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

When is perfect too perfect
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=14404		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  bob J [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
How would youlike to receive a beautiful vintage Martin, Gibson, or any guitar made by great luthier and, when examined inside, you find tool marks on braces (shows work on braces). I would be estactic, the same as I would be if I found tool markss (work) on the braces of a Strad. Imagine, work shown, done by a master. Is our work too clean, erasing the 'hand-craft' of the luthier? I would be more excited than if I received the instrument w/o the marks.
Author:  erikbojerik [ Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's probably fine as long as the artist's marks are INSIDE the guitar!  



IMO you could have the inside of the box perfectly clean and free of
tool marks, and if the builder slapped down their signature where
everyone could see it through the soundhole (on the wood, not on a
label) that would do it for me.



I'm still waiting for someone to finish and buff out the inside of a guitar (it won't be me....).
Author:  Arnt Rian [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
The tool marks on the scrolls (and elsewhere) of some of the violins great Italian makers of 300 years or so ago are regarded as part of their beauty; like hand writing the curve and flow of the tool marks are the signature of the maker and adds to the beauty and 'attitude' of the instrument. The slightly uneven and lively contrasts in the hand applied sunbursts on the great Gibson mandolins of the beginning of the 20th century are part of their appeal. Like Todd says, there is a big difference in the evidence of ‘workmanship of risk’ of great craftsmen and sloppy work.
Author:  Alain Desforges [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:31 am ]
Post subject: 
If you have the characted and personality to sand the inside of a guitar to 400, then go ahead. I find this demonstrates that someone is patient and takes great pride in his work, not to mention that he/she is probably wrapped-up a bit too tightly...

That is not to say that great work demands that kind of attention. Like stated previously, there's a big difference between workmanship and outright laziness, slopiness and lack of building chops...

Author:  bob J [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Guys,
I am not referring to sloppy or careless work. I mean looking inside the instrument and observing a carve mark on a brace, etc, carved there by Laravee, strat, Keppler, Doolin.For me, WOW, what an added tresure.
Author:  Hesh [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:30 am ]
Post subject: 

[QUOTE=bob J]Guys,

I am not referring to sloppy or careless work. I mean looking inside the instrument and observing a carve mark on a brace, etc, carved there by Laravee, strat, Keppler, Doolin.For me, WOW, what an added tresure.[/QUOTE]

I agree and these kinds of marks remind me that it's all about the tone.
Author:  David Collins [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:08 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=bob J] Guys,
I am not referring to sloppy or careless work. I mean looking inside the
instrument and observing a carve mark on a brace, etc, carved there by
Laravee, strat, Keppler, Doolin.For me, WOW, what an added tresure.[/
QUOTE]


It doesn't matter to me if it's a tool mark or sloppy workmanship. I used
to care, but now I just can't remember why.

When I'm working on a 30's Martin, I find myself spending more time
trying to imitate the sloppy workmanship they left behind. If it looked too
clean somebody might not spend six digits on it, because it wouldn't be
original. No, the squeeze out, the sanding scratches on the top running
parallel to the braces, the rift saw marks left from resawing, they're not
marks of a skilled craftsman. It's sloppy workmanship. You know what
else? Nobody seemed to notice or care about what the inside of a guitar
looked like until recently. Why do they now? Good question. Do people
see it as a testimony to a level of craftsmanship? Does that have any
effect on the function of the instrument - to sound good, play good, and
look good on stage?

What would a blind guitarist say?

Ahh grasshopper, if a tool falls on the inside a guitar box, and no one is
around to see it, does it leave a dent?

I'll take my response off the air. Have fun with this thread.
Author:  grumpy [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:41 am ]
Post subject: 
The there's the argument I've put forth for over a decade. Is a smooth instrument interior actually detrimental to tone? I believe it is so. My first guitars were very rough inside, since I was renting 'time' on a thickness sander, I'd  only sand using the fella's 36 or 40 grit abrasives. I'd build te guitar, then sand and scrape the exterior before finishing. But inside, hoo boy, they be rough...  But I was building for myself(I thought <bg>) and being a player, I didn't care what they looked like inside. Besides, I'd repaired enough old Martins and Gibsons('specially Gibbies at that point) to have a realistic expectation of what a good guitar looked like inside.

Anyway.. There's a certain tone quality to those first few efforts that I've never regained. Never. My first guitar is still the one I play every day. I'm talking of a subtle, yet real, "something" that's happening with these ones.

And every guitar that I play from builders who are known for very clean work(and dead-smooth/clean interiors) always seem to have this "modern" tone to them. Even their "vintage" style models don't quite 'get' the vintage tone.

Consider this:  a rough surface has multiple times more surface area than a smooth one, when viewed by a sound wave....  Same reason a textured ceiling kills echoes in a room, same reason recording studios try to avoid smooth surfaces, etc... Rick should be ale to take this thinking to a new level, actually <hint>

Now, every time I start rambling on this subject among players, they always ask "then why don't you go back and build with those rough interiors"? Answer is simple; because even if you, the owner, fully understand and appreciate why it's rough in there, someone will inevitably look the guitar over a some point, and they'll see the roughness, and may not ask yo about it. So, now, in their mind, they will likely think "great sounding guitar, but yikes!, that Proulx fella's workmanship sucks". And that's the image they will likely walk away with. And that's what they may tell their buddies... And I know the above is fact, as that has happened to me many times, since most of those first efforts are "out there"....

I do avoid over-sanding the interiors of my instruments, today, and I do leave beauty marks aplenty(relatively), but it's a balancing act.

Food for thought, next time y'all reach for the 400 grit...
Author:  Bill Greene [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:11 am ]
Post subject: 
That's fascinating Mario, and somewhat counter-intuitive...but now that I think about it, it does hold somewhat with what I've experienced.

I would like to hear what others (Turner, Carruth?) think about this.

Bill

Author:  DP LaPlante [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:26 am ]
Post subject: 

I think the key here is, as individual craftspeople, to build instruments with real and substantial character.


Just what constitutes this character is a point of debate. Recently I visited one of the premier guitar emporiums (hint) on the east coast to look at what was new. What I saw was an extremely homogenious flock of guitars all exhibiting the same quality and character regardless of whether they were produced by an individual a small shop or larger factory. I saw very little that stood apart from the standard factory produced guitar, and those who emulated the same approach.


I have a sense of the uniqueness of what I want to produce and see no point of adding a few more units of the same thing to the mass of "factory" production.

Author:  David Newton [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Retreating to the interiors of vintage guitars, you don't see motor sanded tops and backs, you see saw, scraper, and plane marks. You don't see sanded braces, you see saw and chisel marks. As time goes on, you see more machine marks, and more sandpaper.


I think the educated guitar lover doesnt' mind hand tool marks so much as machine marks. Can cnc tool paths replicate hand chisel marks?


Somewhere out there is a builder who is famous for great-sounding and playing guitars, that are rough built. He has to wear bib overalls with no shirt, a feedstore hat, and is called "bubba". He's still living with his mother, though.
Author:  Rick Turner [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:39 am ]
Post subject: 
We sand interior work to about 150 and do clean glue joints.   This is especially important on guitars with side ports where you're inviting a close look at the work. I don't think the level of care does much for the sound...it's to sell the guitars.   

David's comments on working on vintage pieces is really interesting because the whole deal is to be able to work within the craftsmanship constraints of the original builder.   He's dead on with that, and it's one of the things that makes repair and restoration so difficult. You have to be able to duplicate the exact level of craftsmanship, even if it's below your own personal standards.   You also have to work in the correct style...fret ends is a great example of this.   There's a Martin style, a Gibson style, etc.   In repair work, the goal is to leave no footprint of your own work.

In old Martins you can see saw marks galore, and you can tell whether it was a large circular saw or a band mill.   You can even see some of that on the exterior as well as seeing burn marks from both overheated saw blades and a too hot bending iron. Kind of cool!

Anyway, much past 150 on the inside and you're wanking...
Author:  James Orr [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:28 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=grumpy]And every guitar that I play from builders who are
known for very clean work(and dead-smooth/clean interiors) always seem
to have this "modern" tone to them. Even their "vintage" style models
don't quite 'get' the vintage tone.

Consider this:  a rough surface has multiple times more surface area than
a smooth one, when viewed by a sound wave....  Same reason a textured
ceiling kills echoes in a room, same reason recording studios try to avoid
smooth surfaces, etc... Rick should be ale to take this thinking to a new
level, actually <hint>[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting observation. The second paragraph is kind of close,
but not quite there. Engineers usually want a certain reverb time in their
recording atmosphere dependent on the music they'll be recording.
They're able to manipulate that by using different materials that soften/
increase reflection and frequencies (reverb time is tied to frequency) by
effecting wavelength and amplitude. It's been a few years since I took a
class on this, but if I remember correctly, nonparallel surfaces are used to
reduce standing waves that just keep reflecting back and forth into each
other and create modes and add phasey and fluttery sounds to things.       

You're describing the psychoacoustic difference between surfaces, which
has to do with the RT. Like you said, it's difficult to describe, but your
ears are giving your mind some cues. You CAN measure this. Google
"measuring reverb time" or "measuring RT60" and you should get a list of
devices you can pick up to actually measure the difference you're hearing
in your first guitar and the ones you're making now.
Author:  Bill Bergman [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:33 am ]
Post subject: 
I once read that Guaneri left the exteriors of his violins rather crude by some standards.
Author:  grumpy [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:40 am ]
Post subject: 
True, James, and thanks for clarifying!
Author:  Pete Licis [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:46 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=grumpy] Consider this:  a rough surface has multiple times more surface area than a smooth one, when viewed by a sound wave....[/QUOTE]

A few thoughts regarding this ... (not that I'm not arguing the effects you hear, perhaps just ONE reason for the effect) ...

It would seem to me that due to the wavelengths involved, a rough surface (such as caused by sanding) would only affect ultrasonic waves. At 20KHz, the wavelength in air is 0.678 inches, which is a far larger scale than any sanding roughness and machining effects. Wavelengths of bass waves are in meters.

I think it's possible that rough surfaces would disperse a cohesive wave as you point out the textured ceiling does, but again, due to the wavelengths and the scale of the sanding/machining roughness, it would seem that audible sound would be minimally affected even at high frequences. And would this effect be translated to a difference heard OUTSIDE the guitar? It seems that it would be even more difficult to hear at the outside.

How are transverse waves in a plate affected by this roughness and do the same wavelength considerations apply? Personally, I don't know. Someone with knowledge of this would have to address this. The textured ceiling and avoidance of smooth surfaces in a studio pertain to longitudinal waves for sure, but also transverse waves?

I agree with your comment that "something" is happening. It would be very surprising that something would not be hsppening on some level. Could there be other non-direct affects? I bet there are. One potential one might be increased air friction losses with the roughness.

It would be interesting to hear what Al Carruth has to say about this.
Author:  grumpy [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 
You're only "looking" at the wave from the side. "Look" at it head-on....

 Maybe?
Author:  James Orr [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:52 am ]
Post subject: 
No problem. It's definitely interesting.
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:23 am ]
Post subject: 
There has been some discussion over the years about the acoustic effects of interior roughness. It's one of those vexed questions that has no good answer as yet, so far as I know.

Pete's right in saying that the roughness we're talking about is 'way below the wave lengths of any of the sounds we're interested in, and so should not have a 'reflection' effect. Unless you're a real audio wonk you probably won't notice much difference when the cat walks between you and the woofer of your stereo, and even a real wonk probably couldn't tell if it was a short or long haired cat without looking. (They'd know if the tag it was wearing was Brazilian or Mahogany, though...). The cat is so much smaller than most of the sound the speaker is putting out it's simply 'invisible'.

OTOH, that doesn't say roughness might not have an effect. My feeling (FWIW) is that it might influence the losses. Most of the loss from air resonant modes comes, if I understand it right, from surface effects. If you think about air resonating along the length of a closed tube, for example, the energy of the sound is represented in flow along the length of the tube in the center, and pressure at the ends. But pressure, after all, is just the force of a lot of molecules hitting the surface: they're moving, but in more random directions than they are in the middle of the tube. The more little ridges there are for the molecules to hit, the more likely it is that the energy they're carrying will be dispersed, either by the molecules bouncing off in some direction that doesn't contribute to keeping the wave going, or because it's caused some thin section of the wall to vibrate, and absorb the energy without passing it back to the air.

If you live near a well-traveled road, for example, you might notice that the sound of the cars tends to be less in the summer, when there are leaves on the trees, than in the winter when there aren't. It's not that the leaves 'reflect' the sound as a coherent wave, it's just that with each one absorbs a tiny amount of energy. Fiberglass batting makes a good sound deadener because those tiny fibers can be set into motion by the impacts of a few molecules of air, more or less, and there's a zillion of 'em.

So I think that _might_ be what's happening with a rough interior. Maybe one of these days I, or someboady else, will actually do the experiment.

As for the point of the OP:
It seems to me that a lot of the push toward greater 'perfection' has come from the education that customers have gotten over the years. It's not that anybody has tried to teach them anything consciously, but they have learned.

A buddy and I used to call it the 'Japanese guitar syndrome' back in the 70s. People would come in and wonder why our instruments weren't as shiny as the less expensive Yamaha they had at home. We'd try to explain that the heavy finish that the factories often used could hurt the tone, but we got a lot of dubious looks.

In some cases I think there has been something of an effort made to convince folks that the sort of precision that a factory lives by is, in itself, a good thing. You can't make thousands of guitars a year unless you are jigged up to the hilt: you either work to tight tolerances or you spend 'way too much time fixing things. But those factory tolerances don't take into account the variability of wood. By altering our designs to try to get the best out of our materials, we loose some control over the manufacturing process. We hope, of course, to make up for that with our stunning tone and hand craftsmanship, but there are those times....

At any rate, tight and precise workmanship is something that almost anybody can learn to see, so it's fairly easy to get people to home in on it. Once they start to equate lack of tool marks with high quality there's a tendancy to ramp up: if sanding to 150 is good, then 180 must be better, and 400 _much_ better. The fact that it's simple and logical doesn't make it correct in all cases.       
Author:  L. Presnall [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:56 am ]
Post subject: 





Author:  grumpy [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:27 am ]
Post subject: 
<groan>...
Author:  grumpy [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Anyone looked inside a CA guitar lately? Think they do that for fun?
Author:  John Mayes [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 
At McPherson we sand all interior plates with 240, and then further with the
maroon scotchbrite to remove and fingerprint smudges. Matt McPherson
wants the wood to look like it's just sitting on the other pice. Absolutely
zero squeeze out is allowed, NO loose single strands of fiber, no tool marks
whatsoever, braces sanded to 240 as well. BY FAR more anal than anything
I've ever seen...

I personally don't mind a tool mark here or there inside a guitar. A well
respected Luthier once told me "Perfection is boring, but the mark of human
hands is inspiring."
Author:  JohnAbercrombie [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=grumpy] The there's the argument I've put forth for over a decade. Is a smooth instrument interior actually detrimental to tone? I believe it is so. [/QUOTE]
Mario-
You're in very good company with that opinion- Jean Larrivee said the same thing in the interview/article which was reprinted in one of the GAL BRBs. Nothing beyond 80 grit.
I don't know if he's continued the practice into the present. I looked inside a new Larrivee in a store a couple of days ago and it was hard to tell. (They get upset when I drop my light and mirror into the guitars in stores!)

I'm a real hypocrite- I clean up the area that can be easily seen, and leave the rest . Poking a soundport into the side of the guitar raises the stakes, though.

Cheers

John
Author:  David Newton [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

The secret is to wave the guitar around when you pull it out of the case and push it into the customer's hands before he can look at stuff too close. The when he makes the first strum, his eyes will glaze over with wonder and delight, and he won't be able to see anything clearly till long after he takes it home.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/