Some progress on kmg 000c

[Ken C]

Hey Dave, that is really great! Very cool to see a guitar that is outside the norm of the typical acoustic!

Will be fun to follow how this one develops.

Ken

[ColestineGuitar]

Can I hear some opinions here, related to non-trad designs? Here, Dave has moved the soundhole to one side, allowing a simpler and lighter bracing scheme. I think that is one of the most promising new designs, since most folks believe that lighter is better when it comes to bracing. Now for the question: what about leaving the soundhole completely off of the top and going with an upper bout port? Is projection seriously compromised? I think that some builders have adopted this philosophy.

Dave, I hope this isn't hijacking your thread... your design really has me thinking!

That is an outstanding fretboard appointment!

[MuddyFox]

Yeah Colestine, please start another thread. I'd be very interested in forumites' musings on the subject.

[deadedith]

Ken - what does SWAG stand for?

A couple of things in defense (a good-natured defense: I appreciate the constructive criticism) of the 'hefty' appearance.
I was not aiming for the open spacious airy sound of the traditional 000. Like I said, I just had to get a few things out of my system :-). The bracing is not shown to good effect in the pic; by the time the box was closed, the bracing was really thin and really high. That has its own dangers, and its own possible benefits. Also, not inletting the braces will give more movement possibilities to the greater area of the top that the offset soundhole allows. As well as it own dangers/possibilities.

RD had pointed out in my original questions of this type of bracing that top cracks would be a bigger hazard, so I did do the finger braces with that in mind. As well, the upper bout was not tapping too well until I added the finger brace up there. All in all, I think the total mass of the bracing is LESS than on a traditional 000. For one thing, I did not use the massive soundhole support brace.

As to the bass - I think you're right, it will be less, but I think it will be more focused.

Bridge torque should not be a problem at all. The monopole and dipole will, I think, yield a good balance.

We shall see!! As I said, I DO appreciate criticism. In the end, I've got to string her up and just listen.

[deadedith]

Love it!! I will be using that myself :-)

Also, using the words 'monopole' and 'dipole' is really chic and adds to the mystique of being me. LOL.

[deadedith]

I'll have to look up that testing tool, I like the sound of it.

While I'm at it I will also look up the concept 'nest egg' . I'm afraid if I lay another one (2008 almost wiped us out) the Congress might take it. I don't mean that in the political sense. :-)

[Ken Hundley]

I just flush and make room for more.

[deadedith]

Hundley, you made me really laugh...

[David L]

If it ain't broke don't fix it unless you're the gov't then it goes "if it ain't broke keep fixing it till it is"

David L