B. Aaron

I concur. This was a horrible month for voters - absolutely unfair. I'd vote for almost all of them. It was like asking, "Would you like ice cream and fudge sauce, or fudge sauce and ice cream?" "I don't know; which one is better?" "Both of them."

Much agreed with many of the above comments. C is lovely, balanced, etc., but the headstock is not. The headstock is rather baroque. I'd rethink it and design something that complements the body.

DONE. The finishing process took me a long time because I've had a lot of other things on the go in the same period (other instruments, pedals, gigs, work, schoolwork, sewing, etc). But it's done done done! Check out the photos. As always, I apologize for using a Facebook photo album instead of something classier (like Flickr). 162 photos in total, each captioned with explanations. I can't claim to be an expert, but I can at least pretend to sound professional. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150352534395531.597325.559500530&type=1&l=9161c52828 - B.Aaron -

As is http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/ for photos of wood species.

"Don't confuse folk nomenclature with marketing jargon." I try not to confuse either one with science.

xadioriderx: I would rather you post a link to this thread than repost the files, as I am not a member at the other forums and thus would be unable to answer questions that may arise. There is no actual copyright issue at stake - I just could not provide clarification on any confusion that may arise from the files. dpm99: You are not alone in not having researched this topic. I would reckon that not many guitar builders have studied wood outside the context of "what does my book/the internet say this wood sounds like?" because most builders and players that I talk to will say things like "Swamp ash is lighter than normal ash because it's the part of the tree that grows underwater in a swamp." I am not going to get into all the reasons that this is a stupid idea, but rather will point out that Swamp Ash is actually just another name for Black Ash, which is a lighter-weight species than the usual White Ash we usually see at the lumber shop. Yes, Black Ash tends to grow in swampy areas, but it is lightweight because of its species' characteristics, not because part of the tree was sopping wet all the time. I think that not many builders or players actually know much about the trees that their instruments were made from, either in regards to the habitat of the trees or their growing habits or to the structural information.

More photos. - Back is glued on - Binding is finished - Fingerboard is fretted and attached - Neck is mostly carved Just need to finish the fine carving on the neck, then I can sand and French-polish the thing. It's getting there...

I love it. It certainly does have an advantage over the smaller models (which I have also used): it is bigger. It gives you more work space, and that's important. It can do some sort of vertical clamping trick too, but I've never bothered to try that. My only complaint is that I wish it were taller.

New photos up. Inlaid fingerboard. Glued the fingerboard shim in place and shaved it down. Installed the pickup (K&K mandolin twin internal soundboard transducer). Made and glued label on back. I'll glue the back tomorrow and start the binding this coming week.

More new photos: Started work on the fingerboard. Nothing too fancy there, really.

This is also true.

New photos up: - Sealing the instrument interior to reduce humidity-driven movement - Gluing the soundboard in place - Lots of spool clamps

Yeah, bending thick sides sucks. That's why sides were made thin for hundreds of years leading to the traditions we have today, and that's also why anyone who makes thick sides laminates them from several pieces of wood. For example, Friederich uses two 2mm layers of EIR laminated together to produce simple double-thickness sides. Coupling: Oops, I forgot about sound posts in the bowed instrument family. The front-to-back coupling is rather different there, isn't it? They don't really need to rely on the resonance of the air cavity... But again, the instrument relies on the soundpost for coupling rather than the sides. In fact, even luthiers of the viol family are aware of the importance of side stiffness. To quote from "The Art of Violin Making" (Courtnall & Johnson, 1999) regarding this very matter: "...[the linings] offer an elegant solution to the problems of using thin, lightweight ribs. The joint between the rib and the front (or back) is under stress when the instrument is being played. As the plate vibrates, the joint is flexed in a small rocking motion, which needs to be contained. By almost tripling the gluing surface at this point, the problem is overcome... In addition, there is also a laminating effect when the linings are glued to the ribs, fixing the outline shape rigidly and strengthening the ribs." As for thinning the sides of French double basses, I can't really comment about it because I've never personally heard of that procedure. However, I can quote somebody else about the sides of French basses: "French upright basses tend to be very focused and project better. It's a characteristic that comes from the maple sides and back. There is more power with maple because the wood itself is stronger and not as soft as poplar or walnut." I would say that this again supports the stiffer sides = more efficient argument. Luthiers will do funny things to instruments for cash, especially when the customer is inclined to listen with their wallet rather than with their ears.

Ripthorn: monopole is the same as the 0,0 vibration mode, yes. Daniel Friederich uses thicker sides than usual (4-5mm) literally all the time. So does the Ramirez 1a, the absolute standard by which concert classicals are judged, and having played a few of them I can tell you that they are very powerful instruments. Many Australian lattice-style classical builders also use big beefy sides - in fact, some are so heavily reinforced that they are barely recognisable as guitars from their interiors: http://www.schrammguitars.com/lattice.html . Gregory Byers uses 6mm thick laminated oak kerfings (unkerfed, that is) for their increased stiffness, not to mention solid maple harmonic bars on his soundboards... I wouldn't describe any of these instruments as sounding constricted or harmonically simple: rather, I would say they represent some of the loudest concert classicals one can acquire. It's not just classical guitar makers, either: Ervin Somogyi uses thick-ish laminated sides on most of his instruments as well (for a variety of reasons). Some reasons why thicker sides are actually beneficial: - Making the sides thicker doesn't mean you have to make them thicker inward (and decrease soundboard area) - you can just as easily make them thicker outward and just have a slightly larger guitar, so there need be no loss there. - Yes: thicker sides are stiffer. Specifically, stiffness has a cubic relationship to thickness. Sides that are 2x as thick as usual are 8x stiffer already (2*2*2 = 8), and that's still a mere 3/16" thick. And frankly, stiffer sides aren't a bad thing. Rather... - Stiffer sides mean less energy lost to the sides. In other words, more of the string energy delivered to the soundboard stays in the soundboard - it is less likely to be absorbed by the sides. This means that energy is used more efficiently. As an analogy, picture two speaker cabinets: one cabinet and its baffle board are made from inch-thick solid oak (...thick guitar sides...), and the other is made from cardboard (...thin guitar sides...). They both contain the same speaker (...soundboard...). Which cabinet is likely to be more efficient and have the better frequency response? - The slightly increased gluing surface could have a slight effect on soundboard stiffness, I suppose. However, I would say that this is yet another blessing in disguise: extra stiffness with NO increase in soundboard weight? Awesome. The soundboard could then be sanded thinner around the periphery to obtain the usual lower (aka proper) stiffness and the low monopole you're looking for, resulting in the desired proper stiffness while also eliminating a bit of weight. This is a good thing. Any way that you can make a soundboard lighter without compromising its proper stiffness is going to result in a soundboard that makes more efficient use of the strings' energy. - RE affecting the back/soundboard coupling: All the research I've seen suggests that soundboard-to-back coupling is largely achieved by sympathetic resonance with the vibrating air inside the instrument rather than by some sort of transmission directly through the sides. This goes for all the string instruments, AFAIK. Side stiffness thus shouldn't affect this aspect of sound production. However! It would have the same effect (if any) on the vibration of the back as it would on the front, and if you're concerned with the tuning of your instrument's back (as many luthiers are), then you need to pay attention to what is going on there too. - Something people haven't mentioned yet: stiffer sides = a stronger & stiffer platform to attach your neck to, which means 1) less energy lost at the neck joint, and 2) better resistance against the eventual need for a neck reset, because the stiffer sides can help combat an unwanted change in neck angle. It's a lot harder to twist thick sides than it is to twist them when they're 0.08" thick. Trust me, I've tried. --- All in all, I think that any effect the thicker sides will have on the tone production of the instrument will only be a small part of the big picture of the instrument, but the effect will be beneficial IF properly accounted for rather than just used blindly. As for the weight: the sides of a rosewood guitar weigh about 0.6 lbs. Doubling the thickness or even tripling it will only result in a small increase in weight - the instrument will still be light compared to something like a Les Paul. If you use something stiff and light for your interior laminates (for example, Ramirez uses Cypress), it's an even slighter increase yet.

If you're like me and you like to look up things like a wood's strength, stiffness/modulus of elasticity, hardness, and density, then these four PDF files could save you some time. This data can be pretty useful sometimes, such as when trying to decide what type of spruce or maple to use on a project and wanting to know more than the talking points that luthiers repeat ad nausea. (Example: Peruvian Walnut is not "denser than most other walnuts" as LMII (and now most of the internet) claims, but rather is in fact lighter, softer, weaker, and less stiff than almost every other neck or back/side wood used for instrument making. The data in these sheets makes that pretty clear.) I've compiled the following data from a variety of websites around the Internet (but mostly from http://www.woodworkerssource.com/wood_library.php?wood= and http://www.wood-database.com/wood-identification/ ). They represent statistical information for average quality pieces of wood. There will always be exceptions, so treat the data as a guide rather than as a hard and fast rule: research shows that wood stiffness can vary greatly within different areas of the same tree (never mind differences from region to region and different growing conditions)! For the most part, I have not included data regarding the wood's texture, grain tendencies, ease of carving, pore size, stability under varying humidity conditions, CITES protection status, etc. That is beyond the scope of these quick-reference-type documents, and most of that data can be found in the above databases for those who want to look into it. I have listed every wood that I have seen used or marketed for guitar-building, and I could find data for. If it did not meet both of these criteria, I did not include it. If you have additional data to contribute (be it for missing species or to correct/elaborate on data already included), let me know and I'll append it to the current documents to keep them up to date. Tonal Disclaimer: I won't tell people how to interpret this data as it applies to an instrument's tonal response, as this is a matter of much debate (both scientific, mythical, and marketing-wise). It is only my intention to make the data easily accessible. ------- Soundboard Woods Back & Side Woods Neck Materials (inc. fingerboards and reinforcements) Common Solidbody Woods - I realise this isn't the right part of the forum to post this particular data, but it's in keeping with the rest of the post's theme. ------- Definitions: Stiffness: exactly that. It represents the wood's resistance to flexing under load. Stiffness has a cubic relationship to the thickness of the material. Strength: not quite the same. It represents the wood's resistance to structural failure (irreversible deformation) under load. Strength has a square relationship to the thickness of the material. Hardness: Janka hardness. The amount of force (in psi) required to push a 0.444" ball of steel up to half its depth into a piece of wood. Weight: pounds per cubic foot. Easy to understand. Edit: Yes, I see now that the topic summary says "toneswoods." Whoops.