Custom Nylon String Archtop Guitar - Two Questions
Nick Naffin
please forgive the crosspost, but I think the questions in this post
really belong in these two newsgroups, rmmga and rmmgj.
Before heading out to see a fine concert by the Richard Whiteman Trio,
featuring the obnoxiously talented messieurs Reg Schwager and Don Thompson
on guitar and bass, at the Amis du Jazz concert series in Sonya here in
beautiful, soggy Northern Central Ontario, yesterday my friendly
neighbourhood luthier Dino Staniscia and I met in his shop to pick the wood
for the top of a custom, 18 inch archtop cutaway nylon string guitar he'll
build for me.
From where we're at right now, *very* tentatively called the 'Nicorette'
:-), this instrument will feature an exceptional Sitka spruce top (more
later), bird's eye maple back and sides, a Venetian cutaway, f-holes, wood
binding, and a sideport in the upper bout.
Now, here's question 1) Dino and I are very interested to hear if
anybody around here ever had any any experience with a Virzi tone producer
or derivative thereof.. We are seriously contemplating to put one in, and
are wondering if a) the different vibrational properties of nylon strings
might result in only certain frequencies or strings being picked up by the
Virzi, and b) what effect the tone producer might have on a possible inside
mic. Luthiers, collectors, players of vintage guitars - please do respond;
off-list, if you'd like, to
nicoretten...@nicknaffinhellisfullofspammers.com (you know what to
do), but maybe this is an interesting topic for the group(s).
As reportedly described by old Gibson literature, a Virzi tone producer,
by the way, is "a simple device of wood, built in conformance with certain
scientific principles, and set within the body of the instrument, directly
under the bridge. The Tone Producer increases the amplitude of vibration of
the sounding board and the air-chamber, thereby increasing the amplitude, or
power of tone, of the resulting sound wave. It also increases the number,
and improves the proportion, of the over tones of the tone of the instrument
or the partial waves of the sound wave Thus, it secures a tone of more
richness, sonorouness and sweetness, in addition to increasing the volume of
tone. The Tone Producer is being successfully applied to pianos, violins,
and all stringed instruments with wood sounding-boards."
Lloyd Loar was one of the luthiers experimenting with it; and as far as
I know, in Gibson's golden days there were only about 250 guitars built with
a tone producer in it. Today, it can still be found in many mandolins; but
I have not heard of any nylon string guitar featuring a Virzi. If you can
add any input or information here, I'd be most grateful.
2) The next question pertains to pickups. As you may be able to imagine,
an 18 inch archtop nylon string will sound pronouncedly different than a
flattop nylon string. I'm looking for ideas as to what kind of piezo to put
in. When last I tested one in Toronto, I did enjoy the sound of an i-Beam
on a demo Larrivee; mind you, that was a steel string model. So, I'm open
to all kinds of ideas and suggestions. Manufacturers, luthiers, and most of
all *players*, please put in your 2 cents. The last nylon string I admit to
playing on stage was a little Epiphone of sorts; before that, I used to own
a Yamaha. So I don't know about any good pickups for nylon strings (except
that the Fishman combination John McLaughlin used to use in his Wechters
sounded really quite nice. Personally, though, I suspect a mic inside an
archtop wouldn't do too much in terms of picking up more sweetness and
depth; but then, I really wouldn't know, as I've never seen or heard a
guitar like this); please, if you have any comments or suggestions, do help
us with your input, and contribute to the making of this very special
guitar.
Thank you,
Nick
_______________________
Yes, it's back up and running!
Hojo2x
>yesterday my friendly>neighbourhood luthier Dino Staniscia and I met in his
shop to pick the wood>for the top of a custom, 18 inch archtop cutaway nylon
string guitar he'll>build for me.
Quick question for YOU, Nick - why an 18 inch archtop with nylon strings? That
size seems to be the outer limit for steel stringed archtops. Has this
gentleman made nylon string archtops in that size before?
It would seem safer to go with a smaller size, since you're not going to be
able to exert as much force or transfer as much energy with nylon strings as
you can with steel.
Please understand that I'm not attacking the idea, just curious as to how you
all arrived at that size and design.
Nick continues:
> this instrument will feature an exceptional Sitka spruce top (more
>later), bird's eye maple back and sides, a Venetian cutaway, f-holes,
wood>binding, and a sideport in the upper bout.
Cool.
>Dino and I are very interested to hear if
>anybody around here ever had any any experience with a Virzi tone producer
>or derivative thereof..
Frankly, Nick, I haven't, because I'm never seen an original with a Virzi tone
producer still in place - they almost all got yanked out decades ago, and never
replaced. The only pristine examples seem to be in instruments that were
bought and then never played, which might tell you SOMEthing....
I've forwarded a copy of this reply to several folks who are deeply
knowledgeable about vintage Gibsons, in hopes that they might be able to
provide some insights more detailed than my vague "Gee, nobody ever seemed to
LIKE those" comments.
>2) The next question pertains to pickups.
I'd suggest that you look into the McIntyre Acoustic Feather, PUTW or some
other contact pickup. These work the same whether you're using steel or nylon
strings, as they attach to the underside of the top rather than to the bridge
itself.
Hope this helps.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Robert L. Abramowitz
Nick, the only Virzis I've ever seen have been in Loar F-5 mandolins
and 1 H-5 mandola, so I'm not qualified to comment in their influence on
a guitar, not to mention a nylon-string guitar. I have met in my
lifetime two F-5 owners who removed their Virzis, and both were happy
that they did so. A lot of bluegrass types call them "Virzi tone
reducers".
But I really wanted to second Wade Miller's concern about the wisdom and
logic behind an 18" nylon-string guitar (with steel I'd understand).
That's a hell of a lot of wood to drive with not a great deal of
downward pressure.. Since I know that you are not a newbie at this, I'd
like to ask why you and/or your luthier chose this route.
Thanks,
Bob Abramowitz
Leo Anderson
if
>anybody around here ever had any any experience with a Virzi tone producer
>or derivative thereof..
Vintage dealers and musicians refer to them as "Virzi tone reducers".
Leo in Tucson
foldedpath
news:EqSz9.2564$QD6.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
>
> From where we're at right now, *very*
> tentatively called the 'Nicorette' :-), this instrument
> will feature an exceptional Sitka spruce top (more
> later), bird's eye maple back and sides, a Venetian
> cutaway, f-holes, wood binding, and a sideport in
> the upper bout.
Well, THAT's something different. :-)
Have you researched if others have done this? The immediate question
this triggers for me (and it's related to your pickup question), is
how well nylon strings can drive an archtop. I would imagine you're
going to get less natural volume than from a standard classical
flat-top, and those aren't very loud to begin with. But if you're
thinking of it as an acoustic-electric instrument, then I think I
get the concept.
> Now, here's question 1) Dino and I are very
> interested to hear if anybody around here ever had
> any any experience with a Virzi tone producer
> or derivative thereof..
In my totally non-expert, non-luthier opinion, speaking only as a
player... I wouldn't mess with this, because the rest of the concept
is already pretty radical. Keep your variables down.
I'd use something like this if a luthier told me he or she had
already done it, and liked the results. But if this person has never
done it before, then why stack too many experiments on this project?
> 2) The next question pertains to pickups. As
> you may be able to imagine, an 18 inch archtop
> nylon string will sound pronouncedly different than a
> flattop nylon string.
Quieter, and more mid-rangy? I'm just guessing, based on the
difference in sound between flat-top steel strings and non-amplified
carved top steel string archtops I've heard.
> I'm looking for ideas as to what kind of piezo to put
> in.
<snip>
Here's what I'd do if this were my project. Actually, I have a
semi-hollow electric/Midi archtop on order, and some of the pickup
access issues I've gone through with my luthier are similar:
I wouldn't use an internal mic because you may be getting a fairly
low natural acoustic volume. An internal mic may have to be jacked
up so far in gain that you'll have feedback problems.
Normally I don't love the complications in dual source systems (need
for 2 EQ chains, blender, etc.). But in this case, because you're
out there on the bleeding edge with an unusual concept.... I think
I'd want the option to hear both a UST (saddle) pickup and a SBT
(soundboard) pickup, and either choose between them or blend them.
I'd put an access plate in the back so I could reach the bridge
area. This would let me swap out different pickups over the years,
as better technology becomes available. If you don't have an access
plate it will look better, but for any future wiring changes you'll
have to work through the F-holes (which sucks... I've done it), and
it will be very difficult to make any changes in your pickups. With
an access plate, you can even try things like a pair of "bug" type
SBT pickups that you move around under the soundboard, to find the
best tone. And then combine that with the saddle transducer, in case
you need more brightness.
I'm thinking maybe a diamond-shaped back access plate could be
integrated with a center stripe binding and look pretty cool as a
design element, as well as giving you internal access.
I've been pretty happy with the B-Band AST and A2 preamp in my steel
string (except for a slight lack of bass response, but I'm coping).
In this case though, I might recommend the PUTW transducers, with a
PUTW plug on the output jack, so you don't have to deal with having
a battery in the guitar.
Mike Barrs
Hojo2x
>Have you researched if others have done this? The immediate question>this
triggers for me (and it's related to your pickup question), is>how well nylon
strings can drive an archtop.
It's a legitimate question, Mike, but to answer your question a number of
builders who make archtops have also built nylon string versions, notably Bob
Benedetto. I recall luthier Al Carruth mentioning that he's built a couple, as
well.
So if it's built lightly enough, it ought to work.
I've yet to play one of these nylon string archtops myself, but they do exist.
David Kilpatrick
could hardly hear the thing at all.
However, the original Selmer Macaferri was supposedly strung with nylon,
and used a floating bridge, and I've strung a Spanish laud with nylon
(built for steel) with exceptionally good results.
My comments would be:
Rake the neck very sharply to ensure a rather extreme string angle over
a high, thinly cut bridge. A cello bridge would be a pretty good pattern
- and even go for as much height as this, too.
Build the top extremely lightly.
Don't use a soundpost.
Anchor the nylon string directly to the wood at the point of the
endblock, don't use a suspended tailpiece - use a tailpiece on the
endblock which then lets the string actually cross over the binding of
the top/ribs/endblock (this is how very lighly strung English guittars
get much of their volume - there's no mando style tailpiece to get
between the nut/bridge/endblock contact of the string.
Angle the headstock quite steeply, in cittern style if not in lute
style, to provide a sharper break at the nut.
Use a lightweight but rigid neck design with a very thin floating
fingerboard (violin style) which does not touch the top where it crosses
it - leave as much of the top unhindered by the fingerboard as possible.
Use antique construction so there is not a large neck block - more like
a fiddle than a guitar. Keep overall weight down.
Fit very high, thin, back braces at 2.5 inch intervals (one inch high,
1/4 thick at the base, tapered to a sharp point) - this has a fantastic
effect on the duration of bass notes, and balancing out response across
the pitch range. Something to do with preventing standing waves. It
works in antique cittern bodies. Not needed if the guitar is similar in
curviness and complexity to a violin (the complex shape and strong
relative curves of the violin front and back pretty much iron out the
old guitar problem of almost parallel front and back, and plain sides,
bouncing sound around the wrong way).
Use a 660mm scale (26 inches) to ensure higher tension in standard tuning.
Fit extra high tension nylon strings.
My Lowden S25J has an EMG piezo which sounds pretty good, and the
pressure seems enough to produce TONS of output from it. But with a
floating bridge of sufficient height and finesse to transfer nylon
string to a big archtop, where would you put the wires?
David
Kim Strickland
issue of Guitarmaker, # 39, and the March 2001 issue of Acoustic Guitar.
Both of these cover Alan Carruth's expreriments, and Guitarmaker actually
had the luthiers write articles about their instruments. Some of them
claimed good results at 17" wide, others like Alan Carruth, preferred 15"
wide. The luthiers mentioned in Guitarmaker were Markku Henneken, Alan
Carruth, Stephen Marchione, Stephen Regimba. In Acoustic Guitar, they
discussed the experiments of the first three, and also covered
instruments by Stephen Grimes, Bob Benedetto and Linda Manzer too.
They basically felt that their instruments worked well in a jazz
setting. Most of them still wanted to tweak some of the design details,
but Stephen Marchione felt that he nailed the design with his first one,
which was 17" wide. Alan thought his projected well, better than a
normal classical, but thought that it lacked the warmth of a good
classical.
Of course that was probably written almost a couple of years ago (given
lead times for publications), so improvements in the designs are
possible. Alan, anything new on your nylon archtop experiments?
Kim Strickland
In article <20021111155049...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
Al Carruth
<< Some of them claimed good results at 17" wide, others like Alan Carruth,
preferred 15" wide.>>
True enough, but a little misleading (no fault of Kim's).
The two that I've built _were_ 15" wide guitars; built on the same pattern as
my 12 fret 000. The results have been positive in many respects, but not as
good as I would have hoped. I've been analysing the things, watching them
develop, and figuring out what I'll do differently next time.
The most successful aspects of the design in it's current incarnation is that
it _does_ project well. This is due, in part, to the fact that it simply puts
out more power: about twice the near-field volume for a given amount of energy
input. Another enhancement to the 'projection' comes from the low intrinsic
loss of the arched plates: the output spectrum is 'peaky' and thus,
interesting. Finally, there is a lot of power output in the 2-4 kHz band, where
our hearing is most acute, and this helps one to 'pick out' the signal even
above a certain amount of noise.
As is sometimes said, the instrument has the defects of it's virtues: it's
_too_ bright! Although there is plenty of output in the low range, it is
overbourne by the high end sound, and comes across as 'sharp' and even 'harsh'
if not played carefully. This is often a problem with new archtops, of course,
and can be somewhat rectified by 'playing in'. I'm about to get a visit from my
#1 arch classical after six months in the hands of a strong player, and we'll
see what effect that has had.
He (Ken Bonfield) has been very positive about the instrument's tone. He plays
a lot in drop tunings, and was surprised to find that the instrument works well
even tuned as low as C. So much for the 'insufficient pressure' theory. In
fact, I've found that the quickest way to kill an archtop is to put _too much_
down pressure on it.
Over time I've come to realize that one of the main problems with the ones
I've built is simply that they are _too small_. I'm not sure I'd go as large as
18", but my next one (as soon as I can justify building it) will be a 17"
jumbo.
Tell your luthier to _keep it light_. That's the real key. I'd go for a top
thickness of no more than about 3.5mm in the center, and shape the arch
accordingly. Keep the break angle at the bridge to no more than 18 degrees: you
don't need any more pressure than that to keep the strings down, and with a
light top too much downbearing will kill the tone.
I really can't say anything abut the pickups.
Good luck.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com
Rene Oliver
of North Carolina. It is not as loud as a classical guitar in the
same way that a steel string archtop IMHO is not as loud as a steel
string dreadnought. But my nylon archtop, like any good carved
archtop, has a clear punchy tone with minimal overtones which is great
for playing jazz chords and fast lead lines.
I suggest you visit www.laguitarfactory.com and search for Ari's
VIOLAO model. Drop him a mail for questions, he would be more than
happy to share his experieces and knowledge of nylon archtops and
amplifying them. Al Carruth and Ari Lehtela are just two luthiers
that I know of who have done significant work to improve the nylon
archtop design. A warning, a poorly built nylon archtop might just
end up as a wall decor. In a sense, the luthier 'should' have both
knowledge of building classical guitars, and carved archtops. This
combination of skills in your luthier IMHO can create the nylon archtop
of your desire. LOL.
rene oliver
alca...@aol.com (Al Carruth) wrote in message news:<20021112083637...@mb-mf.aol.com>...
John Sorell
"Rene Oliver" <roli...@astro.temple.edu> wrote in message
news:92874ffe.02111...@posting.google.com...
> I play fingerstyle jazz on a 1996 nylon archtop built by Ari Lehtela
> of North Carolina. It is not as loud as a classical guitar in the
> same way that a steel string archtop IMHO is not as loud as a steel
> string dreadnought. But my nylon archtop, like any good carved
> archtop, has a clear punchy tone with minimal overtones which is great
> for playing jazz chords and fast lead lines.
>
> I suggest you visit www.laguitarfactory.com and search for Ari's
> VIOLAO model. Drop him a mail for questions, he would be more than
> happy to share his experieces and knowledge of nylon archtops and
> amplifying them. Al Carruth and Ari Lehtela are just two luthiers
> that I know of who have done significant work to improve the nylon
> archtop design. A warning, a poorly built nylon archtop might just
> end up as a wall decor. In a sense, the luthier 'should' have both
> knowledge of building classical guitars, and carved archtops. This
> combination of skills in your luthier IMHO can create the nylon archtop
> of your desire. LOL.
>
> rene oliver
Rene,
Have you played any of the Buscarino nylon guitars?
John
Rene Oliver
Hi John,
Never played a Buscarino nylon which is the Cabaret. I once owned a
Buscarino archtop and the quality is outstanding so I just presume
that his nylon guitars are the same. Buscarino, however, has not
tried building a nylon archtop. I guess if a Torres or Hauser
classical design is a truly tested design for nylon strings, then why
even think of archtops. I also play a Torres design 7 string
classical guitar. As a guitarist oriented towards jazz, I am more
drawn to play my nylon archtop.
rene
Al Carruth
<< I guess if a Torres or Hauser
classical design is a truly tested design for nylon strings, then why
even think of archtops.>>
The answer is 'efficiency'.
I once polled the members of a classical guitar mailing list on line to find
out what they would want a 'new' guitar to do that their current instrument did
not. The generl feeling was 'more of the same': they don't want to give up the
range of color or dynamics, or end up with an instrument that is harder to
play, but they'd like more sound and better projection. Since we're restricted
from putting on longer or heavier strings or using higher action the only way
to get more power out is to increase efficiency.
One big controling factor in this is the ratio of top area to mass: the lighter
the top for a given size, or the larger the area for a given weight, the
better. It turns out that structurally it's easier to make the A/M ratio large
for a small guitar, which is why the little ones can indeed be as loud as (or
louder than!) the bigger guitars. The problem with this is preserving the
desired timbre: the smaller the box the more treble balanced the guitar. A
larger plate is much more efficient as a radiator of sound, particularly at low
frequencies.
The thing that limits the amount of weight you can trim from the top of the
guitar is the torque load of the glued-on bridge. Wood is not very good at
resisting that sort of load for very long, and most guitars end up 'swallowing
themselves' eventually. On a well designed arch top the load is pure
compression, and wood is pretty good at resisting that, so you can lighten up
considerably. An added benefit of the arch top is that there is no shoulder
brace, and the fingerboard end can 'float', so that the actual vibrating area
of the top can be much larger in proportion to the body size.
The drawback is that the arch itself, in making the top stiffer, also makes it
harder to drive, and shifts the frquencies of the main tap tones upward. The
extra stiffness thus cuts down the power somewhat, and also shifts the 'center'
frequency of the guitar upward, in much the same way as making the body smaller
would do. Thus, not only does an arch top _allow_ for a larger body, it almost
seems to _require_ one if the 'usual' timbre is to be retained.
An added benefit of the arched plates is that they do seem to vibrate more
efficiently (with lower internal losses) than flat plates. In part, once
again, it's a side benefit of the 'free' stiffness you get from the arch, but I
think it also has to do with the lack (or near lack) of bracing. On my arch
classicals the _only) top bracing is an X that is barely a quarter inch square
at it's largest point under the bridge. Although the tops are quite thin by
archtop standards the instruments are nowhere near the lmit of their strength
with even 'extra hard' strings, and could probably be used with light steel
strings if one wanted.
As always, it's a balancing act, into which one need to factor the character of
the wood, the arch height and thickness of the top, and the area and shape of
the body. I, too, think that a fair amount of experience in making both
archtops and classical guitars is needed to get it right.
Nick Naffin
Dino and I will meet on Friday to discuss some of your input. I'm looking
forward to sharing with you what we came up with.
Until then,
Nick
_______________________
Rene Oliver
Hi Al,
I have always benefitted from the knowledge that you share in this
newsgroup, and rec.music.classical guitar. By the way I saw one of
your 12-fret OMs being sold at Hey Dave's store in Philadelphia. Very
impressive. One of these days I am going to ask you to build me a
7-string flat top. Will you be in any coming guitar shows in the east
coast. I sure would be happy to try one of your nylon archtops; and
perhaps compare it with my nylon archtop that Ari Lehtela built.
Thanks.
rene
Al Carruth
little research in (_nothing_ is more time consuming than research!). I will be
getting to Healdsburg/ Santa Rosa this summer.
<<One of these days I am going to ask you to build me a 7-string flat top. >>
Steel or nylon? Extra high string or low string? What tuning/s?
Rene Oliver
Hi Al,
I recently discovered (better late than never) the beauty of steel
string guitars via the Martin 12 fret 000-15S. Because it is 12 fret
I actually feel like playing a classical guitar. Since I am a 7
string guitar player, I am wondering if you have done a 7-string on an
000-15S type design. The seventh string will be a low A. Martin's
scale length for the 12-th fret is 25.4"; and a body length of 20
9/16" thus putting the bridge near the body-center or away from the
internal braces making it touch the top 'freely' with no brace
underneath. This IMHO makes this guitar ring. Do you think a
7-string would match an 000-15s design? Is the scale length of 25.4"
short for the 7th string(?), lengthening it to (say) 26" so the 7th
won't be limpy or loose be the solutinon? Thanks again Al.
rene oliver
rene
Al Carruth
exception of finding a string you would like! One of my customers, Ken
Bonfield, routinely uses the 12-fret 000s I've made him for drop tunings as low
as C with _normal_ strings.
Have you considered a string extension? I've made a few instruments on which
the low string is 2 frets longer than the rest. You can tune it to D, for
example, and then play it as if it was tuned to E.
Alan Carruth / Luthier