2 Piece Bodies Instead Of One

[erikbojerik]

I will echo (what I see as) the motivations behind Perry's comments: discussions like this would be a whole lot more informative if people posted opinions that they've formed based on their actual first-hand experience, rather than second- or third-hand stuff like "I've heard my mom say that she's heard 1-piece bodies suck blah blah blah".

The whole board would be better off.

[GregP]

I can't disagree with that. This forum is great because of its awesome blend of amateurs starting out, amateurs with a bunch of builds, electronics wizzes, finishing experts, and professional guitar-builders. One would always like to have the opinions of the experts on any given subject, and one would hope that the amateurs see those opinions as valuable. I sure do.

It's the nature of the internet and forums, though-- people can go ahead and post untested opinions, and then IF there's a discrepancy in the "what they hear, what they think they know" and the reality, more expert people can chime in with their experiences, as Perry and others did. I don't see sharing opinions (expert and amateur alike) as a negative thing, and the only time it becomes a danger is when people go out of their way to make it seem like they're an expert. I'm a smart cookie, and if I make a statement like, "<shrug> I play multi-piece guitars, and I really don't think a one-piece counterpart would make a noticeable difference" it's not due to sheer ignorance but I'm also not claiming anything in particular. In any event, there's the context of the original post, which was "why would anyone saw and then glue back together?" The answer is: "factory efficiency and economy." It's that simple. Any other tangential discussions are fine, but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. The question has been answered, ie. "They don't do it to create a better tone."

It's a mistake to confuse "hands-on work" with expertise in all situations. You can do lots of hands-on work and STILL not be an expert. That certainly does NOT describe Perry, who wisely chose to investigate with empirical evidence as well as practice what he preaches. The nature of that evidence is sometimes unclear (we have to take his word for it, and don't have the opportunity to interpret his statistics or methods), but it IS clear that he at least took scientific pains. What sux is when people say "Yeah? You ever try it? I did, and I could clearly hear 10% more tone!" which isn't evidence at all, and a knowledge of logic and methodology can still be an effective counter-argument. As Rich (I believe) points out, individual specific hunks of wood have differing properties, too. A one-piece body from a 'dead' piece of ash isn't going to automatically sound better than a two-piece body laminated with a pair of beautiful and resonant specimens of ash. That being the case, everything AGAIN becomes a case of losing the forest for the trees. The number of pieces in the lamination don't really matter so much as the wood used...!

I have NOT done the tests Perry's asking about. Nobody on this board has. It's a straw man, which is pretty weak rhetoric and poor logic.... But if the question is, "Do they think that sawing and regluing is making better tone?" and I answer "Nah... that doesn't compute" and the answer turns out to be, "they do it for economic/efficiency reasons" then my response is still valid. Everything else then starts to feel like a witch-hunt, and my fur goes up. I'm not a big fan of that. And since I'm not a sheep, I also don't like being pressured into holding back from a conversation just because I'm not a luthier. In any event, I'm sure that's not what Perry intended, but sometimes the "voices of authority" around here have the tendency to (accidentally and sometimes otherwise) discount other intelligent people's opinions.

Perry, it sounds like you have the makings of a whitepaper (or whatever you want to call this kind of publication). I remember also that you conducted research into headstock angle and I'm sure you've tested other factors in guitar construction. I know you protect the information (it might give your guitars a technological edge... hard to say because of all the other factors, and a guitar is easily reverse-engineered anyhow) and I respect that. On the other hand, I work in information technology and the name of the game is to be known as the expert in a particular field. If you have insight and theories about telecommunications, and you work in the telecommunications sphere, you publish papers on telecommunications so that they can be quoted throughout the industry and you become an authority. I think you're the ideal candidate to be an authority on guitar construction in a way that nobody else has ever been. I don't think the world has seen any research as detailed as what it sounds like you've done, and it'd be a shame to not get proper recognition for it. I can't see it being lucrative as a published book, but as a freely distributed whitepaper, you could become the world's foremost expert in such things. That can't be bad for business. Feiten didn't invent compensated nuts, but look what he's created by taking it a step further and investigating string guage, scale length, and uneven-tempered tuning!

Greg

[rhoads56]

One day Greg, one day. Have a long way to go until then though.

For the record, i use two piece bodies for ALL my Standard Series guitars. Im building a two piece body now which will be my new 'number one'.

[Jehle]

I do that with necks, but I personally wouldn't bother with a body. My thinking is that it's thick enough (and might also have a top glued on) that it's really not going to move (if it's dry enough to use in the first place).

G&L also does this with their necks. They claim that it makes them more stable. I suppose that's because the glue joint is stronger than the wood. It could be true, it could be snake oil.

As for the multipiece body blanks, if they are good or not, I can add a few words of wisdom. From my own guitars and the ones that I've bought, some of the best sounding guitars of mine are 3 and 4 piece bodies. Perhaps THE best guitar I own is a factory second, again, a 3 or 4 piece body.

I've been researching the history of the cigar box guitar, so this might come out of left field here. Part of that research has been reviewing the history of packaging. Cigar boxes are, after all, a package first before they are made into a guitar or violin or whatever. The main point that I need to make here is that it's the perception of how good something is, rather than the product itself that people believe. For all I know, you probably think that a cigar box guitar is just a toy and that it sucks. That's fine if you do, but I think differently.

So, even looking at some of the posts here in this thread, if you already think that 3/4/5/etc piece bodies suck, they suck because you already believe that. No matter how good it sounds, you'll still think it's sucky, end of story. But, take that same guitar made from exotic woods that you think are cool, and it will be the coolest sounding guitar in the world. Your senses will lie to you and reinforce what you already think, feel, and believe. It's a deep topic and I could (and have) write several pages on this.

I've got sources and about 34 pages of notes on this stuff so far. If you are interested in this sort of thing get a copy of The Total Package by Thomas Hine. It does a great job of disecting this topic of perception of the product versus the product alone.

[fryovanni]

Jehle, I agree with you whole heartedly when you point this out.

No matter how good it sounds, you'll still think it's sucky, end of story. But, take that same guitar made from exotic woods that you think are cool, and it will be the coolest sounding guitar in the world. Your senses will lie to you and reinforce what you already think, feel, and believe. It's a deep topic and I could (and have) write several pages on this.

Human perception is certainly less than a well tuned testing instrument . That is such an important thing to remember though, because that perception(or even market perception) has lead luthiers for centuries(at least if they wanted to make a living or have luxeries such as eating).

Greg, You make some good points. My take on one thing you bring up.

I don't see sharing opinions (expert and amateur alike) as a negative thing, and the only time it becomes a danger is when people go out of their way to make it seem like they're an expert.

.

This is a good point, and I would add that people from the internet are not really able to detect who is and who is not providing good information. For instance, take Perry and myself. Perry is doing this for a living, he has been doing more work directly with guitars for longer than myself. He most importantly has been able to survive as a professional luthier in an extreamly competative marketplace(that is nothing to take as small or easy). I on the other hand am a very part time hobbiest. I would hazard a guess that in one year Perry experiences 10 years worth of my hands on experience(if I have a good year). I don't think that makes my opinion worthless, but certainly would hope people would weigh that when reading my comments and Perry's and using what we say to develop their opinions(if they find anything we say makes sense). Unfortunately this forum only has a handful of guys that do this for a living with success. You may run across fellows on other forums that have forty years "in the business", and that would certainly make me listen closer to what they say. The other thing you have to keep in mind is that ten veteran professions will have different approaches and beliefs(sometimes those vary quite a bit, other times they agree fully). When they agree, listen very close(this is likely a fact, and not an edjucated guess). When they disagree sort through what you are being told, weigh it against your understanding, and continue to develop your opinion. Do the work and test as well as take notes, then give your feedback. Everyone should give their feedback and findings, even the old dogs admit they pick up ideas from this.

To me one thing that is important to remember. You should NOT disrespect experience. You have the right to disbelieve everything you read. On a forum like this you should always use your words carefully when adressing a person that does this for a living. They don't need us hobbiests as much as we need their thoughts. Their reputation puts food on the table, our reputation means little in this sense(the stakes are not as high). The only thing that can ground a forum like this is the input from experience. Otherwise you will get a bunch of thoughts and opinions that may be way out in left field or may have some merrit. You may have a thought that makes sense(at least you can connect the dots in your mind), however in practice the results may have shown your thinking just does not pan out(this is VERY easy to have happen, always keep that in mind). Now without a little guidence from experienced folks, you are on your own to go try to figure it out(this is not a horrible thing, but a little push in the right direction may save you a lot of wasted time and material).

I would love to see more guys from the business participate here, but they have little to gain and a lot to lose. Most of us hobbiests get off work and want to talk about our hobby, a professional gets off work and what do they want most to do but talk about work( although some people are very passionate and just live, breath and eat this stuff).

Well I have gone off topic so I better be quiet now

Peace,Rich

[Southpa]

I just love this kinda stuff. Lets consider the basics. What happens to the energy imparted by the vibrating string? Its absorbed at the string's anchor points ie. the nut and the bridge, and then transferred through everything in between, from the tip of the headstock to the strap button at the butt and even into the player's belly. Ever plucked a string with the guitar body right against your belly then plucked agin with the guitar away from your body? You will notice that the latter rings longer and louder, that why classical guitarists are trained to hold their instrument that way. Otherwise your body sucks up the vibrational energy. Of course, the energy is also emitted into the air as sound waves, thats the part we are most concerned about. Unfortunately, thats where all the variables occur, eg. how hard the string is plucked, the amount of room given to the string for vibrating, the material the string is made from etc. etc.

The longer the string can vibrate the more sustain you have. We know that vibrational energy passes more easily though denser and more homogenous material. We know it travels better "along" the wood grain rather than "across" the wood grain. Q-sawn straight-grained wood is desirable in necks not only for its physical stability when expansion and contraction come into play, it also conducts vibrational energy more readily. Glue joints, non-straight grain, your big fat soft gut, etc. across the path of vibrational energy will cause a loss in this energy, a dampening effect, but not so you'd notice. What would it take to make a string continue its vibrating longer?

[thegarehanman]

Southpa, the time a string vibrates is perhaps a concern, but the answer to the question you posed is simple: as much as possible, block any means of the string dissipating its energy to its anchoring points. One way of doing this would be to make the guitar out of something quite rigid...like granite. And this has been done before to certain extents, and we know that often times the result is a very trebley, harsh tone. So in that light, time would perhaps be better spent looking for things that dissipate the frequencies you don't desire, more so than looking to maintain all frequencies as long as possible. That's what the guitar body and neck on an electric is mainly doing after all: filtering out different frequencies at different rates. Some frequencies will dissipate so quickly to the body that they're not even audible, some will slowly dissipate and will create undertones, others will hardly dissipate and will die out mostly as a result of forces of air and gravity impeding the vibration of the string. Of course, this is similar, but slightly different in acoustic instruments. In the case of acoustics, the frequencies that are not quickly absorbed and dissipated by the guitar, keep the string in motion. The string's motion then puts the top of the guitar into motion which, in effect, acts like an air pump.

Also, out of curiosity, Perry, did you test multiple(3 or more) of each sample in your tests? Also, did you take the multiple samples from multiple species of wood?(say 1 set of tests on all mahogany blanks from the same tree, another set of all ash blanks from the same tree, etc). Also, did you limit your tests to only audible frequencies?

peace,

russ

Edited August 26, 2007 by thegarehanman

[killemall8]

i have created a monster!

[black_labb]

i dont like the comparisons with plywood as plywood is (or usually) constructed with perpendicular grain directions on side by side pieces, which is the main problem with plywood as a tonewood. other than that it probably wouldnt be that bad if they used decent timber(ie not full of knots like the plywood i just bought to make templates from)

[Maiden69]

Well said Rich!!!

[rhoads56]

snip... So in that light, time would perhaps be better spent looking for things that dissipate the frequencies you don't desire, more so than looking to maintain all frequencies as long as possible. That's what the guitar body and neck on an electric is mainly doing after all: filtering out different frequencies at different rates. Some frequencies will dissipate so ...snip

^^^ this guy gets it.

Also, out of curiosity, Perry, did you test multiple(3 or more) of each sample in your tests? Also, did you take the multiple samples from multiple species of wood?(say 1 set of tests on all mahogany blanks from the same tree, another set of all ash blanks from the same tree, etc). Also, did you limit your tests to only audible frequencies?

peace,

russ

Totally depends on what we tested. Sometimes up to ten samples of the exact same item (different wood being the only variable). The minimum sample count was two on some other tests.

[rhoads56]

This is a good point, and I would add that people from the internet are not really able to detect who is and who is not providing good information.

Awesome, this is what i was referring to in my first post. Its often the unknowns who shout the loudest, trying to gain respect they havent yet earned. I see way too many definate opinions on this forum (and others) from people only half way through their first ever build. Warmoth Warriors perhaps, or people with extensive background knowledge we dont yet know about? Who knows when they dont reveal their experience.

[pmarlin]

Thats why I sit back and listen, I dont want to spread my opinion on something that I havent done but seems logical when you think about it . Until you you try it and see if it works or fails you really dont know. I appreciate all the knowledge shared from the more experienced builders here, that is what got my first build done, well almost done just need to wetsand and polish.

[fryovanni]

i have created a monster!

No, You have started a conversation with your first question.

whats the point of this? a lot of people say that one piece bodies sound and are higher quality. i saw the godin factory tour, and they cut wood in half, then glue it back together. seems really stupid to me. is there actually a reason for this? the only reason i can think of would be to decrease drying time.

See, the thing that probably drew in some attension was the sense that you may be getting opinions that might be a little too black and white. This is what I would call a "grey" subject. Nobody will be able to give you a simple answer(such as this is BS or that is the way it has to be done). First of all successful company like Godin is not going to do something without a reason. They have resources, they have material, the production evironment forces them to make steps both efficient and reliable, they have experience and knowledge, They compete in a tuff market and need to set themselves apart or develop a niche, most of all they have a desire to stay in business. Understanding their motives is the tricky part.

The beauty of chatting and laying out or discussing how we see it. Is that we get to compair what we believe to be true, try to understand what others have found or believe. In the end hopefully walking away with a bit of food for thought. Don't expect to solve the everything for all situations. That information is not there to be had. You can take what you will from comments made by everyone who posts. Maybe they offer a specific bit of information from their data(for instance what Perry has offered from his specific research), or a good insight that may help you understand opinions or observations( Jehle's great note on how our perceptions may be altered by our preconcieved notions), maybe Southpa's commentary( Some of which seemed to relate to acoustic theory and vibrating plates, and spoke to his understanding of how vibration travels through the structure of wood). Russ's thoughts on attenuation and contribution to overall tone are interesting. Black_labb's comments on the construction of plywood are interesting(especially if you look back at some of Southpa's comments on energy transmition through the structure of wood relative to grain orientation). Several guys have added comments about sourcing difficulty's in finding larger, decent cuts of wood and thoughts on cosmetic issues. There are a few adding some comment about mixing species(which could be an interesting discussion in and of itself). I am not covering everything everyone has posted, but there are a lot of interesting points of view being added to the topic. You don't have to agree with everything or anything that someone else believes. If an opinion or thought doesn't make sense to you, maybe it will prompt you to do a bit more research.

Peace,Rich

[Jehle]

This is a good point, and I would add that people from the internet are not really able to detect who is and who is not providing good information.

Awesome, this is what i was referring to in my first post. Its often the unknowns who shout the loudest, trying to gain respect they havent yet earned. I see way too many definate opinions on this forum (and others) from people only half way through their first ever build. Warmoth Warriors perhaps, or people with extensive background knowledge we dont yet know about? Who knows when they dont reveal their experience.

There's a Zen saying that goes "He who claims to be a master, knows nothing."

The Zen Luthier,

[WezV]

hey jehle - whats the optimum number of cigars that should be put in a box before it gets converted to an instrument

[Jehle]

hey jehle - whats the optimum number of cigars that should be put in a box before it gets converted to an instrument

A fish.

[brian d]

I am still not sure how cutting the body and regluing it is more efficient for Godin. The link to the video seems to be dead (I get to YouTube with a message "This video has been removed by the user.")....is there another link for it?

Cheers,

Brian.

[killemall8]

I am still not sure how cutting the body and regluing it is more efficient for Godin. The link to the video seems to be dead (I get to YouTube with a message "This video has been removed by the user.")....is there another link for it?

Cheers,

Brian.

sorry, looks like it just got removed today.

[Jon]

I am still not sure how cutting the body and regluing it is more efficient for Godin. The link to the video seems to be dead (I get to YouTube with a message "This video has been removed by the user.")....is there another link for it?

Cheers,

Brian.

I believe the consensus is that they're cutting the large piece to fit their specifications. So the larger piece would be cut into 2 or 3+ pieces (body blanks, necks etc.) to the sizes they need.

[Mattia]

Perry: if you don't mind my asking, what were your sample sizes on the neck blank experiments (multi-lam vs. single)? Because I've built a number of 2-piece necks (mostly 1-piece, has to be said), and I know many others do, all mahogany, and as stated, they didn't resonate less or differently. The two currently on the bench are the best matched pair I have (same headstock angle, same roughed-out neck shape, same length, same species of mahogany, very likely from the same tree, although I'm not positive), and as said, beats me if the sustain, resonant frequency and frequency 'distribution' isn't pretty much identical. They're going on two guitars that couldn't be more different otherwise, though, so the comparison will end here, and I realise I may be missing a bunch by not being able to measure things other than through empirical observation.

Also: was your multi-lam testing based on roughly equal sized blanks, or 'hippie sandwich'/Minnesota acoustic (Olsen and the like) style, with a far thinner piece of contrasting wood down the middle? Same woods, or multiple wood combos? I understand if you don't want to share the details, but I'm trying to put your comments into a context.

[rhoads56]

Used a basic round back pattern, tapered to suit a 'general' neck shape. Imagine a headless guitar neck basically.

Laminates were both same size (prior to carve) and also dis-similar, depending on which ones we wanted to test. EG: three and five lams were tested as same size, then again as unequal, both with (for all intents) the exact same results. We went as far as testing the single pieces prior to, and after glueing, and then finally after shaping ('finished' neck).

[brewu22]

i have created a monster!

Yes, yes you have