Sound Ports. I`ve been wondering.....
Mouldytone
side of their instruments. My questions are re the makers that offer
it for their flat top guitars that also have the traditional sound
hole rather than the luthiers that place sound ports in either non
traditional locations in the top or sides and don`t have the
traditional sound hole between the end of the fretboard and the
bridge. The question I have is how considered is the placement/size of
sound ports in flat tops that also have the traditional sound hole in
the top? Do you think that placement and size follows some sort of
design parameters? The reason that I ask is that I own two perfectly
wonderful flat tops that have been scarred by the complete bastard act
(in my opinion) of cutting a hole in the top sides of the instruments
to allow the insertion of an onboard volume/equaliser control. I don`t
require or want such controls. I bought both the guitars because they
were wonderful instruments acoustically (and at silly prices), not
because of their bloody onboard controls. So, my question, if I were
to have the volume/equaliser control units removed and have someone
who knows what they`re doing put a lining on the unfinished bare wood
'edges' is there a chance that the only change to the guitars
acoustically would be more feedback to the player or would this
modification most likely just change the acoustics in a bad way? Just
wondering.
Tony Moulder
Mike Brown
<d4dd5f8f-aa23-4ec3...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Mouldytone <tmou...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
I share your dislike if "barn doors" in acoustics (or any guitar for
that matter) and will be interested to see the replies.
I don't actually have any guitars with "barn doors" in the side.
MJRB
Mouldytone
> In article
> <d4dd5f8f-aa23-4ec3-ae91-f223894c5...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah Mike, whilst I will always see it as a horrible thing to do to an
acoustic guitar, as far as trying to understand it in the case of my
two guitars in particular, one, an absolutely gobbsmackingly wonderful
Maton 1988 BiCentennial Custom and the other an extraordinary 1986
David Churchill guitar, both were built for semi-professional
performers (David Churchill hates onboard eq and only does it if
requested by the person paying for the guitar). I would speculate,
never personally having had to deal with the many and varied venues
encounted by semi-professional performers, that maybe onboard
equalisation is seen as the easiest way to deal with less that ideal
soundboard/PA amplification. The Maton in particular makes me
uselessly ponder the 'what-ifs' because the guitar was originally made
without the electronics. The original owner took it back to Maton to
have the 'barn door' installed! Oh well. Shouldn`t complain. I might
not like the 'mod' but the guitar is still as good a 14 fret
dreadnought as I`ve ever played.
Tony M
Misifus
I seem to recall seeing a kit that was made to convert the square preamp
hole to a nicely trimmed oval sound port. I don't recall where I saw
it, but a little research might reveal whether they were still available.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Alan D.
Some quick answers:
- Yes, sound ports are common with standard soundhole designs. Look at
http://dunwellguitar.com and go to the Models tab and look at the Minstrel.
- when I build I do compensate for the area of the sound port by reducing the
area of the top sound hole, but that is not strictly necessary. I do believe it
gives a better sound but should not be a real problem if you add in a sound
port.
- any competent repair shop or luthier should be able to make that into a sound
port for you, or if you really want they can just fit a patch. You can also go
half way between to close up the "barn door" a bit by fitting in an insert of
some really nice wood that plugs the hole but has a sound port cut in it. Could
look really cool! Cocobolo soundport insert.
FWIW,
Alan D.
"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment". - Francis Urquhart
hank alrich
> I would speculate,
> never personally having had to deal with the many and varied venues
> encounted by semi-professional performers, that maybe onboard
> equalisation is seen as the easiest way to deal with less that ideal
> soundboard/PA amplification.
Unless one has an experienced and mildy educated ear, adjustments made
on stage may translate poorly into the room at large, and may also
greatly interfere with the sound operator's ability to EQ that source at
the console.
I understand the sentiment, and I have carried almost as much stuff as
that for which a barn door takes up space to be able to control my sound
in a sad situation. But often the built-in controls leavs so much to be
desired that they are better not built-in in the first place.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman
Steve Freides
You might ask also in the classical guitar newsgroup - quite a few there
have tried these.
-S-
Steve Hawkins
f22389...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
I played a steel string that had a fairly large sound port in the side of
the upper bout. Bass response was fantastic to my ears, but the trebles
were weak. I had someone else play while I stood in front; the trebles
were bright and strong, but the bass was thin and weak. The builder was
not exactly thrilled with my opinion; it was not a guitar I would buy or
recommend.
Al Carruth, did a lot of experiments and data gathering on sound ports, I
don't remember what the outcome was.
Steve Hawkins
persisten...@yahoo.com
Have a word with Adrian Lucas.
I think he's at www.lucasguitars.co.uk
He's given this a lot of thought, not least because many players only
play for themselves. He makes traditional guitars as well, but the
sound-port on the upper bout has been successful for him.
I don't know what is in his current range (they're all handbuilt
anyway) but drop him a line - he'll let you know if there is a
significant difference in performance for the player.
Most luthiers are of course more interested in projection towards the
audience, but then, if you're playing to any more people than can fill
a living room amplification will be involved regardless.
Pete
persisten...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Mouldytone <tmou...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I would speculate,
>> never personally having had to deal with the many and varied venues
>> encounted by semi-professional performers, that maybe onboard
>> equalisation is seen as the easiest way to deal with less that ideal
>> soundboard/PA amplification.
>
>Unless one has an experienced and mildy educated ear, adjustments made
>on stage may translate poorly into the room at large, and may also
>greatly interfere with the sound operator's ability to EQ that source at
>the console.
>
>I understand the sentiment, and I have carried almost as much stuff as
>that for which a barn door takes up space to be able to control my sound
>in a sad situation. But often the built-in controls leavs so much to be
>desired that they are better not built-in in the first place.
As far as on-board EQ is concerned I can't be bothered with it - the
less I have to do on stage the better...including playing, as far as
the audience is concerned....hem hem..:-)
I have an EMG (which is adjustable by taking it out of the strap pin
and tweaking it) under the saddle and it goes straight out to the
P.A., that way the EQ is all done on the board by someone else who is
in a better position to hear it than I ever will be - the sound on
stage is usually totally different from the sound in the room.
Pete
alcarruth
to keep the summary brief.
As far as I can tell the port does two things: it vents interior air
resonances of the box, and it changes the directionality. There are a
bunch of those interior air resonances, most at higher frequencies,
and they each produce high Sound Pressure Levels in different places
in the box. If you put a port where the SPL of one of these modes is
high, you'll hear it, and if not, you won't.
There is one air mode that produces sound all through the box: the
'Helmholtz' or 'main air' resonance. No matter where you put the port
it vents that one. Since that's the lowest pitched resonance on the
guitar it's not surprising that opening a port can enhance bass
response. However, the port also raises the pitch of the Helmholtz
mode, and that can partly cancel out the increase in 'bassiness'.
That low pitched 'main air' mode tends to go out about equally in all
directions from the guitar. That's because it has a wave length that's
long compared with the dimensions of the box, so it acts like a 'point
source'. As you go up in pitch the guitar becomes more and more
directional. Because of the design it ends up that for most guitars
most of the high end sound is coming off the top or out of the
soundhole, and it's directed away from the player. If you're in a
large or somewhat soundproof room, especially if there's some
background noise (think 'restaurant gig') you might not hear enough of
the high end from room reflections to be satisfactory. A port pointed
toward you will feed you some of that high end sound, so it can make a
good monitor in some circumstances.
The port will change the timbre of the guitar. The bigger the port,
and the further it is from the regular soundhole, the greater the
change. In practice, players seem to notice more of a change than the
audience.
Opening the 'barn door' will make a usful port, but a bit big for my
tastes. As has been said, any luthier can probably make up a
decorative surround that will look beter and restrict the port size a
bit.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Tony Done
"Mouldytone" <tmou...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:d4dd5f8f-aa23-4ec3...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I can't offer any advice any your question, but I'll offer a comment on
"barn door" controls. I dislike them as much as most of the acoustic
afficionados in this group, but I like the convenience and high tonal
quality of some of the systems. - I got tired of hooking a separate
preamp/blender into a chain where I would swap guitars half a dozen times or
more during a gig. My solution was to get a cheap guitar with a good
pickup/preamp. A very beat-up cedar top, sunburst cutaway Maton 225 with
their AP4 system. It sounds good, looks OK in an acoustic blues sort of way,
and I don't mind if it gets knocked about. My solution for the other gig
guitars was to use magnetic pickups and going through an electric guitar
amp.- The EQ on the Maton allowed for getting a decent sound through that
style of amp, and I'm more interested in acceptable rather than authentic
acoustic sound anyway.
I did think of one piece of advice. I would not make an ireversible change,
particularly any enlargement to the hole, because if you want to sell it, it
will leave the option of reinstalling the controls. If I was doing a sound
port I would tailor it to fit the existing hole.
Tony D
Mike Brown
<e50bd736-e43e-4adb...@w30g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Mouldytone <tmou...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
These days there are quite a lot of pickup systems that don't use a barn
door preamp/EQ, but are either completely passive or use an external
preamp/EQ .
I use K&K and think it is excellent, but there are lots of others.
MJRB
donh
There is a luthier nearby me that is quite enamoured of the soundport
concept & includes them in most of his guitars. He states he can prove
that his port scheme not only enhances the player's seat but adds to the
projection of the instrument.
He is a sweetie and is highly interested in helping people out, but I
find I must respectfully disagree at the very least on the part of
enhancing the player's perception of the instrument. I really dislike
the sound emanating from the nearfield of the sound port, and prefer that
it *never* get pointed at my head - even if it can be proven to be
beneficial in some other direction. Why anyone would prefer to listen to
that muck is beyond me.
--
donh
donh at audiosys dot com
Jefferson Holston
Probably the first thing to do is either open the barn door, or
pop the control thingy out, and see if you like the result while
playing. I've tried that with a couple guitars (also very nicely
priced) and liked the results in my "playing on the sofa" tests,
but then I *really* like sound ports... never got any farther
(like front of the instrument tests) because I figured that the
time and trouble, or time and expense and trouble, would go a
long way toward reversing the value gained by having made my
purchases at what I felt to be a good price.
There's also the question of whether there's really any aesthetic
improvement to be had by replacing the plastic control thingy
with a basically rectangular (and really LARGE) soundport. I
find the barn door concept a bit offensive too. However after
thinking through all sorts of ideas for inserts, patches with
inlays, bindings, linings, and cutting a big oval hole to give a
guitar-like curvature to the rectangular one, I've pretty much
concluded that the control looks like it belongs there and
anything else...
Of course since we're never going to sell, or do any
horse-trading with these instruments, I won't even start into
resale value issues.
jeff
Mouldytone
Shame you can`t recall where you saw the conversion kit Raf. What`s
the bet that if I tracked it down it`d be for a different size
equalizer hole! I`d only considered some sort of 'trim' to fit around
the hole but I like your mystery 'kit`s' design and Alan D`s idea of
some sort of insert with an oval, rather rectangular opening. Thanks
for sharing your thoughts on sound holes Alan Carruth, I was
interested to hear your suggestion of smaller rather that larger sound
port size and the difference that relative distance from the guitar`s
main sound hole has on the sound. My Maton (square shouldered
dreadnought) has one of the company`s own AP5 equalizer/pickup systems
fitted (2-1/2" x 2-1/4" footprint) on the top of the 'curve' and if
removed the hole would be right underneath my head whilst the
Churchill (mini jumbo-ish) has a Takamine Parametric Equalizer (3" x
2-1/2" footprint) fitted with the closest edge of the equalizer only
around 2-1/4" from the neck/body join, so it`s facing away from my
ears slightly. As Tony D suggested I have no thoughts of making any
irreversible changes to the equalizer holes. Sure wouldn`t consider
making them bigger that`s for sure! Thanks to Jeff also re
contemplating the aesthetic considerations. I couldn`t see myself
ending up with something that looks worse than the equalizer even if I
thought it made an improvement to the sound. The Maton has four screws
holding the control part to the main equalizer which sits inside the
guitar so I guess the best thing to do is give it a go. Might find
myself agreeing with donh`s opinion of sound ports! Thanks all
Tony Moulder
don j
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had a minor mishap with my archtop. The jack hole coming out is now
a sound port directed toward the floor and behind me. However, that
does throw some sound back to the left handed player and is a welcome
adjunct to my one lefty playing friend; she plays upside down lefty
ala Elizabeth Cotten and it is noticeable to her. And it's not that
big a hole, about 3/4" to an inch in diameter, so small does work.
*Not* a perfect circle by any means.