Scalloping: Goodall/Lowden/Thompson
MosesTey
Just a quick note on the recent discussions on scalloping.
Goodall/Lowden/Thompson do not, as a principle, scallop their guitars. Yet,
these instruments are mighty fine sounding. Goodall in particular, in both
magazine interviews and personal conversations, attribute one of the 'secrets'
to his sound to the fact that he does not scallop his braces. Thompson finds
no reason to scallop either and gets great tone too. Lowdens are consistently
among the lightest guitars for their respective body sizes, and yet are among
the strongest structurally.
From a perspective of strength, anytime you double the height of a beam, you
cube the rigidity. (double height = eight times stiffer) so scalloping may
dramatically lower strength/stiffness. Given that one of the many goals of
guitar building is to minimize mass while maximizing strength, non-scalloping
makes sense to these makers.
This is not to say makers from Martin to Olson should therefore cease to
scallop. Just that scalloping is not necessary to a great tone.
Blessings,
Moses
Mark Blanchard
In article <19980113220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mose...@aol.com (MosesTey) wrote:
Moses,
Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
You can add myself and, if I'm not mistaken, Linda Manzer, Al Carruth
and Jeff Traugott to the list of non-scallopers.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Mark Blanchard
Blanchard Guitars
Mammoth Lakes, CA
http://www.qnet.com/~markath/blanchard.guitars.htm
TacomaGtr
Tacoma Guitars proudly joins the ranks of the unscalloped. We use triangular
tapered braces, and achieve excellent results.
TA
John Griffin
In article <markath-1401...@ml00-23.ca.qnet.com>,
mar...@qnet.com (Mark Blanchard) wrote:
>Moses,
>
>Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
>out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
>for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
>
>You can add myself and, if I'm not mistaken, Linda Manzer, Al Carruth
>and Jeff Traugott to the list of non-scallopers.
You can add Larrivee to that list. Not a hint of scalloping, Yet a
great-sounding guitar with a very solid and unique bracing system.
John G.
blee
On 14 Jan 1998, Mark Blanchard wrote:
> Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
> out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
> for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
Whoa there. Have you ANY evidence to suggest that scalloped-braced
guitars are structurally sacrificed? If so, I'd be very interested in
that evidence. Sure, the scalloping locally reduces the brace height, and
reduces the stiffness of that brace - there is no debate about that. But,
it's a BIG jump from reducing the stiffness of a brace to saying that a
guitar whose braces have been scalloped is "structurally sacrificed".
By extension of your argument, using cedar, rather than more commonly used
spruce, for
braces would also be a structural sacrifice, since cedar is inherently
less stiff than spruce. This isn't necessarily true either.
In short, there are MANY factors that go into both structure and tone
production: scalloping of top braces is just one of these. You've
simplified the situation too much.
>
> You can add myself and, if I'm not mistaken, Linda Manzer, Al Carruth
> and Jeff Traugott to the list of non-scallopers.
>
Shall we start counting up all those who DO scallop their braces and then
which ever there are more of is the "right" way to make a guitar? There
are many fine instruments made by many fine makers, including those whom
you mention. Some of thsoe guitars have scalloped braces while others do not.
> Cheers,
> Mark
Cheers,
Charles
Jim Olson
blee wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 1998, Mark Blanchard wrote:
>
> > Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
> > out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
> > for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
>
Scalloping is a relative term. Sure it means that some material has been
removed to create a "dip" or scallop but what if after the scallop the
smallest portion of the scallop is still much larger that the tallest
point of a non-scalloped brace? Or..... What if the non-scalloped brace
is so small that it is much smaller than the smallest portion of a
scalloped brace? Which one is stronger now?
MosesTey
Jim Olson wrote:
>
>Scalloping is a relative term. Sure it means that some material has been
>removed to create a "dip" or scallop but what if after the scallop the
>smallest portion of the scallop is still much larger that the tallest
>point of a non-scalloped brace? Or..... What if the non-scalloped brace
>is so small that it is much smaller than the smallest portion of a
>scalloped brace? Which one is stronger now?
>
Yes, strength/stiffness go to the brace with the taller/bigger cross section
whether scalloped or not. So, a taller scalloped point will be stronger than
that shorter non-scalloped point. Assuming that the width is the same of
course.
However, my my observation, most scalloped braces are scalloped in a manner as
to have a lower height than non-scalloped braces.
The only person whose 'scallop' made sense from a perspective of strength to
me is Scott vanLinge. He is not a luthier but has a novel theory about
parabolic shaped bracing. What he does is to rework braces after the guitars
are made. Lots of details that I won't go into here.
This is my experience with Scott: I had a custom 'experimental' guitar made
with extremely stiff neck (5 ply like Olson's plus 2 graphite rods plus the
normal truss rod.) Plus, the braces were quite tall and unscalloped. As
predicted, the instrument turned out very bright and sustaining. Nice
instrument, but not 'magical' and predictably, lacking in the lower registers.
I sent this guitar to scott for reworking and it came back absolutely
fantastic. A guitar dealer played it, and paid the full price without one
quibble. Scott made it very loud/responsive/balanced/huge sounding. All this
with great sustain. He did this by 'scalloping'. (By the way, the guitar
maintained more than adequate strength for medium strings and has maintained
stability even in extreme dry conditions where two guitars from two major
manufacturers had developed cracks and/or severe action problems.)
However, Scott 'scallops' only in the sense that he pares the braces down, but
not dipping them in the middle. Rather, he pares the entire thing down at the
edges so the braces looks parabolic, while avoiding any 'bumps' in the braces
as traditional scalloping does. This keeps the strengh in the main load
bearing sections up.
I'm tempted to redo this experiment with another guitar I have. This one is
great out of the box but is built with so much strength in the braces
(tallest/thinnest I've seen anywhere) that I'm convinced they could be pared
down to fit Scott's theory. Anyone interested? Just a thought.
We could have a couple of people from this news group be the objective judge
where I ship the guitar to them, they play it, and then ship it to Scott. The
process is reversed, and results are posted on this newsgroup. It would even
be better if the guitar could be recorded before and after the scalloping under
identical conditions.
Pardon me, but this post has gone way beyond the boundary of my original post.
Blessings,
Moses Tey
Gerardo
> My opinion here is based on my own observations. Guitars with scalloped
> bracing tend to show a lot more bridge rocking ( bridge tipping forward
> toward the sound hole) than non scalloped guitars. I consider this a
> structural problem, since it causes a shallow string angle over the
saddle
> and seems to aggravate the problem of bridges coming unglued along their
> back edge.
I really don't care if scalloping is a "cheap trick" like you mentioned,
or an "expensive trick" as long as the guitar sounds good. Martins with
scalloped braces have been in the market for a few decades and they are
doing fine. If a guitar sounds great, I don't care if the thing has
scalloped braces, braces in the form of mushrooms or a cathedrals inside.
Gerardo
P.S. I think saying that scalloping is a "cheat trick" to achieve good
tone is rather offensive to many respected luthiers that do that, and
especially when you consider that the assesment is not necessarily true.
Mark Blanchard
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980115...@fhs.csu.McMaster.CA>,
blee <le...@fhs.csu.McMaster.CA> wrote:
> On 14 Jan 1998, Mark Blanchard wrote:
>
> > Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
> > out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
> > for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
>
> Whoa there. Have you ANY evidence to suggest that scalloped-braced
> guitars are structurally sacrificed? If so, I'd be very interested in
> that evidence. Sure, the scalloping locally reduces the brace height, and
> reduces the stiffness of that brace - there is no debate about that. But,
> it's a BIG jump from reducing the stiffness of a brace to saying that a
> guitar whose braces have been scalloped is "structurally sacrificed".
My opinion here is based on my own observations. Guitars with scalloped
bracing tend to show a lot more bridge rocking ( bridge tipping forward
toward the sound hole) than non scalloped guitars. I consider this a
structural problem, since it causes a shallow string angle over the saddle
and seems to aggravate the problem of bridges coming unglued along their
back edge. Martin style scalloping reduces the height of the lower
X-brace arms to about half of their non scalloped dimension ( 1/8
stiffness!) at a point where the torque on the bridge and sound board is
at its maximum. This just seems like bad engineering to me.
I was at a guitar shop a while back and took a close look at a couple of
expensive guitars, both scalloped dreadnaughts that were made by SCGC and
Collings. These guitars were less than a year old and both had their
bridges tipped forward about 10 degrees. The string angle over the bridge
was maybe 20 degrees. They both sounded and played great, but I question
what the geometry of these guitars will be after five or ten years of cold
creep if they already show this much deformation.
>
> By extension of your argument, using cedar, rather than more commonly used
> spruce, for
> braces would also be a structural sacrifice, since cedar is inherently
> less stiff than spruce. This isn't necessarily true either.
You may be *over* extending my argument a little here. A cedar brace
probably will be less stiff than a spruce brace of similar dimension.
Whether or not that is a structural sacrifice depends on just how stiff
that cedar brace is, not whether it is less stiff than spruce. Because of
the cube law of beam stiffness, scalloping drastically reduces brace
stiffness. The effect is much greater than that of substituting cedar for
spruce.
>
> In short, there are MANY factors that go into both structure and tone
> production: scalloping of top braces is just one of these. You've
> simplified the situation too much.
You are absolutely right!!! Many, many factors.... especially when it
comes to tone, and to say flat out that scalloping is bad, is indeed, a
gross over simplification. I imagine that if properly integrated into an
overall design scheme, scalloping could be a viable technique both
structurally and tonally.
From what I've been told , however, Martin style scalloping developed
more as an after thought. Someone reached through the sound hole of an
over braced guitar with a knife and started carving and the guitar sounded
better as a result of the increased flexibility. Ever since then I think
many builders have used scalloping as a "cure all". A sure fire way to get
pretty good sound from a guitar that may be lacking in some of the more
subtle factors that make a guitar sound "good".
On more than one occasion, a guitar owner has brought me a mediocre
production guitar that they wanted "voiced". Now these guitars didn't
appear to have anything major wrong with them. The woods looked to be
pretty good quality, the bracing was fairly traditional Martin style, the
joinery was not too bad...... but for some reason (probably many of those
"MANY factors") they just didn't sound good. But, after a little work
through the sound hole with a tiny spoke shave...... the guitars sounded a
lot better. Still not great, but vastly improved tonally. What I did to
those guitars was, IMHO, nothing short of a "cheap trick", and the guitars
will suffer for it structurally for the rest of their shortened lives.
Their owners were tickled pink in spite of my lecture about structural
integrity.
Structure, to me, is a little more straight forward and easier to deal
with than tone. I have chosen to go with a design that addresses the
structural requirements of the guitar *first* so that my instruments will
have lasting value, and I'll be spared a lot of warranty work. For me,
that means non scalloped braces and a thicker than average top in the
bridge area . With that as a starting point I have turned my attention to
the "MANY factors" that affect tone and tried to bring together as many of
them as possible. The goal all along being to produce a great sounding,
sensitive guitar that will last for many years.
> > You can add myself and, if I'm not mistaken, Linda Manzer, Al Carruth
> > and Jeff Traugott to the list of non-scallopers.
> >
>
> Shall we start counting up all those who DO scallop their braces and then
> which ever there are more of is the "right" way to make a guitar? There
> are many fine instruments made by many fine makers, including those whom
> you mention. Some of those guitars have scalloped braces while others do not.
I don't think a tally would tell us much of anything. Every luthier
builds differently with different goals in mind. Some building techniques
are appropriate for a given objective, some are not. Scalloping just
doesn't fit in my scheme of things because I feel it is contradictory to
my structural objectives.
The point of mentioning respected builders who don't scallop, was to lend
support to Moses's post which made the point that scalloping is not a
*crucial* element to a great sounding guitar.
MosesTey
Please note: In my original post, I mentioned that those who scallop range from
Martin to Olson.
I just reread the post and thought I'd make this comment in case anyone
misunderstood- I'm providing a range of makers from a fine large factory
(Martin) to one of the solo makers who epitomizes the best in handmades.
(Olson) Other fine solo luthiers whose work I've had the opportunity to see
include Ryan, McCollum, Kinscherff, and Langejan. All these scallop their
braces, although some much less radically than Martin does.
Blessings,
Moses
eric liaw
Mr. Olson,
are you james olson, luthier in circle pines, minnesota?
jeff
Jim Olson wrote:
>
> blee wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Jan 1998, Mark Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > > Well said! I think of scalloping a "cheap trick" to get acceptable tone
> > > out of an otherwise poorly voiced guitar. That might be OK if it weren't
> > > for the structural sacrifices you pointed out.
> >
>
ma...@uk.siemens-pyramid.com
In article <19980114225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Should we start crossposting to alt.sex.guitars? Are there self-help
groups available for those who have been scalloped and want to regain
their unscalloped state? Are scalloping guitar-makers more often Jewish?
NB This is in fun - no offense meant to anyone! :-)
Regards
Mark B
I don't know if my Aria LW-12 is scalloped or not, do you? I like the
sound of it anyway!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Josh Karnes
Mark Blanchard wrote:
> On more than one occasion, a guitar owner has brought me a mediocre
> production guitar that they wanted "voiced". Now these guitars didn't
> appear to have anything major wrong with them. The woods looked to be
> pretty good quality, the bracing was fairly traditional Martin style, the
> joinery was not too bad...... but for some reason (probably many of those
> "MANY factors") they just didn't sound good. But, after a little work
> through the sound hole with a tiny spoke shave...... the guitars sounded a
> lot better. Still not great, but vastly improved tonally. What I did to
> those guitars was, IMHO, nothing short of a "cheap trick", and the guitars
> will suffer for it structurally for the rest of their shortened lives.
> Their owners were tickled pink in spite of my lecture about structural
> integrity.
HEY!!! you are just the guy i am looking for then.
this is EXACTLY what i want to do with my seagull. now, this guitar is over six
years old and has had a hard life up to this point (different string guages,
tunings, etc., all the time, played a lot and toted around an awful lot too).
it showed no signs at all of structural problems like you mentioned, and it does
have scalloped braces.
anyway, i put a JLD bridge system in there and it has really made the midrange
open up! A LOT!! it's even making me tempted to rethink my decision to get a
better guitar. anyway, i'd like to do just what you say: reduce the bracing to
the detriment of the structure of the guitar, and precisely so that it will
sound a whole lot better (mostly i want more bass) and also because the JLD
system seems to relieve much of the stress on the top in the often-stressed
areas.
can you tell me what is involved in doing this? consider that this is a $325
guitar that's beat up and well worn, and it's about to be replaced with an
instrument of 10x the cost. it will be no huge loss if it gets destroyed in the
process (just kind of a bummer).
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
josh_karnes:
shileen's husband, jordan and hannah's daddy, guitarist, drummer,
composer, songwriter, audiophile, computer geek, mechanic, carpenter,
wannabe gourmet chef, keeper of the faith <><
Josh Karnes
MosesTey wrote:
> I sent this guitar to scott for reworking and it came back absolutely
> fantastic. A guitar dealer played it, and paid the full price without one
> quibble. Scott made it very loud/responsive/balanced/huge sounding. All this
> with great sustain. He did this by 'scalloping'. (By the way, the guitar
> maintained more than adequate strength for medium strings and has maintained
> stability even in extreme dry conditions where two guitars from two major
> manufacturers had developed cracks and/or severe action problems.)
>
> However, Scott 'scallops' only in the sense that he pares the braces down, but
> not dipping them in the middle. Rather, he pares the entire thing down at the
> edges so the braces looks parabolic, while avoiding any 'bumps' in the braces
> as traditional scalloping does. This keeps the strengh in the main load
> bearing sections up.
ok, when you say the brace is "parabolic", do you mean in cross-section?
where can i find more information about this guy (or indeed how can i contact
him and perhaps send my guitar to him)?
Brad Murphy
I just left a local shop and heard a very disturbing story about an
experience the shop owner had with a Tony Rice 1994 Santa Cruz Model...
Those of you with multi-year Santa Cruz experience please comment - I
had been leaning towards SC prior to this comment!!!
This shop owner carries (new) - Martin, Goodall, Bourgois, and used
Collings... When I asked about Santa Cruz he relayed the following
(paraphrased for brevity):
BEGIN QUOTE
" I wont carry or sell them because I feel they have cut corners and
lack integrity when you have problems. They sound great out of the box,
but they get that sound by cutting the bracing and the top thinner than
they should. I know this because I personally bought a new Tony Rice
model in 94 and 6 months later the bridge had pulled up - not a little,
ALOT! It was not normal and I called the dealer who sold it to me who
basically said that any new instrument is going to show some movement as
it ages and that's NORMAL... I then called Santa Cruz directly and they
asked me what the dealer said, when I told them their response was -
wait another 6 months, the instrument needs time to age... than call us
back... based on this I sold the guitar and wont get near their product"
END QUOTE
Please let me know if this is a "rare" or "freak" occurance... I can't
afford to spend 2,500 dollars on a product that isn't going to stand the
test of time (20years +)
Brad Murphy
Raleigh, NC
br...@objectint.com
Larry Pattis
Brad,
I am a little confused about the story, although that won't change my
comments. Was the owner of said TR model a retailer or not? Why was he
calling a retailer? Did anyone directly associated with Santa Cruz
actually see this guitar?
Regardless, I used to be a retailer, and carried Santa Cruz guitars. I
have played many, both new and old. Impeccable workmanship both for tone
and longevity. There isn't a better crafted guitar out there among all the
300-600/year builders. You should have complete confidence in purchasing a
guitar from Santa Cruz. I recommend calling Steve Swan at 510-527-1734 for
any or all info about Santa Cruz. He is a former sales manager for them,
and has a truly fabulous retail shop north of Berkeley.
Larry Pattis
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in
practice.
The top header is to reduce spam. You can really find me at
<lpattis"at"xmission"dot"com>.
Mark Middleton
Brad Murphy wrote in message <34BF83...@objectint.com>...
>I just left a local shop and heard a very disturbing story about an
>experience the shop owner had with a Tony Rice 1994 Santa Cruz Model...
<snip>
>This shop owner carries (new) - Martin, Goodall, Bourgois, and used
>Collings... When I asked about Santa Cruz he relayed the following
>(paraphrased for brevity):
>
>BEGIN QUOTE
>" I wont carry or sell them because I feel they have cut corners and
>lack integrity when you have problems. They sound great out of the box,
>but they get that sound by cutting the bracing and the top thinner than
>they should.
<snip>
>back... based on this I sold the guitar and wont get near their product"
>END QUOTE
>
>Please let me know if this is a "rare" or "freak" occurance... I can't
>afford to spend 2,500 dollars on a product that isn't going to stand the
>test of time (20years +)
>
>Brad Murphy
Brad,
The first rule of guitar buying is:
Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, ask a the dealer about guitars
that they don't sell. You will get one of three answers.
A good dealer will say: "Yea, I've heard of them. I hear they're pretty
good."
(Notice: only heard of them, no direct contact and they are only pretty
good.)
Some will say, "Yea, I've heard of them but never tried them."
(Notice: once again no direct contact and usually followed up by: "Let me
show you this on over here.")
Many of them will say: "Oh, that piece of @#$%^ let me tell you what
happened to (choose one: me, a friend, a friend of a friend, a relative, a
close personal friend of someone I don't know)." With this they begin to
relate some horror story or urban legend about a particular example of that
brand of guitar.
Let me cite two examples of how things get turned around and bent out of
shape. The shop in town is a Martin dealer. He won't consider carrying
Taylor guitars because "our guitar repair person worked on A Taylor ONCE
and he didn't like it". So the repair guy (Martin authorized, I might add)
worked on ONE guitar and now he is a Taylor expert???
Another dealer I talked to, who was not a Martin dealer, said; "I wouldn't
have one of those new Martins. I've had to do neck resets on a lot of
Martins and now they all have bolt on necks and they'll all need neck
resets." The truth of the matter is that a few owners of second hand Martins
think the instrument is valuable enough to pay for a neck reset (The
original owner gets this done as part of the lifetime warranty.) Further
more, not all of the new Martins have bolt on necks. To top it off he has
never had to repair a new Martin but he is sure they will ALL need a neck
reset someday.
Come On Guys!!! This is like saying that I once knew a guy who got struck by
lightning while playing an XYZ guitar. Therefore, don't by an XYZ or you
will get struck by lightning. Things happen sometimes that are beyond our
control but extrapolating data from that can be futile.
All of the guitars makers that you named are good quality guitars and all of
these companies have good reputations for doing an honest business. In order
for these companies to remain in business they must consistently turn out a
quality product and provide quality service to the end user. They would not
last long in the open market if they could not. Let your eyes and ears be
your guide in selecting a guitar.
Trust your ears and don't believe everything they tell you.
Good Luck,
Mark Middleton
North Carolina Systems Center
In article <19980116025...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
mose...@aol.com says...
> The only person whose 'scallop' made sense from a perspective of strength to
> me is Scott vanLinge. He is not a luthier but has a novel theory about
> parabolic shaped bracing. What he does is to rework braces after the guitars
> are made. Lots of details that I won't go into here.
>
I would be very interested in the gory details. (Engineering curiosity
getting the better of me.) Sounds like the parabolic reflector concept
... everything that comes in goes straight out the primary axis. I'm not
sure how applicable this is to mechanical vibrations through wood,
though. However, if it works as well as you say, you can't argue with
results.
> This is my experience with Scott: I had a custom 'experimental' guitar made
> with extremely stiff neck (5 ply like Olson's plus 2 graphite rods plus the
> normal truss rod.) Plus, the braces were quite tall and unscalloped. As
> predicted, the instrument turned out very bright and sustaining.
> Nice instrument, but not 'magical' and predictably, lacking in the lower
> registers.
How much of this result might be attributable to the neck and how much to
the tall braces? I'm not sure I understand the impact of the ultra-stiff
neck on the outcome. I remember reading something about neck stiffness
being related to sustain, but I'm not sure why.
> I sent this guitar to scott for reworking and it came back absolutely
> fantastic. A guitar dealer played it, and paid the full price without one
> quibble. Scott made it very loud/responsive/balanced/huge sounding. All this
> with great sustain. He did this by 'scalloping'. (By the way, the guitar
> maintained more than adequate strength for medium strings and has maintained
> stability even in extreme dry conditions where two guitars from two major
> manufacturers had developed cracks and/or severe action problems.)
>
> However, Scott 'scallops' only in the sense that he pares the braces down, but
> not dipping them in the middle. Rather, he pares the entire thing down at the
> edges so the braces looks parabolic, while avoiding any 'bumps' in the braces
> as traditional scalloping does. This keeps the strengh in the main load
> bearing sections up.
>
> I'm tempted to redo this experiment with another guitar I have. This one is
> great out of the box but is built with so much strength in the braces
> (tallest/thinnest I've seen anywhere) that I'm convinced they could be pared
> down to fit Scott's theory. Anyone interested? Just a thought.
>
A better experiment IMHO, would be to have one of these wonderful
builders build two guitars as identical as possible except for the
bracing. Then the comparison would much more quantifiable.
> We could have a couple of people from this news group be the objective judge
> where I ship the guitar to them, they play it, and then ship it to Scott. The
> process is reversed, and results are posted on this newsgroup. It would even
> be better if the guitar could be recorded before and after the scalloping
> under identical conditions.
Recording is definitely better. Unless the difference is huge, auditory
memory is probably not that precise. However, if you're looking for
volunteers ... 8-)
--
Regards,
Larry Myers
lmyers "at" gte "dot" net
jeff liaw
I've got to say that I find this story almost unbelievable. I've played
more than a few Santa Cruz guitars, and I have always been impressed
with every facet of the craftsmanship--the finish, the fit of the
joints, the feel of the neck, the grain of the wood. I own a Collings
OM, which is a close Martin-imitating cousin of the Santa Cruz guitars,
and I must say I have been extremely impressed with the guitar's
durability.
They're are plenty, and I mean plenty, of retailers with years of
experience in dealing Santa Cruz Guitars who will swear by them. I've
played SC guitars from personal collections that are more than a few
years old, and they show no problems whatsoever. I think you've been
taken by your friendly local guitar dealer. If I were you, I'd be
ticked off that the retailer is misrepresenting a brand just because he
doesn't happen to carry it. Santa Cruz workmanship? Superb. Customer
service? Richard Hoover is just as good here.
Goodall, Santa Cruz, Bourgeois, Collings. This is a terrific selection
of guitars. Don't let some scumbag dealer ruin it.
jeff
Al Sato
ab...@127.0.0.1 (Larry Pattis) wrote:
>Regardless, I used to be a retailer, and carried Santa Cruz guitars. I
>have played many, both new and old. Impeccable workmanship both for tone
>and longevity. There isn't a better crafted guitar out there among all the
>300-600/year builders.
This category of high-end guitar builder is characterized by loyal
(semi-fanatical in some cases) fans and outstanding attention to
detail. It's a very competitive group in terms of market share, "mind
share" and pricing. Other builders in this grouping include Collings,
Breedlove and Goodall.
>You should have complete confidence in purchasing a
>guitar from Santa Cruz. I recommend calling Steve Swan at 510-527-1734 for
>any or all info about Santa Cruz. He is a former sales manager for them,
>and has a truly fabulous retail shop north of Berkeley.
Steve Swan is not only very knowledgeable about Santa Cruz guitars, he
is knowledgeable about guitars in general. He's also a fine player.
You will enjoy dealing with him. He has maintained very close ties
with the Santa Cruz Guitar Company and does a lot of custom ordering.
Al
--
Respond to: nas "at" centtech "dot" com
This is an attempt to reduce the volume of unwanted commercial email.
MosesTey
No, his 'parabolic braced shape' has nothing to do with reflecting the sound.
It is more to do with maximizing strength for the weight while allowing the
entire top to move as freely as possible. His belief is that each tall peak in
the traditional scalloping acts as a nodal point, deadening sound in that area.
A sample of one instrument is a poor indication that the next one will be as
good. The first was spectacular. However, he has done about 20 since mine to
good effect- supposedly.
Also, one of the major US factory handmade manufacturer is supposedly going to
send him 2 identical tops to work on. I'm going to try to confirm this at
NAMM.
Blessings,
Moses
Al Carruth
Moses wrote:
>No, his 'parabolic braced shape' has nothing to do with reflecting the sound.
>
>It is more to do with maximizing strength for the weight while allowing the
>entire top to move as freely as possible. His belief is that each tall peak
>in
>the traditional scalloping acts as a nodal point, deadening sound in that
>area.
I tend to agree with Scott in general, although my bracing tends to come out
more like a violin bassbar than a parabola.
I have tried making identical instruments: it's tougher than you might think.
Even with wood from the same flitches, having the first none free-plate modes
at the same frequencies, same plate weight, matched bridges, etc., they can
still sound enough different to be immediately apparent. Given the present
state of our knowledge, I would say that any such experiment would have to
involve a fair number of instruments, and rely on statistical analysis of the
outcome.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
brad&dadYetter
Hi Brad,
What HOGWASH! I know Dick Hoover would love to hear from you about
this. Check out the Santa Cruz site, especially Dick's commitment to
customer satisfaction. This should aleviate any concerns. I've known
Dick Hoover for 20+ years. He's still the same guy now as ever (read:
humble, ethical, committed, honest), and Santa Cruz guitars are above
reproach as well!
That shop owner would be held accountable for his words if I ran the
country. Dick, however, and his committed staff, are probably too secure
in their product and integrity to be concerned with such types.
Have no fear, Santa Cruz guitars are as reliable as any! Visit their
page.
Good luck,
Steve Yetter Santa Cruz, Ca. (I'm not affiliated in any way with
Santa Cruz Guitar Co., just a fan and friend of a fine luthier and man).
Brad Murphy wrote:
>
> I just left a local shop and heard a very disturbing story about an
> experience the shop owner had with a Tony Rice 1994 Santa Cruz Model...
> Those of you with multi-year Santa Cruz experience please comment - I
> had been leaning towards SC prior to this comment!!!
snipped in the interests of limiting slander!
MosesTey
>Given the present
>state of our knowledge, I would say that any such experiment would have to
>involve a fair number of instruments, and rely on statistical analysis of the
>outcome.
>
>Alan Carruth / Luthier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You are correct about statistical validity/reliability. Want to donate 20
guitars for the cause of science? grin
Moses
osb...@teleport.com
> ple...@nospam.us (Al Sato) writes:
> ab...@127.0.0.1 (Larry Pattis) wrote:
>
> >Regardless, I used to be a retailer, and carried Santa Cruz guitars. I
> >have played many, both new and old. Impeccable workmanship both for tone
> >and longevity. There isn't a better crafted guitar out there among all the
> >300-600/year builders.
I have 2 Santa Cruz guitars....an FS and OM. The first OM I bought was so bright that when I played a
D on the B string, it would set off sympathetic tones that sounded really bad. The dealer I bought it from could
not hear that particular sound but did not doubt that my ears could. He got on the phone to Richard Hoover while
I stood there, Richard said he would replace it with a new OM (it was 6 months old by now) no questions asked
and he did. I even asked him to make a slight custom change on the new one and he did -- no charge.
I have found SCGC to have the kind of customer service that most organizations only dream about. My OM is about
4 years old now and have only had to tweak the truss rod once. It's a great guitar, and if I could afford it, I'd get a third
Santa Cruz.
Steve Osborn
John Griffin
In article <69ltqd$c2$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, no-...@sonic.net wrote:
>John Griffin (jgri...@spectranet.ca) wrote:
>: You can add Larrivee to that list. Not a hint of scalloping, Yet a
>: great-sounding guitar with a very solid and unique bracing system.
>:
>: John G.
>And? Scalloping can't be the only factor here, right? As a
>senior r&d engineer I shudder when I hear one-dimensional
>statements like these made. I have designed a number of
>products and have always found that within every silver lining
>there is a cloud. Nothing comes for free and tradeoffs will
>always be present. The shape and composition of the braces can't
>be considered independent of the rest of the guitar. When you
>compare design A and design B and focus on only one aspect of one
>element in a design, the resulting conclusions are irrelevant.
>Why is scalloping a "cheap trick"? If it works, and works
>reliably, who cares? There is seldom only one solution to a
>problem. All aspects need to be considered.
I assume this is directed at me. Sorry, but I agree with you. (How's that
for a rebuttal?) You definitely can't compare apples to oranges. As well
as the Larrivee I also have an ancient Gibson Jumbo from the '40's that
has extensive scalloping in the lower bracing. It also sounds absolutely
terrific. Now if you were to take the heavier bracing from my Larrivee and
put it in the Gibson, it would no doubt sound like shit! Similarly if you
put the Gibson scalloped bracing in the Larrivee you would probably have a
guitar that not only would sound dreadful, it would probably shake itself
to pieces within the first year.
So, I think I am really agreeing with you here.
John G.
--
________________________________________________________
| John and | jgri...@spectranet.ca |
| Valerie | jgri...@astral.magic.ca |
| Griffin | joh...@aol.com |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| "Still Point" | It's Not Too Late... |
| Moffat Ontario Canada | To have a Happy Childhood |
--------------------------------------------------------
norbert sharp
You can probably find someone with a "horror story", so to speak, about
any brand of guitar. I have my own horror story about my Martin guitar
but I would not brand all Martins as being poorly made just because of
this. Martin look after their problems and I trust that Santa Cruz would
do the same.
I have owned a Santa Cruz model F195 for a couple of years and feel it
is the beat built guitar out of my collection. It sounds superb and
handles medium strings with no problem at all. The question is, if I do
have a problem, will Richard Hoover at Santa Cruz look after the
problem. I am convinced that their reputation is worth more than the
bad reputation they would get by building poor quality instruments.
Don't believe the dealer when he tells you Santa Cruz are cutting
corners. Call Richard direct and ASK HIM! I wouldn't hesitate to buy
another Santa Cruz if I had the bucks.
BERT
******************
Brad Murphy wrote:
>
> I just left a local shop and heard a very disturbing story about an
> experience the shop owner had with a Tony Rice 1994 Santa Cruz Model...
> Those of you with multi-year Santa Cruz experience please comment - I
> had been leaning towards SC prior to this comment!!!
>
> This shop owner carries (new) - Martin, Goodall, Bourgois, and used
> Collings... When I asked about Santa Cruz he relayed the following
> (paraphrased for brevity):
>
> BEGIN QUOTE
> " I wont carry or sell them because I feel they have cut corners and
> lack integrity when you have problems. They sound great out of the box,
> but they get that sound by cutting the bracing and the top thinner than
> they should. I know this because I personally bought a new Tony Rice
> model in 94 and 6 months later the bridge had pulled up - not a little,
> ALOT! It was not normal and I called the dealer who sold it to me who
> basically said that any new instrument is going to show some movement as
> it ages and that's NORMAL... I then called Santa Cruz directly and they
> asked me what the dealer said, when I told them their response was -
> wait another 6 months, the instrument needs time to age... than call us
> back... based on this I sold the guitar and wont get near their product"
> END QUOTE
>
> Please let me know if this is a "rare" or "freak" occurance... I can't
> afford to spend 2,500 dollars on a product that isn't going to stand the
> test of time (20years +)
>
> Brad Murphy
> Raleigh, NC
> br...@objectint.com
Carl Christensen
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:56:42 -0500, Brad Murphy <br...@objectint.com>
wrote:
>This shop owner carries (new) - Martin, Goodall, Bourgois, and used
>Collings... When I asked about Santa Cruz he relayed the following
OK, maybe I'm just a pessimist but if the shop owner doesn't carry SC
then you have to take it with a grain of salt about as big as a cubic
meter. Surely every maker has a dud now and then but I've never run
across a dud SC so far.
--
Carl Christensen
Philadelphia, PA USA
E-mail: ca...@navpoint.com Web: http://www.navpoint.com/~carl
El McMeen
"Gerardo" <ghe...@cts.com> writes:
>
>
I play with a thumbpick, and as I arpeggiate across the
strings, my sense is that certain scallopped-braced
guitars seem to "explode" on the fourth string. I'd be
curious whether others have had this experience, or whether
luthiers out there think I'm all wet.
Cheeers,
El
blee
On 23 Jan 1998, El McMeen wrote:
>
> I play with a thumbpick, and as I arpeggiate across the
> strings, my sense is that certain scallopped-braced
> guitars seem to "explode" on the fourth string. I'd be
> curious whether others have had this experience, or whether
> luthiers out there think I'm all wet.
>
Well, let's just say your rather damp.
Charles
.
G5832
Yes, I also noticed the difference. It seemed to come from the forth & fifth
strings on some Martin HD 35's I played. It seemed to overwhelm the rest of
the strings.
Maybe this is why some guitars are individually "voiced"?
Randy