Official Luthiers Forum!

Owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:52 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:08 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:54 am
Posts: 854
State: Texas
Country: United States
Focus: Repair
I'm sure this has been asked before but in all seriousness I'm just trying to get different viewpoints on the topic.

I know that typically we increase the radius of the back of a guitar to be more curved than the top. Case in point the typical 25' top paired with a 15' back and variations on this theme from various makers etc...

I'm curious about what the differences would be with a top that is heavily radiused to something like a 15' and if the back were 25'?

I realize it will still sound like a guitar I'm just curious what ya'll have noticed in the sound if this is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:56 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5398
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
Top frequency would rise, and back frequency would drop, comparatively speaking, for the same wood, thicknesses and brace dimensions.
Haven't built like that, so I don't know how it would sound.
I did increase my "standard" top radius and decrease the back radius about 6 guitars ago and found I prefer the sound of the guitars since then, so I'm not likely to try it, but maybe someone here has.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:15 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:42 pm
Posts: 1701
First name: John
Last Name: Parchem
City: Seattle
State: Wa
Zip/Postal Code: 98177
Country: USA
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I agree with Colin, but I would also add it makes getting the neck and body to match with the correct geometry harder. Around 30' the upper bout is closest to the correct angle. One can work around a tighter radius, it would just take a bit more work.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:15 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 5924
From an Ervin Symogi article:
"Because of the dynamics of the guitar, tonewoods for faces need to be different than tonewoods for backs, if the instrument is to have the best and most even sound. The best guitar faces are made of high quality musical instrument grade softwoods such as spruce and cedar. The best guitar backs are made of high quality hardwoods such as rosewood, ebony, maple, walnut, koa, mahogany or any of a number of other suitable body woods. The consensus among luthiers is that face and backwoods need to be chosen from woods of differing densities because the resonant frequency of the back needs to be higher than the resonant frequency of the face, by at least a tone. The best wisdom on this matter is that if there is too great or too small a gap separating the fundamental resonant frequencies of the top and the back, then guitars have an uneven tone. That is, the sound becomes an uneven mixture of loud and quiet notes. Likewise, if the face and the back are most active at the same frequency or frequencies they’ll act in tandem to reinforce certain notes, but leave others weak. It does not matter what the sides are made out of, except that guitars in which the back and side woods don’t match are considered to look too strange and generally won’t be saleable: backs and sides need to match for aesthetic reasons."

As Colin pointed out, the top frequency would rise and the back frequency would drop, so depending on the woods you are using it may create too small of a "gap" between the fundamental resonant frequencies of the plates.
With the typical construction, the back being a denser wood and being more strongly arched, the frequency separation is maintained.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:28 am 
Offline
Cocobolo
Cocobolo

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:18 pm
Posts: 383
Location: Somerset UK
State: West Somerset
Country: UK
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Not really relevant to your question but to my eyes it would look rather odd! On steel strings I use a 3 m radius for the back and have grown to rather like this fairly high arching.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:44 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:42 pm
Posts: 1701
First name: John
Last Name: Parchem
City: Seattle
State: Wa
Zip/Postal Code: 98177
Country: USA
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Dave m2 wrote:
Not really relevant to your question but to my eyes it would look rather odd! On steel strings I use a 3 m radius for the back and have grown to rather like this fairly high arching.

Dave


Being in the US I do a 10' back and also like the look.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:48 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:50 pm
Posts: 1092
Location: Goodrich, MI
First name: Ken
Last Name: Nagy
City: Goodrich
State: MI
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I'm making an early Stauffer guitar now with a back radius about 8 foot, 2400mm. I guess the original has a flat belly. The maker I got the plans from said that he put a slight radius on it. With bracing, I wonder how much the radius means. Stiffness can be adjusted.

_________________
Why be normal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:09 pm 
Offline
Cocobolo
Cocobolo

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:18 pm
Posts: 383
Location: Somerset UK
State: West Somerset
Country: UK
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Dan it is worth saying that no question is silly! It is one of the purposes of this forum to challenge conventional wisdom.

It is my understanding that an arched back provides stiffness to the box structure which will help to maintain it’s integrity over the long term.

Again as I understand it arching of both plates means that both plates can better handle changes in humidity. They can increase or decrease the arching with moisture content changes without serious damage. Which particular radius does the job is one of those real open questions!

So building in an arch seems worth doing on that basis. Effects on sound, i8well who knows - apart from what people above have said.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:47 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:46 pm
Posts: 501
First name: Mark
Last Name: McLean
City: Sydney
State: New South Wales
Zip/Postal Code: 2145
Country: Australia
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
You might be aware of the Vega and Howe-Orme cylinder top designs of about 100 years ago. They sound great, and loud. But the geometry woould make the build a bit more challenging than a nearly flat top.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bob_Lyndoch, J De Rocher and 48 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