Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find anything on it. I was just wondering if I could get classical sound and ease of playability with a dreadnaught(ish) design? I know that bracing, plate thickness, body size and strings will change, but what else makes a big difference? Basically I want to know if I can re-top a 000 body, throw on some nylon strings, and have something that resembles a classical guitar.

I'm sure it can be done, but you are going to have a heck of a time driving a top that big with nylon strings to any satisfying level. It'll, most likely, be boomy and have lots of mid-range and little treble. May have huge bass. Now, if you restrict the size of the vibrating part of the top plate, then you may have better success, like using very wide linings in the top or a shelf of some thicker layer, maybe about an inch around the top to reduce the vibrating plate. Of course, the whole geometry of the build changes too.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

I agree with Waddy that nylon strings are not going to sound like much with such a large sound board. There is not enough energy to excite a large sound board properly. I would advise sticking with well established designs to achieve particular sound characteristics in different guitars.

_________________
http://www.booneguitars.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephen-Boone-guitar-builder/488208541257210

Classical guitar and acoustic/steel string guitar are 2 different instruments, just like mandolin and banjo are 2 different instruments. I can put frets on a violon, and put ukelele strings. It is ''possible'' and it will ''works'', but, well...

You should better keep this 000, and start a classical from scratch or from a kit. It can be done for not much $$$. Will be funnier, and you're gonna have a nice real classical guitar.

My opinion.
Francis

_________________
Francis Richer, Montréal
Les Guitares F&M Guitars

Sorry, I shouldn't have said 000. How about "classical size". I'm not tearing apart a good 000. I guess there are a lot more major differences between the two than I had mentioned.
What are they and how do they make such a difference?

If by neck joint you mean 12 fret versus 14 fret, then yes, classicals almost always have 12 fret necks (related to bracing). If you mean dovetail versus integral neck, then no... you can use any type of joint on either type of guitar.

Usually, nylon string guitars use fan bracing, and steel strings use X bracing. Fan bracing usually has a big cross brace below the soundhole, and the bridge position with a 12 fret neck is pretty well centered between that brace and the tail block, whereas a 14 fret neck puts it too far up. With X bracing, it's arguable where the optimal bridge location is, and either will work just fine.

Neck width is another common difference. There's a thread going on with some explanations of why nylon strings typically have wider necks http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=35099

Thanks. I can't see anything other than the bracing and neck width that make a big difference between a small guitar and a classical. So, it's done the way it's done because that's the way it has always been done. Works for me.

Do yourself a favor and get some reading material. The geometry of a classical is nearly the opposite of a steel string in that a classical has a forward angle on the neck vs a back angle. There's more, but you'd do better to get Cumpaiano & Natelson or some other book. C&N gives details on both classical and steel string construction. http://www.amazon.com/Guitarmaking-Trad ... 0811806405

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

I understand what you are saying. I though somebody would be interested in sharing some good knowledge. Sure, I realize there are a lot of differences, but why are they there? Why is the neck angle different?.... I doubt if everything is as important as some people stress. It seems like some things are done more for tradition rather than function. Maybe I'm just an idiot

Thanks

Yes, if you re-top a 000 body and throw on some nylon strings, I guess technically you will have something that resembles a classical guitar.








But really, the questions you are asking are far far beyond the scope of a message board thread. The advice to get some good reading material is sound.

Neck angle difference is due to the tension of the strings. Nylons are about half the tension, and vibrate in a much wider arc, and thus need higher action to not rattle on the frets. String height above the soundboard at the bridge (combined height of bridge and saddle) affects the amount of torque on the bridge, which there was a good discussion of recently here http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=34983. Most of the time, both classicals and steel strings use a string height at bridge of about 1/2" or a little less (flamenco guitars use as low as 1/4" though.. and low action too, accepting the resulting fret rattle as part of the music). So, due to those considerations, to get the appropriate action for the tension of the strings, along with the correct string height above the soundboard at the bridge, you have to change the neck angle.

Most of the traditional things have some sense in them. But at the same time, it doesn't mean that's the only way to get good sound and playability. But you have to understand how it's all related before you go changing things too drastically. Read lots, and ponder

Tradition has become tradition becomes it works pretty regularly. Sure, you can do some construction things differently, but you can't just go about it willy-nillly. You have to understand the end point, as well as your starting point, before you can plot out your route to get there.

Whether steel string or nylon, the entire architecture of the guitar is built around the strings and how they connect at the bridge. You would need to measure your existing guitar very well to document these elements. Then draw this out full size and figure out what you need the elements to be if built for nylon. Only then can you actually build it right.

Waddy's advice about reading material is good. There is so much more than just throwing out a simple answer that will ensure your success. Better questions will yield better answers!

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

I'm sure some of you get American Lutherie ( The Guild Quartely). There is an interesting articla in the winter 2011 issue about a Jimmy D'Aquisto nylon strung guitar that is about some of what this thread is about. Anyone else read it?

Daniel Slaman make nylon string arch top jazz guitars.

Martin's 12-fret 000 was the last guitar they designed around gut strings. The OM is the 14-fret version of that, basically chopped off in the upper bout to allow for 14 frets on the neck without having to relocate the bridge too radically. Sharon Isbin was _very_ taken with the cedar topped 12-fret 000 classical I showed her a few years ago, so it could not have been all that bad. The real issues are that the energy in nylon strings is a bit limited as compared with steel, and that nylon strings don't produce nearly as much high frequency sound as steel. Both of these work against using nylon strings on a larger body.

If you pluck a nylon string and a steel string in the same place, the initial sound will be exactly the same, with the same amount of energy in all the partials (I've looked at this). However, within a second or so most of the high frequency energy will be gone from the nylon string, but there will be plenty in the steel one. This is so for two reasons: the higher 'damping factor' of nylon as a material eats up the highs, and the lareger diameter of the nylon string means it has to move more air to vibrate. Thi sair motion doesn't produce more sound, it's more like trying to run in knee deep water.

The energy in a vibrating string goes as the tension and the square of the amplitude. Nylon strings carry about half the tension of steel, so they'd need to vibrate about 40% more (have the action 40% higher) to have the same energy. Classicals do tend to have higher action, but not by that much.

A seldom mentioned issue is that the lower mass and tension of nylon strings gives them a lower 'impedance', which, for strings, is a sort of measure of how hard they can push on the bridge. Basically, it's hard for a nylon string to transfer energy into someting as stiff and massive as a steel string top; if you swap steel strings out for nylon you'll tend to end up with a 'soft' sound with a fair amount of sustain, because the energy stays in the string.

So, for nylon strings you want a light top that's not too stiff, on a guitar that can emphasize trebles and that is naturally loud. Believe it or not, it's easier to make a loud smal guitar than a loud big one. It's a structural issue; as you make the top larger, you have to beef it up to keep it stiff, and the weight tends to go up faster than the top area. Since it's the area that makes the sound, and the weight that keeps it from doing so, big ones tend not to be as loud. Obviously, you can get around this to some extent by using a really light top, which is what I did on my classical 000, and bracing it lightly, but it's tricky to get the balance right.

For steel strings, on the other hand, where the problem is getting enough bass to balance the treble, and there's more energy to use, you can go with a big box for 'bass balance'. X-braxing is structurally a bit more efficient than the 'fan' bracing they usually use on classicals, and also helps keep things from getting too 'cutting' for various reasons.

In short, there are reasons behind tradition. THe designs we have were worked out through a lot of 'cut and try' over many years, and tend to work pretty well. The more i learn about the way guitars work, the more imressed I am with 'tradition'. You _can_ go against it, and get away with it to some extent, but it really helps to understand the traditional stuff before you try.

If we don't challenge tradition nothing new is ever discovered. Much of what we call tradition today came from people trying new things. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

No one said anything about challenging tradition building experimental guitars. However, it would be helpful to know the difference between steel string construction and classical construction before doing that. I would argue that building a traditional guitar is the best way to learn.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

The original post sounded like a what if question to me. what if you combined classical and steel string features on one guitar. I didn't see anything about learning to build in the post. I will keep my 2 cents worth to myself.

Yeah, I think you are right, and I think those questions were answered, but the thread morphed.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

I'll go back to the original question and add a couple of cents. First, double ought is very close to a classical size - the Hauser copy I built fits nicely in a 00 case. A 000 is only a little big bigger, I don't know why that size won't work. I know the traditional differences in bracing, but there are lots of new ideas in both nylon string and steel string bracing. Taylor, Martin and some others are building what I call "hybrid" - they are nylon string guitars meant more for steel string players - typically narrower necks with a little radius, often cutaways, electronics and, even (gasp) X bracing (there used to be pictures of Taylors bracing but I can no longer navigate their page). So back to the original question - the big difference is the amount of energy available to drive the top. As long as you design the top with that in mind (thickness, bracing, location of the bridge, height of bridge and saddle, air volume, soundhole size, tuners, yadda yadda) I see no reason that you couldn't build a cross over which I think is what the OP was asking.

pt66 wrote:\
"If we don't challenge tradition nothing new is ever discovered. "

Certainly: just remember that most experiments don't work.

If you dig around in the dusty closets of guitar making for long enough, you'll find all sorts of innovative things that have been tried, in many cases over and over again by different people. The repetition is due to the fact that most makers don't advertise their failures, so later builders don't know it's already been tried. This is not to say that none of these ideas could be made to work, it's just likely to take some effort, and there's no guarantee that when you do, you'll end up with something good.

"Daniel Slaman make nylon string arch top jazz guitars."

So do I. It took me a while before I got one that had a sound that made it useful for the standard classical repertoire, but it can be done. It's hard to say whether it offers any real advantage over the standard designs, but they can look cool.

Freeman wrote:
"...the Hauser copy I built fits nicely in a 00 case. A 000 is only a little big bigger, I don't know why that size won't work."

It does work: I've built a couple, and they're good guitars. However, as with the archtop classical, it's not as easy to do as the 'standaqrd' size unless you think it through carefully and get the right materials. Generally, as you make the box larger you lose power and treble response, so you have to think of ways to avoid those problems or work around them.

The 'standard' designs are the outcome of a long process of evolution. Every maker I know is always looking for a better way, and tries all sorts of things. The innovations that work are quickly adopted by other makers because this is a pretty competitive field, where small improvements count for a lot. So, generally speaking, the stuff that works is already part of the standard designs, _unless_ innovations take advantaqge of new materials, such as Nomex, carbon fiber, and epoxy.

Even then, you have to undersatnd what you're trying to do, and why the new material is likely to be better; Smalllman didn't simply make a standard guitar with CF braces, he thought long and hard about the problems of standard instruments and figured out a different design that used the CF to help get around them. Then he spent the time to make a bunch of guitars and figure out how to make what he wanted. And, keep in mind, Smallman's guitars are not universally hailed as 'improvements'.

As to the original question, it might be possible to do what he said, but he would have to re-set the neck to a forward angle, among other things. He couldn't just re-do the top and make it work very well.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars