Why laminates ok on classical guitars?
Bob Males
steel strings?
Also, anyone know anything about the Esteve brand. I was in L.A. last week and
played a few at McCabe's and at the Guitar Center.
David Kilpatrick
Laminated wood is fine for all guitars - try a Finnish laminated
birchwood Landola, for example.
What is not right is 'veneer laminated' wood - a laminated which
pretends to be solid rosewood, but actually is some softwood sandwiched
between two layers of very thin rosewood. That's what used to get done
with cheap steel string guitars (and banjos, etc, etc).
Some makers will say 'mahogany sides' and mean laminated mahogany -
three layers of mahogany, all the same wood. That's not bad really.
However if you say 'solid wood' it is a definite promise that you are
not getting pine glued between two thin coatings of mahogany.
Classical makers using laminates are often using very fine quality,
purpose (or even hand) made laminates of the same woods.
David
Rolavine
...>However if you say 'solid wood' it is a definite promise that you are
>not getting pine glued between two thin coatings of mahogany.
>
>Classical makers using laminates are often using very fine quality,
>purpose (or even hand) made laminates of the same wood.
While that may be true, I know of no high quality production classical guitar
that uses laminates for top side or back. The original poster asked about
Esteve, a mid quality brand. Even in an Esteve you should go for solid woods.
Classical guitars are very sensitive to the wood. The same kind of wood
considerations that one would make with a steel string apply to the classical.
These guitars have a huge range of tone from very dark (cedar rosewood), to
very light (spruce and cypress), and sting brand and tension make even more
difference than they do with steel strings.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Bob Males wrote:
Solid top is important, back and sides less so. True, all the best classical
guitars are solid sides and back too, but this is less critical than some other
issues.
As I recall, Torres, who is generally credited with making the first modern
classical guitars made a demonstration model with a cardboard back--just to prove
the material wasn't critical.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com
David Kilpatrick
I do not recall the maker, but there are some VERY high end classicals
using laminates and doing so deliberately. I was not referring to store
brand nylon string guitars, but to luthier concert instruments, and in
the classical field there's actually more acceptance of serious work
with laminates (OK, avant-garde classical admittedly) than there is in
the steel string luthiery world. The most accepted wisdom is that
laminated ribs can be beneficial (I don't think there is any case of a
laminated top, not sure about backs).
The same applies in the field of oud luthiery in Turkey - specific
methods for using laminated staves in the ud body are very highly
regarded. In these cases, more work goes into the instrument than with
solid woods. The laminates are hand made. I think the reason is that a
thinner body shell is possible with greater strength.
David
Joe McNamara
guitars are solid sides and back too, but this is less critical than some other
issues. >>
So that's why Gregg Smallman's 5 ply sided classicals go for $20k and up and
are played by hacks like John Wlliams and David Tannenbaum?
<g>
Joe
Sleepy Fingers Jones
This is interesting.
Is it possible that the classical makers are more interested in making
loud guitars than the steel string makers? My maple Ellastone, for
instance, has a very similar tone to Alan Marshall's braz one, but the
tonewood cost half the price. The top, on the other hand, is very
similar (sitka spruce).
Al Carruth might like to chime in here. If a body is made of more
rigid wood (ie high quality laminates), will it project more than one
made with solid wood?
How about the idea that the tone of the guitar comes from the top, not
the back and sides? Listening to the difference between various Simon
& Patrick guitars with cedar and spruce tops (and identical laminated
sides) would suggest that the basic sound of the guitar is decided by
the top rather than the B&S.
Pete
William D Clinger
> While that may be true, I know of no high quality production classical guitar
> that uses laminates for top side or back.
According to CG luthier David Schramm (quoted below), the quality
classical guitar makers who have used laminated back and sides include
Ramirez, Oribe, and Smallman.
Will
> From: David Schramm (da...@schrammguitars.com)
> Subject: Re: Laminate Cedar vs. Solid Spruce
> Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar
> Date: 2001-01-30 08:45:37 PST
>
> There is a huge difference between laminated and plywood tops and sides.
> Laminated tops are like those of Gernot Wagner and Matthias
> Dammann(pronounced Daw-mon) as played by Manuel Barrueco and David Russel.
>
> Laminated side are also constructed in several different ways. One is
> the way D. Friederich, Jose Oribe, Jose Ramirez, myself, and others.
> Usually called double sides. This method is to use two sets of sides
> about 1.5mm-2mm thick each which are laminated together to form a
> 3mm-4mm thick side.
>
> The "Australian" school usually laminates high quality veneers over a
> core material for back and sides. For example, from outer to
> inner,0.5mm-1mm hardwood veneer( usually with a visually stimulating
> pattern), another 0.5mm-1mm hardwood veneer, 3mm core material(usually
> cedar), 0.5mm-1mm hardwood veneer, another 0.5mm-1mm veneer( usually
> with a visually stimulating pattern).Examples of these would be
> S.Marty,J.Redgate, and G. Smallman, etc.
>
> Plywood tops are usually found on guitars under $300. Plywood and
> laminated tops are similar but completely different. One is done to be
> low cost and materialy efficient. The other to be labor intensive,
> costly, and acoustically efficient.
>
> David Schramm
> http://schrammguitars.com
Hojo2x
classical guitar circles, and are found on recital-grade instruments at the
very pinnacle of that particular market.
The idea is to increase rigidity and reflectiveness, and the hand made
laminated wood layers are just as carefully chosen for their grain and acoustic
qualities as any solid sides could be.
Plus, since you're looking at three layers instead of one, it represents three
times the amount of work.
So, at this level, it's NOT a sign of cheapness, but the very opposite.
Pete Gay wrote:
>Is it possible that the classical makers >are more interested in making >loud
guitars than the >steel string makers?
Well, I think it's a bit more NECESSARY for them, wouldn't you?
At that end of the market, you're talking about players who might at least
aspire to perform with string orchestras, and so having projection and stage
volume is essential.
>If a body is made of more >rigid wood (ie >high quality laminates), will it
project >more than one >made with solid wood?
Well, it depends on how and where the laminates are used, but sure: that's the
principle behind the laminated woods on the pressed, arched back Gibsons and
Guilds that have that feature - they're louder and perhaps a bit clearer than
similar instruments with flat backs of solid wood.
It would be perfectly easy for both Guild and Gibson to use a single thickness
of solid wood and press it into the arched shape they use, and at the price
point those guitars are sold at solid woods are certainly within that range,
costwise. But laminates are used because they work better for that purpose.
The Selmer and Selmer Maccaferri guitars made famous by Django Rheinhardt had
laminated backs and sides. They were CANNONS, and the laminated woods used in
their construction were part of the reason why.
>How about the idea that the tone of the >guitar comes from the top, > not
the back and sides?
Well, DUH, Pete - that one was covered in "Basic Principles Of Acoustic Guitars
101." You must have been out in the boys' room having a smoke when the
professor gave us THOSE notes....
>Listening to the difference between various Simon& Patrick >guitars with cedar
>and spruce tops (and identical laminated
sides) would >suggest that the basic sound of the guitar is >decided by the top
rather than the >B&S
Yes, and how you choose to play it, naturally.
We can quibble about what PERCENTAGE of the tone comes from the top - Is it
60%? Is it 70%? Is it 90%? - but there's really no significant disgreement
that the top is the single most important determinant.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Jeff Carter
>Plus, since you're looking at three layers instead of one, it represents three
times the amount of work.
I missed the start of this thread, but I'll jump in with a couple of points. As
I recall (read: I can't remember for sure), Smallman uses 5 laminations, not 3.
His guitars (which John Williams has played since the early 90s) are not cheap,
going for between $18-25k. I have never played a Smallman, but have played
others from that Australian "school", and they are very loud guitars.
One thing I noticed though, is they are sometimes not terribly dynamic, i.e.,
it's like they're on "10" (actually, these go to "11":)) all the time. It's
worth noting that these guys build with very thin tops, which in combination
with extra stiff b & s, really gets the top pumping.
--Jeff
Matt Hayden
Smallman's not the only one; as far back as the 70's, there was a
French luthier (can't recall his name, sorry) who laminated the ribs
of the instrument for a total thickness of -- get this -- 3+mm (that's
THICK). I played one once and it had massive projection, though
whether it was due to the luthier's skill or the laminated sides is
open to conjecture.
mh
Rolavine
>Date: 12/19/2002 5:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <b84e9a9f.02121...@posting.google.com>
>
>Rolavine wrote:
>> While that may be true, I know of no high quality production classical
>guitar
>> that uses laminates for top side or back.
>
>According to CG luthier David Schramm (quoted below), the quality
>classical guitar makers who have used laminated back and sides include
>Ramirez, Oribe, and Smallman.
>
>Will
This boils down to what you call a production classical, since the original
poster was talking about Esteve guitars he was not talking $20,000.
That excuse being made, to tell the truth, I didn't know that all these fancy
classicals were not solid wood. If I could outplay my Cordoba Flamenco I would
go looking.
Rocky
Hojo2x
>>Plus, since you're looking at three layers instead of one, it represents
>three>times the amount of work.
Jeff Carter wrote:>As>I recall (read: I can't remember for sure), Smallman uses
5 laminations, not>3.
Right - Smallman uses five, but most of the handbuilders making classicals in
the US that I'm aware of use three. Or did a few years ago, anyway, which is
the last time I discussed the matter with one of those builders. It's a very
personal thing, obviously, and I'm sure people's techniques change as they
experiment.
But if Smallman uses five laminations, then it's FIVE times the work to make a
side, not three....the point being that this is a much more labor-intensive
approach than the casual phrase "laminated sides" would imply.
John E. Golden
>>Classical makers using laminates are often using very fine quality,
>>purpose (or even hand) made laminates of the same wood.
>
> While that may be true, I know of no high quality production classical
> guitar that uses laminates for top side or back. The original poster
> asked about Esteve, a mid quality brand. Even in an Esteve you should
> go for solid woods. Classical guitars are very sensitive to the wood.
> The same kind of wood considerations that one would make with a steel
> string apply to the classical. These guitars have a huge range of tone
> from very dark (cedar rosewood), to very light (spruce and cypress),
> and sting brand and tension make even more difference than they do
> with steel strings.
Jose Ramirez III lined the Rosewood sides of all his classical guitars with
Cypress (inside). This must have some bearing on the sweet trebles--a halo
around each note. Now that Jose III is gone, these Cypress lined sides are
available as an extra cost option.
Regards,
John E. Golden
foldedpath
in message news:bdl40v8n7vg936g1v...@4ax.com...
> How about the idea that the tone of the guitar comes
> from the top, not the back and sides? Listening to the
> difference between various Simon & Patrick guitars with
> cedar and spruce tops (and identical laminated sides)
> would suggest that the basic sound of the guitar is decided
> by the top rather than the B&S.
I'm not a luthier or acoustic scientist, but I'll kick in my dumb
player's opinion and say that I don't think this is true.
My Santa Cruz FS (koa b&s, German spruce top) is very lightly built.
The sides are stiff, but the back is fairly thin. When I have the
guitar amplified and I raise the volume enough to hit body resonance
feedback at about 120Hz, I can actually stop the feedback completely
by pressing on the *back* of the guitar, and touching nothing else.
It takes a firmer push of my hand than stopping the feedback by
pressing on the soundboard, but the back of the guitar is definitely
vibrating along with the air column inside the guitar. Judging by
the amount of hand pressure needed to stop feedback, I'd say the
back is vibrating maybe 20% as much as the soundboard.
Now, induced feedback isn't the same thing as the guitar's natural
response while being played, but I think there is definitely
something going on with the back of the guitar that contributes to
the overall tone... at least on the more lightly-built guitars like
this. I have guitars that are more heavily built, like my '70's
Guild D-25M with an arched plywood back. It sounds nice in its own
way, but it doesn't have the clear, "ringy" tone of my Santa Cruz.
And the back is definitely nothing more than a passive reflector on
the Guild. Pressing on it, no matter how hard, does nothing to stop
body resonance feedback.
Hey, maybe we need a John Pearse "backrest" or "belly standoff" as
well as the armrest? ;-) I have my own built-in belly standoff, but
it probably damps out the tone too much.
Mike Barrs
foldedpath
news:20021219212815...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> David and Jomack are correct: laminated sides
> are very highly regarded in classical guitar circles,
> and are found on recital-grade instruments at the
> very pinnacle of that particular market.
>
> The idea is to increase rigidity and reflectiveness,
> and the hand made laminated wood layers are
> just as carefully chosen for their grain and acoustic
> qualities as any solid sides could be.
>
> Plus, since you're looking at three layers instead
> of one, it represents three times the amount of work.
>
> So, at this level, it's NOT a sign of cheapness, but
> the very opposite.
Okay, so stiff sides are good.
What about the back? These same makers aren't laminating the back,
are they?
I do know of one builder (Buscarino) making an arched-back
classical. But I don't know if it's designed as a stiff,
nonvibrating reflector or an active, vibrating back that happens to
be arched.
Mike Barrs