-styled experts extolling the virtues of narrow line spacing.
While most top builders tend to use narrow 'grained' tops, most that I know
agree in private that that is 90% a cosmetic consideration in response to
all the hype which the public has chosen to believe over the years. I put
' grained' in quotes because it is an incorrect term which has similarly
crept into common useage through the same route. The lines in tops are not
in fact 'grain' but are the annular growth rings , appearing as they do in
instrument tops due to the orientation in quarter-sawn timber.
There are many other criteria for top selection which are far more important
to most working luthiers than the spacing of annular rings. When I say
'working' luthiers I mean those who make guitars using planes and chisels,
as opposed to those who make 'em with a typewriter or word processor.
Something else to consider is the fact that luthiers tend to be pretty
individualistic folks. It's a solitary pursuit which doesn't lend itself to
committee participation, so most of those who play the game have their own
very strong ideas about what is right FOR THEM and what isn't.
Folks with little or no understanding of the process seem to be always
looking for some mystical 'secret' to making great instruments. As Torres
pointed out so many years ago, there are no secrets, only hard work and
the painstaking development of personal skills and judgement. What works
for one builder may not work well for another of similar skill level.
If a guy wants to top his guitars with high-grade styrofoam that's fine by
me, especially if he can make it work and if his clientele are broad-minded
enough to accept the concept.
KH
"John E. Golden" <johnis...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98AB7F81241B0jo...@207.115.33.102...
Kevin Hall
We bought a new 18" General International bandsaw, which is a huge
improvement over the earlier models. I have a 15" General ( the
Canadian-made job) for general shop work, and I keep that strung with a
3/8" blade most of the time. The big lad is for resawing only, and it
wears a 1", 3 tpi blade for the purpose. The 3hp motor makes a big
difference in grunt when slicing 9" depths in hardwoods or even in sitka.
Sitka can be a bugger to resaw if you get into the really hard, slow grown
stuff. The new 18" is very well made with a big table, very good heavy
duty guides, a massive guide rod, foot brake, and heavy iron wheels
which are cast, turned and balanced in Canada in the same facility where
General make their 20", $7,000 saw. It weighs about 200 lbs more than
it's predecessor, and that shows dividends in quality of cut. The only
area where it falls down is in dust extraction, but that's a problem with
the vast majority of bandsaws if you're resawing a lot. I'll probably have
to instal a second pickup point on it as time permits.
I looked at a lot of bandsaws before buying this one, including Laguna,
Meber and a lot of other offshore machines. For the money, I think it's
the best of the lot for my purpose. It was about $2k Cdn., but if I wanted
to get something which was significantly better I'd have to go to the 20"
Canadian made General at just over $7k. Hard to justify near the end of my
career.
I also have a portable band mill for the big, heavy work. That has a 13hp
Honda engine on it, and it lives outdoors of course. That was well away
from the fire, so we didn't have to replace it.
The General International line sold in Canada is quite similar to some of
the US Jet stuff. Jet products sold in Canada are completely different
from the US-marketed versions and as a rule aren't up to snuff in my
opinion.
The new tablesaw is a 10" cabinet job, again with a 3 hp motor and triple
belt drive. It's a King. King distribute lots of machines I really don't
like, but their tablesaw in the $1,500 price range is definitely a better
buy than the rest on offer up here in the wilds. Likewise their 15" planer,
which I bought over the General International in the same price bracket.
Drill press is Gen. Int., 1/2" capacity. I have an old Buffalo drillpress
on the garage side of the building. I liked the Gen. Int. drill because
every one I tried had no perceptible float in the quill when it was extended
full length. The vast majority of new offshore drill presses under about
$1,000 have enough float in the quill to drill oval holes from the very
start. Not much use other than for holding down a section of shop floor.
Replaced my old Performax thickness sander with the new 18" Delta. It's not
brilliant but is adequate for my needs and it doesn't take up as much
valuable shop floor space as better quality alternatives.
I bought another 6" jointer, but would have liked an 8" if I had enough
extra shop space to accomodate it.
One thing I really like is the General downdraft table. Wish I'd had one
years ago. It makes jobs like sanding bodies so much more pleasant it's
like having a holiday. The 1 hp suction motor clears away the vast majority
of sanding dust instantly, runs the air through a big filter system and
dumps the collected dust into a convenient tray for easy emptying. First
job was to sand charred finish off a row of 4 salvageable guitar bodies
damaged in the fire. After half an hour with the palm sander I still
couldn't even smell the smoked lac. Brilliant rig.
I chose a Porter Cable combination router outfit which came with both a
fixed and plunge base, so you can mount the fixed type base in the tablesaw
extension and as the need arises pop the router out without disturbing
settings and drop it into the plunge base for hand use. Nice rig, and
very versatile. I lost about 5 routers in the fire, mostly attached to
various jigs or fixtures including a 3 1/2hp Hitachi which lived permanently
in the saw table extension. With the Porter Cable twin base setup I should
be able to get by with a couple less. I bought another DeWalt which will be
permanently fixed to my binding routing set-up, and will still need to pick
up a small, veneer trimming type or two before we're done.
There are 3 or 4 new Dremels which get set up with various jigs and guides,
and a new Foredom at the bench.
Put a new General ceiling air filter in, and I like that. It's a cheapo
but effective and I like the remote switch so I can turn it on or off from
anywhere in the shop as long as I leave the gizmo in my shop apron so I can
remember where to find it. ;-) That filtration unit is intalled near a
large dia. ceiling fan. The fan is usually on low speed to blow heated air
back down but when I'm generating a lot of dust I reverse it so it keeps the
escaped solids airborne for long enough for the filter unit to suck 'em
through and harvest them out of the air.
Replaced a couple of electric hand drills with an 18V DeWalt rig which will
bust your wrist with torque if you jam up a bit while drilling through sheet
metal etc. The power of that is amazing, and the batteries hold their
charge for much longer than I would have believed possible. While
rebuilding the shop I've been driving three and four inch screws with it and
they're going in like drywall screws into a marshmallow.
I replaced my Trend Air face shield with another of the same breed.
They're wonderful and may save your life. If you aren't familiar with them,
they look like the plexi full-coverage face shields which are popular with
wood turners these days. They have a slim rechargeable battery in the head
band, and that runs a very quiet motor which pulls air in through a 2 stage
filter in the front, and blows it down the inside of the faceshield. The
pressure is just enough to stop contaminated air coming under the shield,
and it has the added benefit of keeping the shield from steaming up.
I'm asthmatic, and wear bifocals in these days of my galloping geezerhood.
The lung problem means I have to pay attention to dust protection but the
specs make that difficult with any of the more conventional dust masks
because of fogging the specs. The Trend Air unit keeps any sign of dust out
of my nose and lungs, and it's comfortable enough that I wear it rather
than just letting it rot on the shelf like a broad assortment of other
breathing gizmos tried over the years. Because it's a full face unit, it
does a great job of protecting the eyes from flying chips and other debris
as well. At around $300 it ain't cheap, but worth every cent in my book.
Unfortunately most of my old chisels and planes etc. got cooked as well, so
I've been replacing those with a mix of Japanese chisels and some of the LMI
jobs designed by my old chum Bill Lewis many years ago. My long jointing
plane was replaced with a new Veritas from Lee Valley Tools. One positive
to come out of the fire is that when I went to replace the wooden Primus
reform smooth plane I'd used for about 30 years I discovered they now make
them in a left-handed variant, which made my day. That's a great plane,
and I used my old one a lot. Now with the front handle kinked the 'right'
way for a guy who is wired backwards life will be easier.
No doubt way more information than you wanted.
All the best,
KH
"David Schramm" <ddsc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yNidnbFoDpIrOQXY...@comcast.com...
Kevin Hall
KH
"Tashi" <michae...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:1167668044.9...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
steve ganz
How big is your shop space?
What is your main dust collection done with?
ganz
Kevin Hall
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I'm much more familiar with
steel strung guitars as a builder and player, and what I see in those is
that invariably the builders find it necessary to stiffen up the top by
leaving it thicker or using heavier bracing if they choose to go to a longer
scale. If they don't, string tension will cause distortion in the top in
short order.
Often players buy those instruments, discover they are just too stiff to
play comfortably, so when nobody is looking they switch to light guage or
even extra light strings. That makes them feel slightly less stiff, but
now the strings are not substantial enough to excite the extra lumber in the
top and the sound gets quite thin, resulting in the player having to beat
the thing up in order to get any kind of voice out of it.
The next step is to trade it in, and it is very easy to find long scale
steel string guitars being offered on the used market at very reasonable
prices while only a year or less old. I've seen the same process with long
scale classicals over the years, but as I say my experience is much more
with the cowboy end of things.
As always, there are a number of variables in play and it is tough to reach
sensible conclusions without examining them all in context.
KH
<bobby...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1167630742....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
John E. Golden
Ok Kevin, I could have phrased it more diplomatically.
But calling me a guy that makes guitars with a word processor--now
that's really low even if it's true.
I have all the books and I can design a hell of a guitar, especially if
I don't have to build it.
Regards,
John E. Golden
Kevin Hall
Silk or shimmer is an indication that the wood is cut right on the quarter,
which is desireable of course at least structurally. The silk is a view of
medullary rays, and shows only 'on the quarter' so it's a great indicator
for properly cut tops. Whether it has any direct affect on sound is
debatable, but given a choice between a top which shows it and one which
doesn't, my money would be on the silky lid every time.
Tops cut on the quarter are as a rule more stable than others, less prone
to cracking and more predictable in their reaction to both string tension
and atmospheric changes. All good things.
KH
"John Rethorst" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:nobody-935198....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <12pipev...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote:
>
>> Some of the very finest guitars, both steel and nylon strung, that I've
>> ever played in a long career had quite wide annular ring spacing. The
>> 'hogwash' in this equation is the endless stream of written opinions by
>> self-styled experts extolling the virtues of narrow line spacing.
>
> Back when I played steel string, I had the chance to play a Santa Cruz
> 20th
> anniversary model. They make (or made, I've lost track) some very nice
> instruments. They celebrated their 20th anniversary right, and the price
> tag
> reflected it. So did the sound - just superb. The top was astonishing to
> look
> at, though - the 'grain' was not only wide, but remarkably uneven.
>
> IIRC Al Carruth posted once that tight grain did not reflect better
> quality than
> wide but, other things being equal, had better treble response while wide
> grain
> had better bass response. The key to understanding that was of course that
> other
> things are never equal.
>
> I've heard from other luthiers that 'silk' is also not an indication of
> acoustic
> quality. I've also heard that wood supply grades, e.g. master and AAA, are
> largely cosmetic grading rather than acoustic.
>
>> Something else to consider is the fact that luthiers tend to be pretty
>> individualistic folks.
>
> Seems appropriate, since pieces of wood tend to be pretty individualistic
> too.
>
> --
> John Rethorst
> jrethorst at post dot com
Kevin Hall
You seem to be assuming I was referring to you when I wrote about guys
building guitars with typewriters. No such luck. I have no idea who you
are or what you do. I'm talking about 30 years' worth of magazine writers
who parrot the ' prevailing wisdom' which values tight 'grain' above all
other criteria for top selection.
These characters have done the trade a great disservice by convincing
gullible players that a good guitar has to have close lines. It's nonsense
of the first rank, but has been taken as gospel by many thousands of
players for many years. Virtually every good builder I know has tried to
explain why the 'tight line' thing is a fallacy to their customers, but
eventually had to give up in the face of overwhelming resistence. Now most
of us are perfectly content to give the client what he or she wants and to
pass the ridiculous surcharge for billion-lines-to-the-inch spruce on to
them if that's what they want.
On one hand, clients want their builders to give them accurate information
based on a number of years of hands-on experience in the trenches, but on
the other the same clients want to argue if the opinion of the same builder
contradicts what ever some magazine wonk has written the week before.
For years I did a fair bit of gunsmithing on the side, and encountered
exactly the same sort of thing among casual shooters following the
adventures of their favourite outdoors writers. I'd have to sit still and
listen to endless repetitions of stories about 600 yard head-shots on
running deer with a 250 Savage after some chap had read a book or article by
Elmer Keith or Jack O'Connor. Thank God 'Lord of the Rings' was clearly
labeled as fantasy!
I've spoken with guides who led both these guys on long western hunts, and
discovered that while both were wonderful authors, they may have been
handier with a bottle than with firearms in real life.
Readers don't want to know that stuff. They want to believe what they pay
their $5 for. I just wish they wouldn't put their critical faculties
completely on hold and expect me to do the same.
KH
"John E. Golden" <johnis...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98ABA2E31EBFjo...@207.115.17.102...
Kevin Hall
I'll answer that, but if you need more specific info on the shop maybe we
should get off the group and not clutter up this thread with a sort of
detour.
My current shop is small, but since I'm a one-man band these days it's
enough. The building is 2 stories, 28' by 32', with a barn roof, purpose
built by myself and a couple of neighbours 9 years ago. The upper level is
storage for guitar woods and classic motorcycle parts. The lower level is
divided with the woodshop and the garage side.
The wood shop is about 14' wide by 20' long with the ceiling at 8' 9". The
garage side wraps around the back in a sort of 'L' and my spray booth forms
the lower limb of the L. Our MG lives in there over the winter, and gets
pushed into the body of the garage when I need to spray.
My dust collector consists of two one-horse units, one of which is plumbed
into wall mounted 4" clear poly tubing with blast gates and hook-ups to the
main machines, while the other remains on wheels and allows me to hook up to
the non-permanent installations like the thickness sander and oscillating
spindle sander.
When I add the second dust outlet to the bigger of the 2 bandsaws I'll use
the second machine for that as well.
Really, having 2 bandsaws is a luxury but I like being able to switch
functions from resawing to general shop work without wrestling blades and
setting up the machine every time. In years gone by I resawed with an old
14" Rockwell with the riser block, and tried to schedule work so I wouldn't
have to change from narrow blades to heavy any more than necessary. It
worked, but was very hard on that little shop saw.
All the best,
KH
"steve ganz" <sganz_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ytGdnWKOP4IS6QTY...@comcast.com...
Tashi
GuitarsWeB wrote:
> Mike ... I think you've miss understanding my main point. Let's all
> read my very first post, that David Schramm wrote. I am agreeing with
> David that, there is not that much difference between a 650mm and a
> 660-664mm. especially from the nut to the 12th fret. That's what I'm
> trying to say. I can't debate you about guitar building. You are a well
> known maker. I am just a player of weddings and elevator music in
> restaurants; FAR from the concert stage of Fisk, Bream, Williams and
> many more. I'm not saying the 650mm scale is hype. I own one, but most
> of the time I use a 660mm for my elevator music. Now, here's what I'm
> hearing for you. 650mm guitars are like formula cars, drive by world
> class drivers; 660-665mm guitars are like NASCARs, if you're playing
> one, you are no better than some Budweiser drinking redneck, waving the
> Stars & Bars at Talladega, rooting for Dale Junior. You are in the
> small 10% of ignorant players, if you knew ANYTHING at all, you would
> get with the players in the know, the serious ones, and move down to a
> standard 650mm. Well, is this what you are saying? Yes? or No?
Yes, basically , 75% of my customers are primarily teachers, and
students in conservatories, 25% are what I call doctors, and lawyers,
for lack of a better description. From my perspective I deal with guys
who only want 650's and 640's.
>Don't
> start writing the Gettysburg Address;That gets like "Who's On Firts."
> Yes or No. As I have stated, I'm NOT a concert guitarist. That takes a
> completely different talent than weddings and elevator music in
> restaurants. I don't play a macho Ramirez with 5mm string height and a
> 664 scale. I play a cedar top, 660mm with a low action; 3mm at the
> 12th. bass side, some wish to call it a flamenco action.
Paul, that's really low action!!! no wonder you have no problem playing
it. I consider concert action 5/32 on the bass, and 3 1/2 /32 on the
treble. I know many guys who play restaurant gigs and they like it low
too.
But, over the
> last fifty years, I have owned a number of top guitars, Ramirez, Oribe,
> Etc.I have played tons of well know guitars. I know what I like, what
> MY experiences have been. Maybe the demands of the concert stage
> require a different instrument and feel. That could well be. In
> restaurants, we play three to four hours. I like a guitar that's easy
> to play the last hour of work. I have used 650mm many times and 660mm
> many times. I just don't see that much difference. From now on, I'll
> leave the guitar building arguments to you and the rest of the builders
> on our group. I have only played one of your instrument. I though it
> was very nice. I will stick to the topics on elevator music, and leave
> the serious stuff to others.
> Paul McGuffin
Paul I don't mean to have the last word here. After all it's you
guys who buy guitars. I serve at the pleasure of the King. The point
is we luthiers are not always calling the shots.
GuitarsWeB
playing
<<<it. I consider concert action 5/32 on the bass, and 3 1/2 /32 on
the
<<<treble. I know many guys who play restaurant gigs and they like it
low
<<<too.
I know, but I can't play those higher actions for three or four hours.
Back in the late 1960's, I even uses one of Oribe's flamencos, with
machine head, for most gigs. Somewhere I remember reading that Aaron
Shearer recommended students use 1/8" (3mm) at the 12th fret, bass
side. Maybe someone could find where he wrote that. Or, maybe my memory
is failing me.
Maybe you could use the B **H photo I sent, for an off topic.
Paul
alcarruth
over!
Thanks for the math on the deflection force of long vs short strings. I
kinda figured I was wrong on that, but suggested it anyway, knowing
that somebody would nail me if I was.
Tashi wrote:
" Theortically speaking unless you know the diameter and the tension
you don't know what the breaking point is. "
Well, interestingly enough, you can. All you have to know to find the
breaking _pitch_ of the string is the material and the length. All
strings of a given material and length will break at the same pitch,
no matter what the diameter (within reason). And, of course, knowing
the material, length, and breaking pitch, you can calculate the tension
on the string, so....
Kevin sure is pretty much right about tight ring lines. Brian Burns
measured the lengthwise and crosswise stiffness of a large number of
top halves several years ago, and found that there is a very rough
correspondance between crosswise stiffness, density, and line count. Up
to about 32 rings/inch the tops tended to gain stiffness faster than
density, but above that density won out. Since, (very!) generally
speaking, a low density top will end up being lighter for a given
stiffness, it's probably not advantageous on the whole to use the
really tight grained wood. Of course, this is all statistics, and I
have yet to build a 'statistical' guitar. In the real world you go with
your best judgement of the wood you've got, and hope you can make it
work. Still, I'll say that, in my experience, the classical guitars
I've built with light, low density tops, have been my best ones.
That whole 'Little Ice Age' thing seems to bubble to the top more or
less regularly, and has been knocked down a couple of times that I know
of. Again, that wood tends to be denser than 'normal', and thus ends up
making a heavier top than it could. All the evidence I've heard, from
the people who have taken Strads apart and weighed the tops, suggests
that they're _lighter_ than most modern fiddles, often much lighter,
and everybody is trying to figure out how the heck they did that.
And, yes, I _do_ use chisles and planes to make my guitars, and also
can speak to things like the breaking pitch of strings based on
experiments I've done. There's nothing quite like getting a few numbers
on things to clear away that fog.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Tashi
alcarruth wrote:
> Somehow I couldn't find this thread yesterday, and I wasn't even hung
> over!
>
> Thanks for the math on the deflection force of long vs short strings. I
> kinda figured I was wrong on that, but suggested it anyway, knowing
> that somebody would nail me if I was.
>
> Tashi wrote:
> " Theortically speaking unless you know the diameter and the tension
> you don't know what the breaking point is. "
>
> Well, interestingly enough, you can. All you have to know to find the
> breaking _pitch_ of the string is the material and the length. All
> strings of a given material and length will break at the same pitch,
> no matter what the diameter (within reason). And, of course, knowing
> the material, length, and breaking pitch, you can calculate the tension
> on the string, so....
I think that's pretty much what I said. Up until your thread no
mentioned absolutes such as pitch etc.
MT
>
> Kevin sure is pretty much right about tight ring lines. Brian Burns
> measured the lengthwise and crosswise stiffness of a large number of
> top halves several years ago, and found that there is a very rough
> correspondance between crosswise stiffness, density, and line count. Up
> to about 32 rings/inch the tops tended to gain stiffness faster than
> density, but above that density won out. Since, (very!) generally
> speaking, a low density top will end up being lighter for a given
> stiffness, it's probably not advantageous on the whole to use the
> really tight grained wood. Of course, this is all statistics, and I
> have yet to build a 'statistical' guitar. In the real world you go with
> your best judgement of the wood you've got, and hope you can make it
> work. Still, I'll say that, in my experience, the classical guitars
> I've built with light, low density tops, have been my best ones.
Your science, seems to not take into consideration the angle of the
cut, nor if it was split or not.... both of these things far out weighs
the actual density issues, in the performance of a soundboard.
MT
>
> That whole 'Little Ice Age' thing seems to bubble to the top more or
> less regularly, and has been knocked down a couple of times that I know
> of. Again, that wood tends to be denser than 'normal', and thus ends up
> making a heavier top than it could. All the evidence I've heard, from
> the people who have taken Strads apart and weighed the tops, suggests
> that they're _lighter_ than most modern fiddles, often much lighter,
> and everybody is trying to figure out how the heck they did that.
A friend of mine who works at SNL in Albuq. has instruments to
measure the weight of atomic particles, we are conducting some
experiments using different solvents, including salt water, acetone
etc. to drain the spruce of sap, and other chemicals, and to measure
the weight reduction if any, in the treated spruce. We will also
measure how this effects the stiffness of each piece as well.
MT
>
> And, yes, I _do_ use chisles and planes to make my guitars, and also
> can speak to things like the breaking pitch of strings based on
> experiments I've done. There's nothing quite like getting a few numbers
> on things to clear away that fog.
Problem with numbers is, they have to add up!
MT
>
> Alan Carruth / Luthier
alcarruth
Tashi wrote:
"Your science, seems to not take into consideration the angle of the
cut, nor if it was split or not.... both of these things far out weighs
the actual density issues, in the performance of a soundboard. "
Where do you see that? A lighter soundboard _all else equal_ was what I
meant: same grain angle, stiffness ratio, runnout, and so on. That
should be obvious: if you change more than one variable you aren't
going to learn much. That's one of the big problems with lutherie
science; finding wood that really is 'the same', and then controling
all the other variables.
I'll be interested to hear what you find with your chemistry
experiments.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
David Schramm
IMO the guitar buying public has been duped into thinking that tight grain
means a better sounding guitar. Aesthetically it is more expensive, but that
is what you are paying for..the look and rare cut not the sound. Take a look
at some of the Romanillos guitars that have 5-8 grains per inch.
I like the guitar John Gilbert built for Ken Brown that has two 1/4" knots
below the bridge. It is a great sounding guitar and I'd love to own it. I
have some great video, about 12 hours, that I took of John and William
Gilbert teaching one of their guitar making classes at the American School
of Lutherie where John talks about wood selection and tap tones. It's pretty
funny. Talk about a myth buster.
David Schramm
> Yes, basically , 75% of my customers are primarily teachers, and
> students in conservatories, 25% are what I call doctors, and lawyers,
> for lack of a better description. From my perspective I deal with guys
> who only want 650's and 640's.
My 1998 Hauser had a 645mm scale and I loved the sound and feel of that
guitar. Hauser seems to like a high action when he sets them up. Doesn't
bother me though. I can dig into the string more which I prefer.
Regarding timbre I'm in the lutherie camp that believes scale length also
affects the timbre of the instrument. Ralph Novac(sp?) has written some
interesting articles on the subject in American Lutherie Journal.
alcarruth
Cavid Schramm wrote:
"Regarding timbre I'm in the lutherie camp that believes scale length
also
affects the timbre of the instrument. Ralph Novac(sp?) has written some
interesting articles on the subject in American Lutherie Journal. "
Sure it does: longer strings have higher impedance, all else equal, and
that changes the way they drive the bridge, as I mentioned in a
prevoius post.
If I understand it correctly, Ralph Novack's theory concerns the
longitudinal vibration of the string, similar to the sort of wave that
you'd see with air in a long pipe. The frequency of this is totally
determined by the length and material of the string, and not at all by
the tension, except to the extent that it might alter the material
properties. I saw this sort of vibration when I did measurements of the
transverse and tension forces on plucked strings a while ago. I does
seem to interact wih the transverse and tension signals, and may also
tie up a fair amount of energy. Whether this longitudinal wave actually
produces sound directly is hard to say: it's up around 3-5 kHz,
depending on the string material. I'd say his notion is 'plausible' at
very least.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
David Iwaoka
>
> Sure it does: longer strings have higher impedance, all else equal, and
> that changes the way they drive the bridge, as I mentioned in a
> prevoius post.
You're probably right - the problem being that all things are likely not
equal, or maybe they can be and therefore testable... the whole thing
makes my head spin. :-) I've not given up trying to understand how it
all works but prefer to just let each guitar do the talking to me. The
best way to pick a guitar is probably with your eyes closed with no data
on construction details - that's my radical little idea; in the end the
construction means nothing, only sound/playablilty matters. :-) Still, I
can appreciate the information that you're taking so much time to seek
out in such an organized way. Thanks!
David
Andrew Schulman
> The best way to pick a guitar is probably with your eyes closed with no data
> on construction details - that's my radical little idea; in the end the
> construction means nothing, only sound/playablilty matters. :-)
>
>
this comment is correct.
There are just too many variables involved. The length of the string
or the bracing or the tonewood was never by itself the final
determining factor re: the guitars I've kept. It was a combination of
elements that meant a particular guitar was a keeper (at least for
awhile).
However, there is also such a thing as preferences, and those develop
over time, and can change. Never say never.
Andrew
David Iwaoka
> Having owned a lot of different guitars I would say that the essence of
> this comment is correct.
>
> There are just too many variables involved. The length of the string
> or the bracing or the tonewood was never by itself the final
> determining factor re: the guitars I've kept. It was a combination of
> elements that meant a particular guitar was a keeper (at least for
> awhile).
>
> However, there is also such a thing as preferences, and those develop
> over time, and can change. Never say never.
>
> Andrew
>
Funny how a guitar player can be satisfied with one wife their entire
life and yet one guitar is never enough, of course, most guitar players
are not satisfied with one wife. :-)
Anyway, when I say that construction doesn't matter, I mean that if the
best guitar I ever played just happened to have a 660.55 mm scale or a
lattice top, I'd be doing myself a disfavor by limiting my choices to
that particular construction. Humans have probably been programed over a
million years to act in this manner in order help their species survive
but we ain't cave dudes choosing whether we should pick the nice white
mushrooms or the funny black ones. :-)
Have a great year - may all your gigs be killers.
David
Andrew Schulman
> Funny how a guitar player can be satisfied with one wife their entire
> life and yet one guitar is never enough, of course, most guitar players
> are not satisfied with one wife. :-)
>
>
polygamy."
Correct, he is not a Mormon. And yes, he's only been married once. So
far.
>
>
> Anyway, when I say that construction doesn't matter...
>
>
I felt I knew where you were going with that, and agreed. That's what
I meant by, "in essence".
>
>
> Have a great year - may all your gigs be killers.
>
>
And you too Hawaii Guy!
Andrew
Robert Crim
wrote:
>I have a friend who says, "in marriage, monogamy, in guitars,
>polygamy."
I have a sticker on one of my cases that says
"guitars are like potato chips...you can't have just one."
Robert
Tashi
Crim, you and Andrew, are a guitar makers dream. The grass is
always greener on the other side of the hill! BTW, is your Rutherford
lute a good one?
MT
Robert Crim
wrote:
> Crim, you and Andrew, are a guitar makers dream. The grass is
>always greener on the other side of the hill! BTW, is your Rutherford
>lute a good one?
> MT
There is no such thing as a bad Rutherford lute.
Robert
Andrew Schulman
> Crim, you and Andrew, are a guitar makers dream.
>
>
Will you drink to that?
Andrew
Robert Crim
wrote:
>Tashi wrote:
Only if I get to wear the low cut gown with the slit up the side. Of
course I may have to do some extra grooming.
Robert
Che'
"David Iwaoka" <ds...@whatsit2ya.net> wrote in message
news:pY2dnZs5S7pjGwDY...@hawaiiantel.net...
> Funny how a guitar player can be satisfied with one wife their entire life
> and yet one guitar is never enough, of course, most guitar players are not
> satisfied with one wife. :-)<
*All* guitar players, guitars and women are not the same. In my experience
people are satisfied with their mate until they're not! :-) Meaning, I'm
seeing people married for 20 + years getting divorced. The children are
grown and they have grown apart...end game. I found I needed different
guitars for different things. A guitar that might be non plus ultra for one
style ( composition ) may not be the best for another.
I don't believe in the romantic notion of having a wife. It's more fun to
have girlfriends. Ever notice the "tone" difference in wives and
girlfriends? Like guitars, if they ( girlfriends) develop problems we need
to get rid of them, the sooner the better. Any fool knows a buck, stag, or
stallion has their own group of females. How often in nature do we see some
female creature have a dozen males doing them? In fact I think male lions
really have it down.... they have their females catch dinner for them. Next
time you see a herd of cattle note the proportion of bulls to heffers. You
might also note those cattle we call "steers". A steer is a bull that's
been emasculated and deprived of it's sexual capacity to improve it's lean
meat characteristics for your table. They don't have a very long life and
no sex!!! Cows laugh at them. In the dairy state they make a special
cheese called "Laughing Cow" from these flustrated cows.
In summary, to prove my case, go to any Whole Foods store and have lunch for
a few days. Sooner or later you'll over-hear Generation X and Y'er women
wondering and worrying about their diminishing an increasingly marginal sex
life. I noticed this in particular at the Austin, Texas Whole Foods store
on Hwy. 183 and Captial of Texas Hwy. At that time Dell was located just
down the street. My scientific research into this matter revealed that male
Yuppies can be turned into steers by working them 60 + hours a week in the
proper politically correct atmosphere.
The results of my research indicate that a good bull will find greener
pastures in Round Rock, Texas ( where Dell relocated ) than Austin.
http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/bluesbros/176/antilcow.gif
Marriage too often becomes a routine...placid and boring, affairs can be
exquisite and last for years.
Steers may not agree with this. :-)
Che' de Guy
Robert Crim
wrote:
> Crim, you and Andrew, are a guitar makers dream. The grass is
>always greener on the other side of the hill! BTW, is your Rutherford
>lute a good one?
To expand a bit.....I have always enjoyed working with young
lute/guitar makers and encouraging their development and giving
whatever feedback I could on their products. It seems to have worked
out pretty well for them and for me.
A good friend in the guitar world of days gone by used to say that
when he got bored with playing, he would just change guitars to
recharge his batteries. I have found that lute players have the same
attitude with the same result.
My Rutherford is from 1980 and began like as a Warwick Frei 10 course.
Absolutely a wonderful lute. When I graduated to baroque lute I had
David Brown of Baltimore convert it, as was often the case back in the
day, from a 10 course renaissance to an 11 course baroque lute.
This particular lute is legendary through the lute community. I'm not
surprised that you know of it, but I do wonder why you bring it up
here.
Robert
Steven Bornfeld
Maybe the pesticides are really good for you.
Happy New Year!
Steve
Che'
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ndjnh.10734$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
That was a good one, Steve! It's too late in your case and you better stay
out of those grocery stores. I put my faith in spermicides long before the
organic movement.
Please accept with no obligation, implied or expressed, my best
wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low
stress, non addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the holiday* of your
choice on or about the winter solstice, practiced within the most enjoyable
traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of
your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or
traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious
or secular traditions at all, and a fiscally successful, personally
fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset
of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due
respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to
society have helped to make America great (not to imply that America is
greater than any other country or is the only "America" in the western
hemisphere) and without regard to the race, creed, color, age,
physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
Notice, Disclaimer and Conditions of Greeting:
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms.
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely
transferable, provided there is no alteration to the original
greeting, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole
discretion of the wisher. There is no promise by the wisher,
express or implied,to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself
or others. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the
usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until
the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first,
and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a
new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
*As used herein, "holiday" is limited to its secular meaning,
without regard to its English language derivation from the words "holy
day".
GuitarsWeB
guitars?
Paul McGuffin
Che'
"GuitarsWeB" <Guita...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1167967895.7...@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If women can't have too many shoes.... then, how can me have too many
> guitars?
>
> Paul McGuffin<
Don't get me started on shoes! Not *all* women deserve pretty shoes or
hip-huggers. Why in the hell a fat girl will wear hip-huggers and
flip-flops is beyond me.
If a woman helps inspire your work you ought not object to putting nice
shoes on her feet. No inspiration...no farking shoes!
We must have rules!
Che'
P.S. Remember, guitars are like children.... they need our attention and to
be well looked after. Too many children can drive a man insane. You can't
have too many shoes. Which begs the question, how's your socks life?
David Iwaoka
> *All* guitar players, guitars and women are not the same. In my experience
> people are satisfied with their mate until they're not! :-) Meaning, I'm
> seeing people married for 20 + years getting divorced. The children are
> grown and they have grown apart...end game. I found I needed different
> guitars for different things. A guitar that might be non plus ultra for one
> style ( composition ) may not be the best for another.
>
Hiya Doc! It's good to see you're not dead yet - I ain't either so this
is shaping up to be a good year! I don't go for that new years
resolution crap usually but this year I'll make a real effort to get rid
of some guitars - I need to get rid of excess stuff as I'm only playing
the nylon guitars anyway, the others are just being neglected.
You are wise old Che' to look to nature to find the truth. Man is a
little different from other critters in that the kids take such a long
time to be able to fend for themselves. I have no explanation for this
but the effects are obvious - the ties of the the family of man are
strong and reach back generations. This makes culture and inheritance
and even families that play/make guitars possible. I love your
adventurer's ways Doc Che' but I have to remain behind in one place to
continue the work that my father's father's father started.
You are right about marriage becoming a routine but I don't see my wife
nearly enough so I dig seeing her when I can - it's better that way.
Che'
> Che' wrote:
>
>
>> *All* guitar players, guitars and women are not the same. In my
>> experience people are satisfied with their mate until they're not! :-)
>> Meaning, I'm seeing people married for 20 + years getting divorced. The
>> children are grown and they have grown apart...end game. I found I
>> needed different guitars for different things. A guitar that might be
>> non plus ultra for one style ( composition ) may not be the best for
>> another.
>>
>
>
> Hiya Doc! It's good to see you're not dead yet - I ain't either so this is
> shaping up to be a good year! I don't go for that new years resolution
> crap usually but this year I'll make a real effort to get rid of some
> guitars - I need to get rid of excess stuff as I'm only playing the nylon
> guitars anyway, the others are just being neglected.
>
> You are wise old Che' to look to nature to find the truth. Man is a little
> different from other critters in that the kids take such a long time to be
> able to fend for themselves. I have no explanation for this but the
> effects are obvious - the ties of the the family of man are strong and
> reach back generations. This makes culture and inheritance and even
> families that play/make guitars possible. I love your adventurer's ways
> Doc Che' but I have to remain behind in one place to continue the work
> that my father's father's father started.<
I've always counted on you steady fellows to maintain the world. This old
world would be a hell of a place without you. Believe me, my bold heart now
depends on Plavix and Furosemide means trips to the bathroom are sometimes
high adventure in public. I don't think I'm going out in a blaze of glory!
:-)
I had a visit with my doctor today. He had asked me to do a little write up
on my daily activities so he could better understand what the hell I was
doing. It was the first time I ever saw the man really laugh.... he read it
before he looked at my latest lab results. In brief, I take his prescribed
medicines and some of the American Native ( O.K. South Texas Mexican/Indian)
medicines too. Now he wants me to give him more informations on the native
stuffs.. He said he didn't know I was doing that... I said "You didn't ask
me an I ain't taking any chances." My lab results were very positive an he
can't account for it so he's sending me back for more test.
The lab has problems with my attitude. They wanted me to $hit on a stick at
home and put it in a special package and bring it back to them. I told them
you gotta' be $hitting me and never bothered with it. Those fackers must
really be sick... One of the nurses sorta' likes me and said I was the only
pt. that wasn't grouchy. I told her the damned patients were grouchy
because they are sick and she jammed a thermomitor in my mouth.
>
>
> You are right about marriage becoming a routine but I don't see my wife
> nearly enough so I dig seeing her when I can - it's better that way.<
That's how I feel about Blackjack since I gave him away. Dogs are better
than a wife. They don't snitch and bitch nor are they a constant wittness
in your life. They will not remind you of the stupid things you did, like
falling off a ladder with a full can of paint you dump all over yourself and
they can't talk. What's more, they are always happy to see you.
You're right Mr. Iwaoka, it's shaping up to be a good year already on day 5.
The other limpy gimpy guy,
Che'
David Iwaoka
>
> I've always counted on you steady fellows to maintain the world. This old
> world would be a hell of a place without you. Believe me, my bold heart now
> depends on Plavix and Furosemide means trips to the bathroom are sometimes
> high adventure in public. I don't think I'm going out in a blaze of glory!
> :-)
>
I've been thinking about how fortunate it would be to leave earth by
just dropping dead at some random moment when you're doing stuff you
enjoy. It would be quite a strain on the family - they would rather you
cling to life in the hospital as long as possible until it's almost a
relief when you do finally die. As I recall, Gabby Pahinui died while
playing golf which would be fine with me. I don't really know if that's
how it really happened but I'd like to think so...
> I had a visit with my doctor today. He had asked me to do a little write up
> on my daily activities so he could better understand what the hell I was
> doing. It was the first time I ever saw the man really laugh.... he read it
> before he looked at my latest lab results. In brief, I take his prescribed
> medicines and some of the American Native ( O.K. South Texas Mexican/Indian)
> medicines too. Now he wants me to give him more informations on the native
> stuffs.. He said he didn't know I was doing that... I said "You didn't ask
> me an I ain't taking any chances." My lab results were very positive an he
> can't account for it so he's sending me back for more test.
>
> The lab has problems with my attitude. They wanted me to $hit on a stick at
> home and put it in a special package and bring it back to them. I told them
> you gotta' be $hitting me and never bothered with it. Those fackers must
> really be sick... One of the nurses sorta' likes me and said I was the only
> pt. that wasn't grouchy. I told her the damned patients were grouchy
> because they are sick and she jammed a thermomitor in my mouth.
>
I've avoided Docs since I got booted out of Shriners at the cut-off age
of 16 until about 2 years ago. I consider myself lucky in that way.
However, now the Doc has got me on 3 meds plus a 81 mg aspirin a day and
I think the best is yet to come - I suspect they'll want to do "things"
to me. Bad, invasive "things" to my body. Stuff that'll get you stoned
(to death) in some Islamic countries or you'd have to pay $129 per
treatment in LA. Ha ha.
>
>
> That's how I feel about Blackjack since I gave him away. Dogs are better
> than a wife. They don't snitch and bitch nor are they a constant wittness
> in your life. They will not remind you of the stupid things you did, like
> falling off a ladder with a full can of paint you dump all over yourself and
> they can't talk. What's more, they are always happy to see you.
I'll bet he was a great dog, we have a great dog too, although I
sometimes feel that we're unworthy of Kina's unconditional love.
>
> You're right Mr. Iwaoka, it's shaping up to be a good year already on day 5.
The truth is you have to take it a day at a time but damn do I feel
great! I had a client sitting on (not at) my desk using my computer to
make adjustments on his hearing aid so I took the chance to rapidly
drink a cup of coffee and it seems to be working it's bean magic on my
brain! Life is grand! At least for the next 20 minutes or so. :-)
I had a Portuguese sausage (linguisa) and eggs platter from the Jack in
the Box across the street. I recently found out that my brother who
lives in Indiana has linguisa shipped to the mainland when gets the
chance. You were right about this matter of the sausage - it seems most
of the US suffers from Portuguese sausage lackage.
>
> The other limpy gimpy guy,
We could start a limpy gimpy society - I feel I could be the club
president as I am a top expert on gimpage and gimp culture. :-)
>
> Che'
>
Che'
"David Iwaoka" <ds...@whatsit2ya.net> wrote:
>
> I'll bet he was a great dog, we have a great dog too, although I sometimes
> feel that we're unworthy of Kina's unconditional love.<
That's what went though my mind the other night with Bear... "what have I
done to deserve this?"
> I had a Portuguese sausage (linguisa) and eggs platter from the Jack in
> the Box across the street. I recently found out that my brother who lives
> in Indiana has linguisa shipped to the mainland when gets the chance. You
> were right about this matter of the sausage - it seems most of the US
> suffers from Portuguese sausage lackage.<
My usual breakfast in Hawaii was two eggs over easy with linguisa, a class
of fresh pineapple juice and toast. The wait staff always brought coffee
and a glass of water with lemon slice when I sat down. They never brought
me a menu or asked what I wanted for breakfast...they knew at the hotel. We
have good linguisa in
Boston and Provincetown.
Two sources from the southeastern Massachusetts area are Amaral's Sausage
https://www1400.sanjose14-verio.com/amaral/amaralproducts.htm
and Gaspars Sausage Company www.GasparSausage.com or www.GasparsSausage.com
It might be faster and cheaper for your Bro.
>>
>> The other limpy gimpy guy,
>
> We could start a limpy gimpy society - I feel I could be the club
> president as I am a top expert on gimpage and gimp culture. :-)
You're president! I like to work in the background.... minister of finance
works for me. :-)
Che' de Gimpologist
>
>>
>> Che'
>>
>
>
>
John Philip Dimick
Kevin Hall wrote:
> You seem to be assuming I was referring to you when I wrote about guys
> building guitars with typewriters. No such luck. I have no idea who you
> are or what you do. I'm talking about 30 years' worth of magazine writers
> who parrot the ' prevailing wisdom' which values tight 'grain' above all
> other criteria for top selection.
Is it true that a mix of tight and wide "grain" is a good thing? And
what about straightness? Are crooked or wiggly lines ok?
Thanks for the interesting posts.
dsi1
Che' wrote:
> "David Iwaoka" <ds...@whatsit2ya.net> wrote:
> My usual breakfast in Hawaii was two eggs over easy with linguisa, a class
> of fresh pineapple juice and toast. The wait staff always brought coffee
> and a glass of water with lemon slice when I sat down. They never brought
> me a menu or asked what I wanted for breakfast...they knew at the hotel. We
> have good linguisa in
> Boston and Provincetown.
It would be great to sit on a sunny lanai next to the beach on a Sunday
morning and have such eats, the last time must have been over 10 years
ago. Perhaps I can make it happen again soon. :-)
> Two sources from the southeastern Massachusetts area are Amaral's Sausage
> https://www1400.sanjose14-verio.com/amaral/amaralproducts.htm
>
> and Gaspars Sausage Company www.GasparSausage.com or www.GasparsSausage.com
>
> It might be faster and cheaper for your Bro.
The Portuguese must have landed there and stayed in that area. We got a
ton of those people here in Hawaii too - their main contribution to the
island culture is sausage, the ukulele, portagee jokes, and partying.
If I can get 2 or more of my Portuguese clients in the office, I'll
break out my junky uke and there's gonna be playing and singing in the
office. I dig those ladies. :-)
I favor the faux chorizo when I can find it. It's fake as there's no
pig cheeks or salivary glands to be found in the thing. Mostly, it's
portuguese sausage with less garlic and heavy on the cumin - in my
case, I'm getting burnt out with the garlic craze that's be going on
for the last 10 years.