Mickguard Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 EDIT: Argh! Double post... Yeah, well, first you got to finish your forum posting apprenticeship. Next week you'll be tested on the proper use of the preview post button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 EDIT: Argh! Double post... Yeah, well, first you got to finish your forum posting apprenticeship. Next week you'll be tested on the proper use of the preview post button. Actually, it was because the forum hiccuped while I was posting it... Note to self: When in doubt, copy your message and then check to see if it actually posted before refreshing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) Did you get a chance to try it sitting down? Was it much different than say a Strat type body? Yes...it was quite comfortable...wider than most electrics but not at all bulky. This one was a dark wood version with a preamp I think. The pickups were very poor and the bridge was made lagely of plastic!! The oversized knobs were really cool actually (the ultimate speed knobs and so easy to see the calibrations!!). I remember having a poster of (local aussie legend) Ross Wilson playing one in white and it looked super cool (mind you it was the '70's). The way the strap hangs from the wing at the back puts the bridge in a good place but I seem to remember that the way the strap hung from just above the neck there bothered me. But, it was a very distinctive guitar all the same...not quite the suitable look for the heavy bar rock we were playing at the time and was replaced with an all black shecter telecaster at some point. The overall recollections (it was over 20 years back now) was that it had no guts to the sound and was difficult to keep in tune. The neck was very slim and seemed not to have enough support...hence the rubber neck guitar monika...lol Here's a photo of something I made with ergonomics and cheapness in mind...my low-tech-low cost guitar... This guitar was an exercise in design and no cost construction. It was built over a mold with 3mm MDF. The neck was made from Jarrah floor boards and the frets are epoxyied on coathanger wire. The only thing I bought was the machine bolts and allen key for tuning. It was scaled and tuned to the fifth fret of my acoustic (so it played in A) and recycled the strings. The Idea was to make something really small for practice in places like the car, minimalize the cost and hardware and as an exercise in design. The shape is designed so that the cut behind the bridge sat on the right leg and is kind of comfortable despite being so small...sounded like a chaep mandolin or something, but ok for practice...thought you might like to see that... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/pet...gton/hinten.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/pet...ton/guitarT.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/pet...ngton/tesla.jpg I can't remember who made these things but I do remember something about the maker/designer having a severe reaction to the epoxies used to make them so they can't be had! Still, some interesting ideas utilizing the possibilities of non-wood construction... But...as I say, ergonomics is really about what feels comfortable to you. There is no need for the guitar to be some outlandish design to be ergonomic...but it's really cool to see some outlandish designs sometimes. Remember, the strat was pretty outlandish at the time ('50's) being countoured and asymetrical...the more I play the strat, the more I appreciate the innate ergonomics of the thing. BTW, I'm not sure that cutting off the head of a guitar aids the ergonomics at all...it actually adds some problems...the lack of mass at the head end and having to completely redesign the tuning mechanism. pete Edited February 23, 2006 by Maiden69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 That would be the German Teuffel guitars, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yes that's the guy... Out of production since 2002. Unfortunately I caught an allergy against the productional materials carbon fibre and epoxy resin. here's the link...Teuffel Guitar Designs Here's some quotes from a GP review of that first guitar...the Coco... "With it`s playful appearance, the coco would be easy to dismiss a misguided sculptor`s abstract take on a Strat. But this guitar is anything but a mere art object. Love it or hate it, the coco`s offbeat appearance is a result of Teuffel`s determination to built an ergonomically correct guitar that melds the tonal characteristics of a P-90-equipped Strat with the sonic clarity and physical compactness of a Steinberger. ...the dramatically shaped body, which is carved from a pear wood and covered with a mixture of epoxy foam impregnated with carbon, glass, and cotton fiber. The result is lightweight stucture with a matte-textured surface that feels a bit like suede leather. The lightweight coco is exceptionally balanced and comfortable. Its deeply arched back conforms to your body like a recaro sports car seat, and the lightly textured surface provides a mild grip against your clothing. Though the neck is perched rather high off the body. your left hand falls very naturally onto the silky maple fretboard, and the space between the body and neck provides unusually easy access to the highest frets. Few guitars play this sleek! This last point is interesting...I do find that on a parlour acoustic (the size I prefer) the neck being out from the body, instead of virtually parrallel with it, provides for less fatigue and a better playing angle for the hand. The use of a textured body (suede!) to provide grip to the body is also another interesting consideration in the ergonomics equation. Still though, the bridge looks too far back... With all those custom pickups and switching and the exotic materials and complex shapes, I bet the thing was expensive (and dangerous, apparently) to make!!! pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Out of production since 2002. Unfortunately I caught an allergy against the productional materials carbon fibre and epoxy resin. I'm not surprised. The main culprit is epoxy. Boat builders use it and the smart ones take great precautions against letting it touch their skin or inhaling its fumes. People have worked with it for years without incident and suddenly become sensitized to it. Once you start getting the reaction, it doesn't go away. ...the dramatically shaped body, which is carved from a pear wood and covered with a mixture of epoxy foam impregnated with carbon, glass, and cotton fiber. The result is lightweight stucture with a matte-textured surface that feels a bit like suede leather. The lightweight coco is exceptionally balanced and comfortable. Its deeply arched back conforms to your body like a recaro sports car seat, and the lightly textured surface provides a mild grip against your clothing. Though the neck is perched rather high off the body. your left hand falls very naturally onto the silky maple fretboard, and the space between the body and neck provides unusually easy access to the highest frets. Few guitars play this sleek! This last point is interesting...I do find that on a parlour acoustic (the size I prefer) the neck being out from the body, instead of virtually parrallel with it, provides for less fatigue and a better playing angle for the hand. The use of a textured body (suede!) to provide grip to the body is also another interesting consideration in the ergonomics equation. Still though, the bridge looks too far back... I've also been thinking about the texture issue as well. One of the problems in sitting position is keeping the guitar in position without expending alot of energy to do so. Textured surfaces can go a long way toward combating this. I also agree that part of the issue for a taller person can be a result of a body that is too short - not enough body behind the bridge and not enough support for the picking arm. Oh yeah - interesting headless! I'm curious about your tuning mechanism and head piece. Any pictures of those two areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Only other pic I have is this... There is a slightly larger zero fret of brass rod and the strings bend over this at almost 90o to a recessed hole in the back of the neck for the ball ends the actual end of the neck is at about 45o and looks a bit better than if it were simply cut off straight. The "Tuners" are allen key bolts. A hole is drilled under the head through them and the tuning adjusted by allen key. The neck screws in the top to a hardwood centrepiece that the top floats (about an inch above). The sound hole is placed so as to allow the biggest area to vibrate, and so as not to be over this centreblock. The bolt tuners screw themselves into this hardwood and the pressure on the strings hold them tight. It actually stays in tune remarkably well but must be tuned with the allen key. As the strings are reversed, these recycled played in strings have most of the fret wear cut off due to it's smaller scale. MDF is definitely not a tone wood but will bend into surprisingly tight shapes with a bit of moisture. All I did was make a chipboard shape and bend the sides around it, cut some strips on the inside to give a 6mm surface area to glue to, and glue the top on. Route of the excess and the whole thing was made in an afternoon...the only thing I had to buy was half a dozen bolts... I am a firm believer that planning and inspiration is only a part of a story...there really isn't any story if you don't actually do something with the ideas...unfortunately, follies aren't always cheap or go as planned, but with this kind of enterprise, you can be creative at very little cost. Sure it doesn't sound to good, but with a ply top it would be better, enlarged louder and the ideas themselves sound...I've done it now, so I can comfortably move on... I haven't played it for a while but in my old car, it used to live under the passenger seat to be whipped out at the lights or waiting somewhere to pass the time...might not sound to flash, but it keeps the fingers working and can carry a tune!! Thanks for your interest...are you aware of some of the alternative GOTM things going on along this line...last time it was a cigar box thing in which this is just a jumped up version...at the moment it is making a guitar out of 2"x4"'s...make a guitar out of stuff that you really shouldn't (pine neck anyone)...but you never know for sure till you have a go, and for sure along the way you will learn something...the worse that can happen is a liitle extra firewood for those winter nights... (still summer down here BTW)...pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 This last point is interesting...I do find that on a parlour acoustic (the size I prefer) the neck being out from the body, instead of virtually parrallel with it, provides for less fatigue and a better playing angle for the hand. The use of a textured body (suede!) to provide grip to the body is also another interesting consideration in the ergonomics equation. Still though, the bridge looks too far back... With all those custom pickups and switching and the exotic materials and complex shapes, I bet the thing was expensive (and dangerous, apparently) to make!!! pete Ummm...huh? All the parlour guitars I've seen have had necks with essentially the same 'set' as a full-sized acoustic, ie a back angle of between .5 and 2 degrees, tops. I quite like back-angled necks, because I don't need to push my arm out quite so far forward. Not too angled, but some works fine, angling it in slightly towards the player. We're not talking massive rotation forces on either hand, really, particularly if you add some sculpting. Classical guitars, and some cantileverd fretboard guitars often have a zero or positive neck angle. For acoustics, the Manzer Wedge design is a great ergonomic boon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 No, I didn't mean the neck angle, just that because of the thicker body, the neck and stings are further from your belly, if you like. That was something that the Coco had designed into it, and was perhaps eluded to in these earlier quotes by Mickguard... Maybe a thicker guitar--like a hollowbody--will be more comfortable for you? In fact, these days I really prefer the super-tall string height (i.e., clearance from the body) of my guitar. I wonder if there's anything ergonomic about that? Seems really comfortable to me, in terms of wrist position/fatigue... You get what I mean...perhaps a little back angle as you say, but mainly I was talking about the strings being out further from you, forcing the playing hands a little further out...or perhaps it's just me... I like the smaller acoustics cause I don't want to have to wrap my arms right around them and I just like the look and tight sound I guess. Not too slim like an electro though, mine is 90mm deep for instance...a pretty standard guitar...but it feels a little more natural to play somehow, especially the picking hand... Also, it is a wider body so sits up a little more, being tall some electrics can seem a little dinky sitting down...maybe I should switch to a 355 or something! pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 No, I didn't mean the neck angle, just that because of the thicker body, the neck and stings are further from your belly, if you like. That was something that the Coco had designed into it, and was perhaps eluded to in these earlier quotes by Mickguard... Maybe a thicker guitar--like a hollowbody--will be more comfortable for you? In fact, these days I really prefer the super-tall string height (i.e., clearance from the body) of my guitar. I wonder if there's anything ergonomic about that? Seems really comfortable to me, in terms of wrist position/fatigue... You get what I mean...perhaps a little back angle as you say, but mainly I was talking about the strings being out further from you, forcing the playing hands a little further out...or perhaps it's just me... I like the smaller acoustics cause I don't want to have to wrap my arms right around them and I just like the look and tight sound I guess. Not too slim like an electro though, mine is 90mm deep for instance...a pretty standard guitar...but it feels a little more natural to play somehow, especially the picking hand... Also, it is a wider body so sits up a little more, being tall some electrics can seem a little dinky sitting down...maybe I should switch to a 355 or something! pete I've been struggling with your idea of moving the strings further out. I guess its a matter of perspective. My Hohner/Steinberger "broom" (think original Steinberger shape) is very compact and lets me keep my hands close to me so that I'm not reaching out. I find this comfortable. What I don't find comfortable is the lack of right arm support and that the body is too narrow. I also own an Applause acoustic (round back - less expensive version of the Ovation) and I had some pain from reaching around the body to get at the strings. Right now my brain suggests that thinner would be a better way to go for me. It would keep my hands close to my body and further reduce the guitar's weight. I started thinking along these lines about a month ago after coming across the Black Machine site. If you haven't seen these, take a look. These are super thin guitars - just over an inch thick. My only question is how they manage to maintain the integrity of the neck body joint with a bolt-on. It doesn't seem to leave a lot of material to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I also own an Applause acoustic (round back - less expensive version of the Ovation) and I had some pain from reaching around the body to get at the strings. Right now my brain suggests that thinner would be a better way to go for me. It would keep my hands close to my body and further reduce the guitar's weight. I started thinking along these lines about a month ago after coming across the Black Machine site. If you haven't seen these, take a look. These are super thin guitars - just over an inch thick. My only question is how they manage to maintain the integrity of the neck body joint with a bolt-on. It doesn't seem to leave a lot of material to work with. Those round back guitars are barely comfortable standing up...so it's no wonder it hurts. You'd figure, as long as they're making a plastic-backed guitar, they could have molded it to match the human body. For the Black Machine, I don't think integrity's that big an issue --my Melody Maker (set neck) only has about 10 mm beneath the neck at the joint, and it's been holding steady for 40 years. Actually, it's a guitar you should look at --the body of mine is only 35 mm thick (I had a second one for a while that was 38 mm thick), and it's by far my favorite sit-down guitar. Has a nice wide body at the lower bouts. Plus it's extremely lightweight --mine weighs something like 2.8 kilos (I don't remember exactly...but that was back when it had a Badass and a chrome humbucker...now I'm back to a compensated wraparound and a MM pickup). I definitely prefer lightweight guitars when standing, but I prefer them sitting too--you have to expend a lot less effort holding them in place (I only play standing up these days though--I have a different kind of back problem from hunching over the guitar while sitting!) The guitar I'm thinking of building now will be slightly thicker--about 40 mm--but I'm thinking of adding in strat-style belly and thigh carves. I prefer a flattop--seems more comfortable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar2005 Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I say mess around with some cheap pine to make a (non-functional) prototype instrument that fits YOUR ergonomic sensibilities. Then build it for real. There is a guy here in Ottawa Ont (I think he may have moved now) that made a knotty pine guitar. He called it the Ikea Special or something like that. He also made what he calls the home depot dumpster guitar, out of pine. http://www.zacharyguitars.com/071199pics.htm Anyways, the thing is that you could select a lighter wood, like say, basswood, light hardware like a hardtail, mahogany neck (lighter than maple) , rosewood board (lighter than ebony) etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Those round back guitars are barely comfortable standing up...so it's no wonder it hurts. You'd figure, as long as they're making a plastic-backed guitar, they could have molded it to match the human body. I like the sound of it well enough but even this shallow bowl guitar is a bit difficult to deal with. It was also a gift and the guitar that got me back to practicing so it has to stay. For the Black Machine, I don't think integrity's that big an issue --my Melody Maker (set neck) only has about 10 mm beneath the neck at the joint, and it's been holding steady for 40 years. Actually, it's a guitar you should look at --the body of mine is only 35 mm thick (I had a second one for a while that was 38 mm thick), and it's by far my favorite sit-down guitar. Has a nice wide body at the lower bouts. Plus it's extremely lightweight --mine weighs something like 2.8 kilos (I don't remember exactly...but that was back when it had a Badass and a chrome humbucker...now I'm back to a compensated wraparound and a MM pickup). I'm fascinated with the idea of a very thin guitar like the Black Machine so I think I will need to do a bit of research around this. The Melody Maker sounds like a good place to start. The guitar I'm thinking of building now will be slightly thicker--about 40 mm--but I'm thinking of adding in strat-style belly and thigh carves. I prefer a flattop--seems more comfortable to me. I was thinking along those lines myself. At 40mm its still thinner than the standard 1.75" body blank. Adding contours would go a long way toward improving the comfort further. At some point I have to post my project idea but I'm still researching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Bowl back guitars are definitely not ergonomic, I have never felt comfortable with them either, they slip and slide all over the place. As far as the strings futher out theory, it's not so much my idea, I was just exploring one of Teufell's ideas for the coco on this point... GP Review...Though the neck is perched rather high off the body. your left hand falls very naturally onto the silky maple fretboard, and the space between the body and neck provides unusually easy access to the highest frets. Few guitars play this sleek! I like the ideas of the blackmachine of a very stiff neck on a thin responsive body. Teufell had similar ideas with his Coco too...In the end, results an instrument who's body only has a wooden core. This core is encased with epoxy-foam. The outermost layer is composed of various fiber-materials like carbon-fiber, glass-fiber, and cotton-fiber with epoxy. The wooden core absorbs the force of the strings and thereby generates the fundamental resonance. The lower mass of the epoxy-foam allows a very good emission of the sound and has a distinctly percussive attack. Overtones respond quickly. These concepts are also similar to Parker's ideas (also a thin and sculptured instrument) of a light body with a very stiff neck and a hard outer layer of glass or in the blackmachine, a layer of ebony on some models. If I were to make a thin design I'd be looking ergonomically at a more curvacious bocey, curved on top (arched) and convex in at least some areas behind... But then again, that brings us back to the Strats Contoured front and back and Southpa's erodite comment... I was wondering which guitars or even features everyone has encountered that might be deemed "ergonomic"? I've seen nothing that beats the standard strat yet. Its contoured to fit your body while in standing or sitting position. No sharp edges to cut off circulation or wear down. You can carve and carve a guitar body to find the best ergonomic "recipe" for the human body, where comfort and function are concerned, ... and I'll bet ya it will look like a strat. You know he may very well be right. But it's interesting to speculate all the same.... pete p.s I have been looking further into some of Zachary's...errr...writtings and inspirations....hmmm That design of his has some interesting points but like a lot of these sites, many of the ideas are derived from convieniance as much as anything else! That guitar is very small and the bridge very far back. I quite like it in it's own way (especially the drift wood look) but really a lot of the features (straight headstock, oil finishes) are really based on conveiniance as much as anything. Fender guitars all have headstocks parrallel with the neck. Leo made no secret that much of his designs were for ease and economy of manufacture...he developed string trees (that currently people are trying to minimalise) to address the lack of headstock tilt...here Mr. Z uses trees on all strings....and come on, the oil finishes are a lot easier than something like Ormsby's high gloss extravaganzas...they are easier and cheaper and require far less skill! Black machine puts forward the same ideas...now I like an oiled peice of timber (saves on lubricating the pants i s'pose) but really, the acoustic reasons are overplayed...a good hard gloss finish could be argued to enhance resonance (as Parker asserts with his glass encased guitars) while a guitar that has soaked up oil and open to the future absorbtion of moisture....hmmm. Now, if oil was put forward as a ergonomic feature, a more natural grippiness of the natural woods grain...now that would be different. Oh for the days of guys like Leo Fender, some weird and suspect ideas in his career, but some moments of absolute brilliance...but most of all you have to admire his general integrety...bolt on neck will be cheap and easy to make...that's a good enough reason for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 p.s I have been looking further into some of Zachary's...errr...writtings and inspirations....hmmm That design of his has some interesting points but like a lot of these sites, many of the ideas are derived from convieniance as much as anything else! That guitar is very small and the bridge very far back. I quite like it in it's own way (especially the drift wood look) but really a lot of the features (straight headstock, oil finishes) are really based on conveiniance as much as anything. Fender guitars all have headstocks parrallel with the neck. Leo made no secret that much of his designs were for ease and economy of manufacture...he developed string trees (that currently people are trying to minimalise) to address the lack of headstock tilt...here Mr. Z uses trees on all strings....and come on, the oil finishes are a lot easier than something like Ormsby's high gloss extravaganzas...they are easier and cheaper and require far less skill! Black machine puts forward the same ideas...now I like an oiled peice of timber (saves on lubricating the pants i s'pose) but really, the acoustic reasons are overplayed...a good hard gloss finish could be argued to enhance resonance (as Parker asserts with his glass encased guitars) while a guitar that has soaked up oil and open to the future absorbtion of moisture....hmmm. Now, if oil was put forward as a ergonomic feature, a more natural grippiness of the natural woods grain...now that would be different. Oh for the days of guys like Leo Fender, some weird and suspect ideas in his career, but some moments of absolute brilliance...but most of all you have to admire his general integrety...bolt on neck will be cheap and easy to make...that's a good enough reason for me! Thanks for all the feedback and as far as Mr. Z... Well he is an "interesting" fellow. As far as his guitars I like his bare knuckles aesthetic - I'm into clean design. However, I have to agree that many of the points played up by builders as essential elements to their sound are more than likely just hogwash. I doubt there are many of us that can hear the difference a finish makes on an electric instrument (an acoustic is a whole other beast), or pickups that are mounted directly to the wood or any number of other little claims. As far as Leo is concerned I also admire the integrity of his approach and design. As far as any of these elements making their way into a project of my own - well I have a couple of parameters. For one, I would incorporate those features which are "cheap and easy to make" like Mr. Fender. I don't have the woodworking skills in order to come up with supercarved bodies so that's out. A superthin body like the Black Machine, however, is a cheap and easy feature to incorporate. A Danish oil finish is just easier to deal with and because its an oil/varnish mix, its far more protective than a straight oil finish. Pickups screwed directly into the body? Sure why not? It falls into another parameter of mine which is I like a clean design. It doesn't cost me anything to incorporate and I'm not a big fan of pickguards or pickup rings anyway. (I hope this last comment doesn't get me banned. For some, this is almost heresy. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Yep...I'm with you all the way... I like the bare bones aesthetic, I like practicalities, I like being able to unbolt a neck and start again with the body if I want to, I prefer rubbing in oil to buffing up endless coats of toxic two part epoxy, sheesh...i even like that look...next time, I'm thinking of sandblasting the thing, that will bring up the grain, like driftwood!!! Leo's greatest advantage was that he never did learn how to play the damn guitar. He had ideas on making the things and would do a little listening (but often go his own way anyway, a bit of a fault). The strat shape...oh, the tele sticks int your ribs and you'd like better high end access? Hmmm...cut a bit here, a bit there...how about an extra pickup, the competion only has two...and um...that string bending thing you do...how about I build it into the bridge some how? Hows that??? I like the non-ring non pickguard look...though you know they are extremely practical...if only to hide your woodworking sins and allow for change. The strat was designed for pre assembly. My thoughts along those lines were to have a large back plate so the guitar could be worked on from behind, likewise the pickup mountings and such. Given that on a strat you have a very large portion of the back covered by the spring cavity, I'd be thinking open the whole thing up as much as possible and mount everything from the back...just a thought...don't know quite how to do it. I did notice though in hollowing out my strat, that significant amounts of body can (and often is) extracted without damaging the structural integrety too much. How that effects the mysterious "tone" equation is up for debate...but one should note that many semi-acoustic and chambered guitars are actually done to enhance "tone" not just to loose weight... all good stuff...I still wonder though if Southpa's ergonomic observations aren't essentially true about the Strat, once the elements of style, aesthetics and minimalism are taken out of the equation, perhaps Leo did get the idea essentially right. Now mix those considerations back in for what they are, well you get a whole host of options and interesting ideas... I notice that most of us still sit on fairly conventional chairs yet, it seems the present ergonomical crowd would have us sitting on Swisse Balls...or so I am told!! pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitefly SA Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 parker fly's are completely back loaded, half of the back at least is covered up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Recycled Guitars Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I was wondering which guitars or even features everyone has encountered that might be deemed "ergonomic"? I've suffered from back problems for many years so this is an important consideration for me. Proper sitting position and overall weight come to mind as important factors. For example, I own a Hohner headless guitar in the style of the original Steinberger "broom". Weight is ok and it works well for classical position (if you're a rightie, the guitar sits on the left leg and the neck is at about a 45 degree angle) but it lacks any support for the right arm. ] Following the right arm comment. Have you considered a hollowbody instrument of sorts? I've played classical guitar for 35 years and that seems to fit your issue, but probably not the sound. An old Gibson archtop? DÁquisto? (haha, i couldnt afford that). I realise it is not quite this forum's subject, but it might lead you to a different body design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Irizarry Posted February 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Following the right arm comment. Have you considered a hollowbody instrument of sorts? I've played classical guitar for 35 years and that seems to fit your issue, but probably not the sound. An old Gibson archtop? DÁquisto? (haha, i couldnt afford that). I realise it is not quite this forum's subject, but it might lead you to a different body design. I have considered that but right now I'm looking at less traditional forms and solutions. I've done some reading about guitar ergonomics and sitting position and conventional guitar forms represent some concerns. For example, I've read a number of articles about the classical guitar and how there have been several attempts to improve supporting it including stands that position it at just the right height and angle. That doesn't seem like the way to go for me. I want the guitar to remain portable which for me is part of the appeal. Lugging around a stand doesn't cut it. That said, I'm looking for features and forms that improve the way the guitar "interfaces" with the guitarist leaving the guitarist to focus on playing and not the struggle to maintain proper position. Thanks for the input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 I've been doing some more thinking on this issue...I've developed a back/nerve problem in the past year of so that comes from hunching over the guitar while I'm playing (sitting down). It's a bad posture thing. But since I've started playing an Epiphone Sorrento, the problem has pretty much gone away --this is a huge hollowbody that's 15.5 (40 cm) wide at the lower bouts. This forces me to remain straighter when I'm playing. And it's also hugely comfortable when I'm standing up too. Part of the comfort factor, I think, is that there's a good 9.5 inches (24 cm) of body behind the bridge -- plenty of support for the arm, whether standing or sitting. I think that's probably the idea behind the Klein shape too. The Sorrento is still fairly thin, though, just 45 mm. Anyway, it's forced me to rethink my own builds --I realize now that the Rick 350 shape just won't cut it for me (so I'm planning on deconstructing that guitar, use the neck elsewhere). The body's just too small. And I'm thinking now that I probably should have gone for a larger longhorn shape --mine is 'only' 36 cm wide. That might be wide enough (it feels all right in my lap)....what worries me is that there won't be enough guitar behind the bridge for that to be comfortable. Perhaps I can add some kind of 'satellite' arm rest...I'd be able to keep the lyre body shape, but still add a Klein-style extension. 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.