Couple questions: side taper and soundhole location

[Tony_in_NYC]

If you want a good sounding guitar with the sound hole in that upper bout location -- I suggest you get an inspection mirror and go look inside a "McPhearson" to my ear they sound pretty darn nice.

That is simply not possible based on my last post where I hypothesized about non-traditional bracing. I refuse to believe that I could have been wrong in any way. Therefore, McPhearson guitars must not sound good. Plus, you work around loud machinery which has to have affected your hearing. There is simply no other option based on my particularly closed minded thinking! LOL

[deadedith]

Maybe not...McPherson bracing.

[deadedith]

Or this from Batson

[Ken Hundley]

Both MacPhearson and Batson were much of the inspiration behind my rather unconventional ones. THey build beautiful guitars, and they sound gorgeous. I figured since I couldn't afford one, I would build my interpretation of one.

[tippie53]

Building like Rick states takes time to master bracing and effects. I am sure you heard non X braced guitars. Ladder braced guitars are all over the , Gibson used it , Harmony . They do have different sound traits than X.
I am leaning back to the 1937 designs of CF Martin . I know I was of the school that glue doesn't mean much but after building with HHG and Fish glue I am finding a difference . I won't say that it is just the glue but there is something going on.
That doesn't mean Tite bond is junk , but I have switched to notching bracing and using the patterns used at this time. For my ear it just sounds better. I am using patterns I got from my buddy Wayne Henderson and I have to say that I like them .
Keep building logs and you will soon connect to the cause and effects . Never take for granted what may be in front of you . Observe and study . See you in East Stroudsburg .

[kencierp]

Hey Dave, no big deal you can duplicate those bracing schemes -- just go to your shop and pull out your "old world" CNC routing machine, your "traditional" Laser cutter" and that "antique" IR cure carbon graphite laminating press. No problem! No worries!

[Tony_in_NYC]

LOL

[deadedith]

Hey Ken - LOL +1

When will you be offering the flying buttress, cantilevered, space-aged Golden Gate Bridge carbon fiber braces?

[Darryl Young]

Ken H.,
Where exactly does the bridge lie with this layout? Is it above the soundhole?

I have both moved my soundhole, and changed my bracing. The sound, to my ears, is fantastic. What I have yet to learn is the longevity of my bracing pattern...but the guitars have a deep, rich sound for a small body.

[Ken Hundley]

K....here's my uneducated thinking on what I did. There was a lot of beer, some scotch, and a bit of "this would look real cool" involved, and I think I measured something once. Anyway, I loved the look of MacPhearson's laminated bracing. I thought about Carbon Fiber, but it is so damn expensive. I do have a ton of Wenge, so decided to try laminating spruce/wenge/spruce for the top, and wenge/spruce/wenge for the back. Because it looked cool. I actually did some tests....the laminated braces were stronger, but more flexible than a standard spruce brace of the same shape. Clamped the stuff in a vice and hung some weights on them. Like an idiot, I didn't photograph or document the test, so I couldn't tell you what the weights are, but I think there was a bout a 20% increase in strenght, though the laminated braces sagged farther before snapping. I'll have to run the tests again some time and document it.



As far as the layout was concerned, I wanted the entire soundboard to be active, and decided I didn't want a hole in the middle. I moved it to the upper bout, in homage to Batson Guitars....love the clean look of the soundboard. I still only have one hole, and am of the opinion that a sound port is an immense improvement, especially on smaller bodied gutiars like the OM. I have three that have the sound port on them, and two were added after string-up, and there was a noticeable difference in volume and tone. The tone may have always been there, but was more apparent to the player with the sound port. Anyway, with the sound hole moved to the upper bout, I decided to put a port in the other side of the upper bout....not going to hurt anything there, and may provide some of the same benefits as a standard sound hole coupled with a port....my thought is the port provides more of a pressure release during vibration that a single sound hole can't give, allowing more vibrational energy to be converted to soundwaves than overcoming the positive/negative pressure created by a vibrating top with one sound hole.

Without the sound hole in the center, I was able to move the bracing around a bit to be creative. I am a firm believer in the X Brace....it's strenght and force distribution is elegant, simple, and efficient. Because of the standard sound hole location, it also seems a little limited. I shifted the center of the X to a location that would have been in the middle of the sound hole, but close to the edge towards the lower bout....more towards the middle of the spot between the bridge and the neck block, but more eyeballed than measured. I thought the main purpose of bracing was to prevent the rotation of the bridge. I added a single trasnvrse brace accross the width of the osund board, which ended up being located pretty darn near where the standard X would cross. This forms a very strong triangle right in front of the bridge that keeps it from torguing quite nicely.


I also put a brace under the fingerboard extension in case the fb tends to bend down and depress the top, and another smaller one up near the neck block. I am guessing that one doesn't do much but ad some cross-grain support.

You've seen the image of the Curly Mango Soundboard Bracing, here's the Padauk OM:

P1220043.JPG

I have also taken to heart something some of the pros on the old acoustic gutiar forum discussed once. There was a discussion about the differnece between building a lefty guitar and converting one, and the possible loss of quality of sound by simply converting....ie the braces are backwards. Most of the pros agreed there was no discernable difference in guitar sound before or after the conversion. The conclusion was that the tone bar braces below the bridge benefit from simply being asymmetrical, not whether they angle from left to right or not. So I put a transverse brace in there. IF I stick with this design, I will probably use two thin ones....I used one for several tops, and may add to them....that's a lot of area with no cross bracing, and I am more worried about durability or being able to withstand a little bit of someone accidentally pressing on the case at that spot than anything else.

Interesting....the Padauk OM and Black Beauty have similar sound characteristics, but also some major differences. What I can't tell is if the similarities stem from the laminated bracing or the tops themselves....both come from the same somewhat loose batch of spruce. I also can't tell if the differences are simply that one is zebrawood and one is padauk, or because one is a custom bracing pattern and one is not. I have three more guitars in process with the laminated custom bracing pattern (The Curly Mango, the Macacuba, and a Padauk 12 string), then I may build a few more with more standard bracing with the same batch of spruce(another zebrawood, though it may have a zebra top too, a curly maple jumbo, and another curly mango)....we'll see where the differnces lie. Anyway, thought I would share my thoughts on this.....far from conclusive, but I felt it answers some of the questions raised above.