Official Luthiers Forum!
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Body thickness
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=50034		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  WudWerkr [ Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Body thickness
I've built several acoustic Guitars thus far and several different body thickness. What do you like building at as far as thickness . What do you think is the sweet spot. I generally build om size . Thoughts and please expand on this idea .
Author:  phavriluk [ Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
Without a scrap of finite analysis, my SWAG is that 'it depends'. On how the box likes to resonate at what frequency with what force, and that's a result of all the characteristics of the materials and construction stacking up, and whatever sympathetic happiness comes from the soundhole size. I'm willing to wager that the ideal volume for a given footprint varies as a function of everything else working at the same time.
Author:  J De Rocher [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
Your question reminded me of something Alan Carruth posted related to guitar body depth in an old thread about luthiere myths. I found it:

"Years ago Fred Dickens, a researcher as Bell Labs who built Classicals in his spare time, looked into the effect of body depth on sound. He made one that was about 6" deep, and cut it down an inch at a time until it was to shallow to work. He didn't tell me about any listening tests; he was more interested in influence on the 'main air' mode pitch. Going from 6" deep to around 2" raised the main air pitch by about 7%; a little more than a semitone. So much for 'a deeper body has a lower air mode'. I'd say this was a pretty valid test because hed was only looking for a limited amount of information, and the top, back, and neck, and the wood in the sides, was the same all through."
Author:  Clay S. [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
I have had good luck making small bodied guitars somewhat deeper than they are generally made. No science behind it, just flying by the seat of my pants....
Author:  Ruby50 [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
Some of the Nick Lucas L-bodied Gibsons pre-1930 were up to 5" thick compared to 3-3/4" of the regular instrument. You might look up opinions on the sound of the Nicks.

Here is John Thomas - author of Kalamazoo Gals and owner of a ton of vintage instruments - comparing a group of L-bodies, including a Nick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOKsdAFCCIw

Ed
Author:  WudWerkr [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
I have a rose wood body that is in process at 5" thick
Author:  Freeman [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
One thing to remember about building odd sized bodies is that you might not be able to find a case to fit. I built a couple of small but deep bodied 12 strings (000/OM bodies - 4-1/2 inches deep) and had to buy $300 custom cases to fit them.

edit to add, they are also somewhat more awkward to play.
Author:  Pmaj7 [ Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
Freeman wrote:
One thing to remember about building odd sized bodies is that you might not be able to find a case to fit. I built a couple of small but deep bodied 12 strings (000/OM bodies - 4-1/2 inches deep) and had to buy $300 custom cases to fit them.

Because of the long headstock?

Freeman wrote:
edit to add, they are also somewhat more awkward to play.
Why?
Author:  Clay S. [ Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
Freeman wrote:
One thing to remember about building odd sized bodies is that you might not be able to find a case to fit. I built a couple of small but deep bodied 12 strings (000/OM bodies - 4-1/2 inches deep) and had to buy $300 custom cases to fit them.

Pat wrote:
Because of the long headstock?

Cases are not only made to fit the shape of the body but also the depth. Adding an extra inch in depth can make it hard to find a case that will close without pressing the bridge into the top. One reason I build "coffin cases" for some of my instruments is because I make them extra deep and a standard case won't work.

Freeman wrote:
edit to add, they are also somewhat more awkward to play.

Pat wrote:
Why?

If it is a fairly deep instrument to start with the extra inch of depth makes it that much more difficult to reach over. Some people are building with an "arm bevel" to make a more comfortable guitar. I think it was Mario who used to build what might be called a "thinline Dred" ( please correct me if I am wrong). Adding an inch to a Gibson L 1 pushes it to Dred depth, but adding an inch to a Dred pushes it out of the comfort zone.
Author:  Freeman [ Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
pat macaluso wrote:
Freeman wrote:
One thing to remember about building odd sized bodies is that you might not be able to find a case to fit. I built a couple of small but deep bodied 12 strings (000/OM bodies - 4-1/2 inches deep) and had to buy $300 custom cases to fit them.

Because of the long headstock?

Freeman wrote:
edit to add, they are also somewhat more awkward to play.
Why?


The answer to the first question is that every about the guitar was wrong for a standard case - they were small bodies (000) but deep, plus they are very long scale (26.5) plus they have long headstocks. Cedar creek made nice custom cases.

Image

I just wanted to raise that as a warning - if you build something a little bit odd ball it may not fit a standard case.

As far as the playability - again, I like small bodied guitars (single and double ought, OM) and I hate sitting down with a dread. A deep bodied guitar just doesn't sit as nicely on my lap, add the long scale of that 12 string and its a bit of a monster. Again, a minor point and we can adapt pretty easily but just something to think about.
Author:  Joe Beaver [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
I like to use a body thickness that is somewhat deeper than conventional. Martins OM is something like 4-1/8" at the end block and around 3-1/4" at the neck. For my slightly bigger SJ I use 4-3/4 and 3-3/4. My early SJ's were more Dread sized, 4-7/8" and 3-7/8". I scaled that down looking for a better fingerstyle sound. It has made some difference at least to my ear.

As Freeman has said, looking for a case that fits while still designing the guitar is a good idea. I did that with my new SJ. For my Jumbo model I use a custom Ameritec case. They are beauties.
Author:  truckjohn [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Body thickness
I tend to build a bit shallower rather than deeper vs "standard" depths... I think I like the feel a bit better..
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/