Official Luthiers Forum!

Owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Thu Oct 31, 2024 6:18 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:08 am
Posts: 1906
Location: Raleigh, NC
First name: Steve
Last Name: Sollod
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I build steel strings rather than classical style. I have some mahogany that I could use for back braces, but from a sound perspective should I stick with spruce?

_________________
Steve Sollod (pronounced sorta like "Solid")
www.swiftcreekguitars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 1283
First name: John
Last Name: Arnold
City: Newport
State: TN
Zip/Postal Code: 37821
Country: USA
Focus: Repair
Status: Professional
Can't tell much, if any difference. If you want to alter the tap tone of the back, change the height of the braces.

_________________
John


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 5967
Spruce would be stiffer for the weight, but for back braces sometimes you need weight more than you need stiffness. I usually use spruce, but more of them and low wide ones in the lower bout.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:44 am
Posts: 6256
Location: Virginia
I've used walnut, mahogany, cherry and even oak. I tend to prefer spruce now just because it's light and strong but like JA said you can adjust the stiffness accordingly by reducing and or adding height.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:44 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:50 pm
Posts: 3926
Location: United States
What Clay said.

Cherry is a pretty good substitute for mahogany, as is walnut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:08 am
Posts: 1906
Location: Raleigh, NC
First name: Steve
Last Name: Sollod
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Okay - What I'm hearing is that mahogany, cherry, or walnut can be used for back braces. Spruce is lighter, but that may not matter much. "...you need weight more than you need stiffness". I'm not sure I get this... Does anyone want to discuss this some more? Clay? Alan?

_________________
Steve Sollod (pronounced sorta like "Solid")
www.swiftcreekguitars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:01 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:21 am
Posts: 4903
Location: Central PA
First name: john
Last Name: hall
City: Hegins
State: pa
Zip/Postal Code: 17938
Country: usa
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
don't rule out Poplar and Catalpa

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 5967
There are two ways to lower the pitch of the "plate". One is to reduce stiffness and the other is to increase mass. Mahogany is less stiff and heavier than an equally dimensioned piece of spruce, so it should do both. The shape and orientation of the braces can also have a great effect on the outcome, just as it does for the soundboard braces.
Some people tune the back to fall within a range of tones to the top, so sometimes a less stiff heavier brace will help (low ,wide mahogany) or a stiffer lighter brace might be called for (tall, narrow spruce) This is more important when building an "active" back.
As I mentioned I tend to use a combination of tall narrow and low wide spruce back braces and more of them (5 on a "parlor" size guitar). There is more than one way to skin a cat (non-live back) and spruce is what I usually have on hand.



These users thanked the author Clay S. for the post: Rodger Knox (Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:42 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:50 pm
Posts: 3926
Location: United States
Another way to think of it is that the top is the part that is directly driven by the strings. Everything else gets the energy to vibrate from the top. In the very low 'bass reflex' range the back can actually improve the output of the guitar if it can work together with the top; that is, if it's not too stiff, so that it has a resonance that is not too far above the 'main top' resonance. Above that range (which is near the open G pitch on most guitars) the top will be far more effective at turning string energy into sound, so making the back or sides too loose will cost power. It's not all bad: this is where a lot of the 'tone color' of the guitar seems to come from. So what you want to do, IMO, is to get the back to be 'active' in the bass reflex range, to improve the low end power, and then have it be a 'reflector' for the most part above that. You can't avoid having resonances in the back that cost power, but by keeping the activity level down and the band widths of those resonances small (it's only costing energy when it's moving) you limit the cost. You keep the activity down by using a heavy, stiff back, and the band widths depend mostly on the loss in the system. That's why a dense, stiff, low loss wood like Brazilian rosewood works so well for backs. Light weight in the top is helpful, as it means more sound for a given amount of power, but the back has a different job.



These users thanked the author Alan Carruth for the post (total 4): Pmaj7 (Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:57 am) • TimAllen (Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:53 am) • Rodger Knox (Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:42 pm) • Bri (Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:42 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:10 pm
Posts: 2485
Location: Argyle New York
First name: Mike/Mikey/Michael/hey you!
Last Name: Collins
City: Argyle
State: New York
Zip/Postal Code: 12809
Country: U.S.A. /America-yea!!
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
how thick do you leave your backs?
Mike

_________________
Mike Collins


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:03 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:50 pm
Posts: 3926
Location: United States
I generally make backs about 2.5mm thick (.1"), with some variation depending on how dense and stiff the wood is, and the size of the box.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:27 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5484
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
Alan Carruth wrote:
I generally make backs about 2.5mm thick (.1"), with some variation depending on how dense and stiff the wood is, and the size of the box.

At least I have one thing in common with Mr Carruth. bliss laughing6-hehe

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpBB customization services by 2by2host.com