Official Luthiers Forum!

Do you guys build with goals in mind as far as the sound your after goes?
For example, "I'd like the sound to be fast and fundamental," or, "I'd
prefer a big washy sound with lots of overtone and less prominent
fundamentals," or even more specifically, "I'd like the overtones to be
phasey, like Goodalls and Lowdens." Those are just examples, but things
that go a bit beyond, "I'd like the sound to be balanced."

How do you personally begin approaching the goals you set for yourself?
How do you decide what to do and manipulate? What kind of things do
you do to help you understand and to help you keep growing?

I thought it would be educational to see how different people approach
these things (or have goals to begin with). This isn't a "how can I do
this?" question. I think we all have different ways of making sense of it
and doing it, and that hearing other ideas and goals can help us develop
our own even more.

I want volume with clarity. I love good sustain too. The way I brace my tops is generally making me happy with that goal. I am finding that the back and side woods can then take that sound and make it more mellow or brash and every flavor in between.

I may be as far out in left field as it can be, but so far here are my conclusions about back and side woods. (this is subject to change as I build more instruments):

Hardwoods that have tight growth rings such as Maple and Oak generally give more bright sounds. Hardwoods that have wide or generally undefined growth rings (think rosewood or mahogany) generally give off more mellow, warmer tones.

Woods with both wide and narrow growth rings can give off the best of both worlds because they resonate at differing frequencies.

Like I said, its a theory and one I am trying to prove.

_________________
Reguards,

Ken H

James you pretty much described my preference and goal.

That said The more commissions I get the more I have clients that want to give me a sound that they are looking for so at times I build for a sound like Ken that is load, clear, with high sustain and a crisp presents to the treble side. To do this requires keeping good shop notes and a bit of intuition and the ability to drawn on past experience. that is why my previous build notes are so important to me.

I often have perspective clients that ask "what is your signature sound?" Then request to build a sound that is vastly different. I use to resist this, but have leaned more into finding the way to build a sound that meats what the client is looking for.

Some may say by doing so that I am loosing my defined sound. But I build only on commission basis. I do not build a guitar that is sold complete and ready to go. So I spend a lot of time talking with the client to really understand what they are looking for. This leads to a lot of variance building to a defined sound.

Haha, I agree that it's not easy to describe sound. I like something I said
a month ago just because it framed it well for me: guitars aren't the most
literate things.

Thanks for pitching in, guys. I guess I should answer, too.

I'm still in the copycat stage. I'm looking for more of a refined Martin
sound. Something with more complex overtones. I like the way Matt
Mustapick described the overtones of his Goodall as being a little phasey
or chorusy. I'd like a Martin sound with that kind of overtone rather than
a flat decay.

Right now, Santa Cruz OM's are my baseline. They've been great in giving
me all their top and back dimensions, so I'm going to approxomate them
as closely as possible, see how the top resonates, and tune it with John
Mayes' Advanced Voicing dvd.

I also keep a file with pictures, emails, and notes from builders I really
appreciate to try to find trends and discrepancies.