I have built three from the Antes plans. The plans are generally considered over braced, I lightened the braces in mine quite a bit. The plans are also drawn as tho you had X ray vision and were looking thru the top - it is possible to put the tone bar on backwards.

My guitars were built out of rosewood - EIR, Mad and Braz. Two of them have Lutz tops, the other sitka. I used 24.5 scales. The guitars will fit in commercially available TKL cases (which is a good thing)

I frankly can't tell a difference between the guitars. They are somewhat boxy sounding, biased to the mids and trebles as you would suspect, but still enough bass for old timey and bluesy fingerstyle. They are amazingly loud - one of them was played at a GAL Steel String listening session and someone commented on how well it projected to the back of the hall.

I didn't or don't do any fancy analysis of the guitar as its was being built - I mostly followed the plans and lightened the braces to try to match the tops. I flex and tap and shave, but its mostly blind stupid luck that my guitars sound as good as they do. I can't give any advice on voicing.

Do you mean your body cavity Helmholtz resonance on the Jumbo's are77Hz? That's really low. the Helmholtz resonance is usually near or a little below the frequency of the second lowest string, around G-A on a guitar. I made one Dred that resonates right on E and I liked it so much I left it that way. But my small parlor guitars are usually around A and I attempt to make them Ab-ish.

"that thinning the edges of the top around the lower bought nearly 40% drops that frequency significantly."

That's a lot, typical I only thin my lower bout perimeters around 12 -14%, but then I'm not building Jumbos, mostly OMs for pickers.

I have built a bunch from those plans. 1/4” bracing, tops in the 0.100-105 range. Body depth same as an OM so extra depth and x splayed a little more combined with an elongated bridge at about 6.7” to catch the edges of the X. Bridge plate around 0.090”.


I would say the best have been double side Mahogany with Lutz tops and BZ rectangular bridges. A Brazilian bodied one was a great guitar too.

Here is a link to my site with some pics and a cell phone video of Michael Johnson playing one.

http://www.kennedyguitars.com/size-2/

I love these little guys and they have been popular. They are a speciality guitar and have some limitations but they sound absolutely great plugged in with a K&K pickup.

Well, that's a wild guess. I didn't get my calipers out. I use a sharp block plane and work around until I hit the target frequency. Honestly, because I flush trim before thinning, I don't know how I'd get an accurate measurement without some fancy tools. Maybe 30% is more accurate? I just know I can tell where I've thinned without squinting.

Thanks for the tip. My Jumbo Helmoholtz is just below a D#... and yea that's lower than what I've read or heard from others, but when people hit an open E chord there eyes get real big... I think (know?) based on voicing these before finishing them with Wavepad, that thinning the edges of the top around the lower bought nearly 40% drops that frequency significantly. Partly, this is due to my x-bracing being very thin the last few inches before it hits the edge of the lower bought, and because none of my other braces even come close to the rim (except the transverse). BTW I take credit for none of this. All from Gore/Gilet and Somogyi.

To be fair, I was trying to build a guitar for the biggest, broadest strumming sound I could get. Designed for big moment worship leading, not for intricate finger picking or soloing. It also has an Adi top that's a hair thick in the middle. It gives a lot of headroom. I had a client in last week to play his before the finish went on, and he said his and the demo he played seem to beg to be played louder and louder.

Ironically, the extra low end makes for a really nice evenness across the spectrum even when playing softly. Well, when a good player plays softly . I'm a saxophone player, and a guitar hack. But, whenever someone demo's this thing I'm in heaven listening to it.

Sorry for the detour... we are talking about Parlor's here!

"I avoid wide purfling with this technique for fear of weakening the top attachment. Usually just one 0.060 bwb"
Question.
With wider bindings, as long as the purfling depth is less than the thickness (say 2/3rds) of the top, does that not help prevent weakening the soundboard attachment?
The top is then still glued to the linings for the maximum possible width (after binding)

This is a picture of 2 parlors I made some time ago.

And the bracing (Dimensions are in mm).

The frequencies are:

These were my first parlors, so I cannot comment on the sound much. But I like how they sound.
Braces Width: UFB = 8 mm
X = 7 mm
others = 6 mm
You can get the height from the picture.

Hope this help.

Slight detour to mention that I really like Alain's spectrum analysis software (screenshots shown above). It gives me what I need, and it is all right there, without having to do any special tweaking. It is pre-tweaked for just this purpose.

Just a satisfied customer.