Curtis P Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 well, i always wanted a flying v acoustic, and i always wanted a bass, but since i dont want to buy a bass amp, i decided, in wood class, i am going to build the body of an acoustic flying V and the neck, fretless by the way, and in my metal class, i am going to machine all the metal peices i can (bridge, brass nut, truss rod, string loading system) I know i shouldnt be starting this project, but i got some scrap wood thats burning a hole in my room, lol, heres the specs so far: Flying V fretless 4 string Bass -fretless (hence title) -basswood sides with mahogany back and maple top -custom truss rod/bridge -36 (??) scale -mahogany neck, maple fingerboard this is more just a fool around guitar, i wanted to own a bass, but never had the money, and since i got the side wood already (which is also going to be braces) i might as well order some thin mahogany and maple and make a guitar out of it, eh?? Will post pics of my drawings tommorow when the camera has some life in it (girl was over today, yea know, ) Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpa Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Finish the Jem. Show us a guitar man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis P Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 haha, right now, the jem is awaiting pickup templates, which i should be finished today if i find the time (too early in the morning right now) and if i actually get the templates done today, whats to stop me from routing today also?? Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGM Guitars Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 If you're going to do an acoustic bass, don't machine a metal bridge, use a traditional style bridge with bridge pins. In order to actually bolt a machined bridge to a top you'll have to put a thick block under the top which will kill the tops resonation in the most important area, the bridge plate. Your bracing and bridge plate are crucial to an acoustic instrument. You can build a funky acoustic bridge, look at Breedlove guitars, those bridges are totally non traditional. Putting a metal bridge on there will sound like crap, and it won't give you much for volume, you need a glued on wood bridge, with the strings going directly into the top with pins. Metal nuts sound like a rotten fart IMO, and they are especially bad on acoustic instruments, I suggest either bone or graphite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGM Guitars Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 basswood sides with mahogany back and maple top I just read this, are you sure you're building an acoustic bass? or just a chanbered solid body? If it's a true acoustic, basswood won't cut it for the sides, and maple will make a crappy top. Mahogany back and sides with a sitka spruce top are the way to do it. If you're set on a maple top it will need to be thinner than normal with very critical bracing patterns. I don't really know how that would sound on an acoustic bass though, but the basswood sides will be a mistake, especially since on a V, there isn't likely to be any curve, on an acoustic, the bends in the sides add a remarkable amount of strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis P Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 If you're going to do an acoustic bass, don't machine a metal bridge, use a traditional style bridge with bridge pins. In order to actually bolt a machined bridge to a top you'll have to put a thick block under the top which will kill the tops resonation in the most important area, the bridge plate. Your bracing and bridge plate are crucial to an acoustic instrument. You can build a funky acoustic bridge, look at Breedlove guitars, those bridges are totally non traditional. Putting a metal bridge on there will sound like crap, and it won't give you much for volume, you need a glued on wood bridge, with the strings going directly into the top with pins. Metal nuts sound like a rotten fart IMO, and they are especially bad on acoustic instruments, I suggest either bone or graphite. ← woops, i meant the string loading will be metal Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I shouldn't be doing this You got that right. Acoustic flying V...BASS?... If you want a bass, go solid-body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis P Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 nah, i played a acoustic bass, ver nice it was Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 With all due respect, totally out of your league. You're going to be using an untested design, non-standard materials, attempting unfamiliar procedures, all without any experience in building basses or acoustics. Finish the Jem, build a bass, readup on how to build acoustics (ie: Don't use basswood sides and a maple top) plan till your brain hurts, and maybe it'll be a winner. As it stands, you're setting yourself up for a monumental waste of time and materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis P Posted February 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 wow, Setch, that was brutally honest, and i realized, your totally right, i am still a complete beginner, and my Jem isnt even finished, its like 65% or a bit more, but alot of people say its really good work, and i guess it just boosted my ego a bit, well, alot, you know how it is, first build and everyone (especially guys with amazing guitars under there belt) say it looks good Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 (edited) I say you should start designing your next guitar(s) NOW... regardless of how many guitars you have (or have not) built. That's how you learn; as you come up with ideas for your design, you look up information that will support that idea. If you find out it won't work for a specific reason, then you alter your plan... and you learn in the process. I'm still working on my first project, too, but I'm already working on numerous other ideas and finding out why they will/won't work. By the way: I had a similar idea. (I call it the "Flying A" because of the strap horn.) It has two long chambers, which are connected by one channel. The channel has a rise in the center to 1) provide more strength, and 2) divert more sound energy in/out of the chambers. That's version #3, with just one pickup... and I'm sure that I'll make more changes. And when I do finally build it, I'll have something that doesn't look like AFS. D~s Edited February 14, 2005 by Dugz Ink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser Rob Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 With all due respect, totally out of your league. You're going to be using an untested design, non-standard materials, attempting unfamiliar procedures, all without any experience in building basses or acoustics. Finish the Jem, build a bass, readup on how to build acoustics (ie: Don't use basswood sides and a maple top) plan till your brain hurts, and maybe it'll be a winner. As it stands, you're setting yourself up for a monumental waste of time and materials. ← Sorry, but he's absolutely right. BTW - do you realize the reason there are so few acoustic basses out there is that you will still need to use an amp - even with the jumbo style ones, let alone a small body? It is simply not possible to get a low E fundamental at a reasonable volume with anything near a guitar size. Have you ever seen a mariachi band? That thing that the size of a cello turned sideways is a guitarron (if I remember right) - the Latin version of an acoustic bass. Even it's not loud enough. There's a reason upright basses are that size ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 (edited) Hoser Rob is right on the money with his acoustic assessment. Same thing my ears tell me EVERY time I play an acoustic bass. IMO, if you want an acoustic bass that you can actually strap on and play standing up (or sitting down), you'll need to use a soundhole mic & preamp like you see on higher-end acoustic guitars. I've just never seen one on an acoustic bass. Edited February 14, 2005 by erikbojerik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 do you realize the reason there are so few acoustic basses out there... Umm... do you realize what's in my avatar? Here's a better picture, just in case. Yes, it does have a piezo pickup, but I also play it unplugged... but not in a mariachi band... mostly because I hate the hats that they have to wear. But I digress. Back to the original theory. Did you see the pickup in my drawing? I don't think that either one of us want an unplugged bass; we're just curious about what can be developed. And what happens if we try? Will the world implode? I doubt it. D~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtis P Posted February 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 what about a Piezo system? do they make them for acoustic bass? Curtis dang, beat me to it, looks like a Piezo will work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 (edited) With all due respect, totally out of your league. ← Sorry, but he's absolutely right. ← Hey, but that's no reason not to try it! Look, one good way to get better at doing things is to STRETCH yourself. (That's the story of my life!) I say go for it. I think it's a cool idea. In fact, I've been planning something similar (a semi-hollow bass with the Bocaster shape) What I'd do though, is use an idea similar to what Samick does with their Royale series: Royale Bass With a 'monoframe' construction, you don't have to worry so much about the strength of the sides. You can stack two 'frames' to get a nice deep body (if you don't have thick enough wood). That'll allow you to do a lot more routing than Samick does. Then you cap the front and back with your choice of woods, and you're in Bass heaven. I'd still build at least one pickup into it --that'll make it a much more flexible guitar. You could go for the 'hidden' pickup idea if you don't want to break up the lines. By the way, Dougz, very nice design --like the internal routes idea a lot. Edited February 14, 2005 by idch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 very nice design --like the internal routes idea a lot. Thanks. I don't know how much resonance I will get, but I'm working on the theory that box-shaped studios have a lot of "bounce" because of all of the parallel planes. I know that doesn't exactly translate, because the length/width/height is so limited, but I figured I would try... some day. If nothing else, the headless neck and routed body will decrease the weight. Back to the "acoustic" bodied V, the one thing that's on my mind is the bridge placement. If you really want to get a lot out of the hollow-body, then (from what I've read) the bridge needs to be far enough from the end so that it can transfer resonance through the top. On my AB-20, the base of the bridge is 4¼" from the tail, and the saddle is 5¾" from the tail... just in case that helps. D~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Of course just because you "shouldn't" be building it, doesn't mean that we expect you not to. Conventional wisdom shouts "NO" at this project, for a number of reasons, but of course you will learn a lot by just taking the plunge. And if you're lucky, you might just show "conventional wisdom" the door. Evaluate and prioritize exactly what it is that you want. Do you want a bass? (it is far easier to build a good solidbody) Do you want to learn about building acoustics? (go with a cheap kit) Do you really want the sound of an upright for the music you play? (get an upright) These are some of the starting points for any project, even before you start planning (and certainly before you start gathering material). Here's my own example FWIW: about 2 years ago, I decided I wanted a really good archtop jazzbox-type guitar, and came to the conclusion that it is cheaper for me to learn and to build a good one than to buy. So, at that point having done only one solidbody, I planned my own learning curve. OK...I need to learn about making molds & templates, bending sides, carving top & back plates, bracing, tap tuning, set necks, binding, finishing with nitro. So I decided to evolve myself this way (making sure I complete each step before moving on to the next): (1)build a solid-body guitar in F5 mandolin shape (templates, binding) (2)build a F5 mandolin (templates, molds, bending sides, carving plates, tap tuning, set neck, binding, nitro all without investing more than $100 in raw materials) (3) build an archtop bass (all of the above in big size) (4) finally, NOW build the archtop guitar of my dreams. In two years, I've just gotten past #1, have assembled the material for #2, and have almost finished planning #3. I have some of the material for #4, and have made a few small steps, but only the ones with which I already have experience. If I had jumped right into #4, I'd have ruined some good wood & got discouraged right quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGM Guitars Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I see no reason to not do it, just consider the things I mentioned as well as the others. There is no place for metal in an acoustic bridge as far as I'm concerned. Keep it wood. Buy a premade wood bridge too, that's the safest way to go. Acoustics aren't harder than electrics to build, just a totally different animal, you have to approach them much differently. I suggest doing a LOT of reading about them. Building is one thing, design and structure is the place where an acoustic is a much more difficult project, I don't recommend a totally new design for a first project, I would suggest building something that is known to work first, but even if you go with the V, just do a lot of research first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I think those last two posts were the best advice in this thread. I've certainly taken it to heart. D~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tirapop Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 More grist for the mill. Noted luthier, William Cumpiano, has a screed about "acoustic basses". I'd suggest you look at a trapeze tailpiece, to avoid the big loads/stresses you get with a conventional acoustic bridge. Yes, lots of builders have made acoustic basses with "standard" bridges. But, bass strings exert a really big load and a trapeze tailpiece gives you a bigger margin for error to play with. Dan Ferrington has built Explorer shaped acoustics and he says that the asymmetric shape helps the sound. Don't know if that damns flying V's. As far as the rectangular chambers go, you want to avoid creating a chamber that has a very pronounced fundamental frequency. In acoustics, it creates "wolf notes" that, because of resonance, are much louder than other notes. That's why some builders obsess over tap tones and tune the top and back to different notes to keep them from coupling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 I'd suggest you look at a trapeze tailpiece, to avoid the big loads/stresses you get with a conventional acoustic bridge...bass strings exert a really big load... ← ....is why my eventual acoustic bass will be an archtop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 As far as the rectangular chambers go, you want to avoid creating a chamber that has a very pronounced fundamental frequency. In acoustics, it creates "wolf notes" that, because of resonance, are much louder than other notes. Certain lengths promote certain frequencies... I know that... but I overlooked it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention! Back to the drawing board. D~s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Dodding Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 With regards the the acoustic design, you might want to take a look at these acoustic Vs http://www.guitarmaker.de/scorps.htm Some interesting V acoustics there, including a doublneck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 Some interesting V acoustics there, including a doublneck! ← Heh, and people say I'm obsessed with my Bocaster shape... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.