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

Guess the woods - see the woods
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=14815		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Dave White [ Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok here is the source of the sound - a Cuban mahogany parlour/Concert/O sized 12 fret body join. This was a fun comission as my very first comission four years ago was the same guitar.

Specs:

Top/back/sides/neck are figured Cuban mahogany, plantation grown in Micronesia. The neck is from the same block as the sides. The binding is ebony with bwb top/back and side purfling, ebony end graft, heel block and ebony venner on the front and back of the headstock. The bridge is Old Rio rosewood with split bone saddle and ebony bridge-pins. Scale length is 624mm (24.57"), lower bout width 335mm (13.19"), upper bout width 240mm (9.45"), waist width 205mm (8.07") and maximum body depth 95mm (3.74"). Tuners are Waverly's with ebony knobs. The finish is hand rubbed pre-catalysed lacquer over Z-poxy on the body and tru-oil over Z-poxy on the neck:







Bracing is my usual "triabolic" with hybrid X braced back with cf flying buttress braces:









Here's the family - the original old boy in the middle, with the ladder braced version "Jack the Lad" on the right:



Thanks for looking.
Author:  Colin S [ Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Very nice Dave, sounds as good as it looks too. I didn't post a guess as I remembered you saying you were building an all Cuban.

I'd be interested to know how it sounds in 12 months time. Does it change over time?

Colin




Author:  Hesh [ Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
She's a beauty Dave and I really love the bracing - very clean, minimal, and resonate looking to me.

This guitar also has what I call a "best friend" quality to it in as much as it just looks like the kind of guitar that one would always wish to pick-up and relax with.

Do you know what it weighs?

I did guess the back and side woods correctly at being Cuban Mahogany.

Outstanding guitar Dave but that is never a surprise from you mon.
Author:  SniderMike [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Dave, that's great. Looks as good as it sounds!
Author:  WaddyThomson [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Outstanding guitar, Dave.  It has that comfortable look that I like in a guitar.  Of course, your craftsmanship shines out in every aspect, inside and out, not to mention your playing and composing skills from the other thread.  Fine work!     
Author:  KenH [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:03 am ]
Post subject: 
VERY nice looking guitar Dave! I would be interested in the long term sound of this guitar also and wonder if it gets better sounding over time like spruce does. Excellent workmanship too!
Author:  DannyV [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Beauty guitar and what a nice family you have! I'd love to try a mahogany
guitar. If you're ever in Canada......

Danny
Author:  Dave Anderson [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Looks GREAT Dave. That, to me is a perfect guitar to sit down and just play for hours! It looks as great as it sounds! Your bracing looks very good too. Thanks for the nice photographs.
Author:  Wade Sylvester [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:38 am ]
Post subject: 
A real inspiration there Dave!
It was nice to ponder on the sound before getting to see this beauty.


Wade
Author:  Don Williams [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Let's see, I was right about the guitar size, the back and side wood, the type of bracing, and the ebony bridge pins. But I really blew it on the top. I suspected it could have been all-mahogany or all-koa, but wasn't sure. I was also wrong about the end pin.

So what is the string spacing at the bridge, and the nut width?


Looks good! Sounded nice too.


Dang, I have some mahogany at home just like that stuff...
Author:  Steve Kinnaird [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Beautiful, Dave!
Your thoughts on the comparison between the two cuban guitars? (If you can factor in the difference in age, and--am I right?--no sound port on the older model?)

Fine looking trio there.

Steve
Author:  Sam Price [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Dave, that is absolutely stunning. My earphones have packed up (Got caught on a gate in a field), I'll listen to the samples tommorow when I have bought a new pair.
Author:  Howard Klepper [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Dave White]
Bracing is my usual "triabolic" with hybrid X braced back with cf flying buttress braces:
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like an advanced system. I've been using either my "hyperbolic" (you can't say enough good things about it) or my "diabolic" (the baddest system there is).
Author:  Dave White [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:37 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] [QUOTE=Dave White]
Bracing is my usual "triabolic" with hybrid X braced back with cf flying buttress braces:
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like an advanced system. I've been using either my "hyperbolic" (you can't say enough good things about it) or my "diabolic" (the baddest system there is).[/QUOTE]

Howard,

Yes in a way you are right - "triabolic" is one more than "diabolic" One small step for . . . what was I saying? Old age sucks
Author:  Dave White [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Colin,

Thanks. All instruments change over time, hopefully for the better. I haven't seen/heard the first Toby I made for about a year now, but his owner and namesake Toby lives near so I'll try and hook up before the new guitar goes "home" and do a comparison.

Hesh,

Thanks. I haven't weighed it completed, but I sort of weighed the component parts as they were completed and it should be a little over 4lbs. Definitely no competition for the Old Timer early 1900's original in the centre of the photo of three that clocks in at 2lb 10oz!

Mike, Ken, Danny, Dave, Wade, Sam - thanks.

Don,

Thanks. Yes - you did mighty well apart from the top. Nut and saddle weren't too bad guesses either - nut width is 44mm (1.73") and string spacing at the saddle 55mm (2.17").

Steve,

I may be confusing you with the picture of 3 guitars above. The Old Boy in the middle is mahogany (not sure which sort) and 80+ years old. He sounds fabulous but has to be played with a slide. He really growls. As for the first Toby I made, it was X braced as well but more Lowden shape to the brace profile and much heavier bracing. He sounded good but I suspect this one is better out of the blocks. As I said to Colin I might get to A/B them next week so I'll let you know.

Author:  fryovanni [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I really liked listening to your clips. The clip that I was zeroing in on was "Mammy O Mine", which was seeming to be in the ballpark. The upper mids seemed to be a little confusing to me though.

I would be totally honest and say I am really not familiar with Mahogany tops to speak of. I am also not really used to hearing ladder braced tops (if I read correctly the clip "Mammy O Mine" was played on "Jack the Lad" which was ladder braced).

I thought being able to listen closely to the differences in all your clips and search for common respoce was a lot of fun for me. Thanks for posting your experiment .

If I hadn't seen the latest project page. I would have picked the Jack the Lad with a different top, but I doubt I would have thought of Mahogany (like I said I am not familiar).

Peace,Rich
Author:  Dave White [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rich,

I'm glad you liked listening to the soundclips on my website. "Mammy O' Mine" was recorded on Jack the Lad - this is the same size as the all mahogany Toby, but has a Euro Spruce top, sapele b/s and the top is ladder braced. If I get chance today I'll record the same thing on Toby and Jack the Lad and post the comparison.
Author:  K.O. [ Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Dave going by it's sound I expected it to weigh in closer to 3 lbs..
I am unsure as to if it is the players excellence or the freeing up of the upper bout of the top that leads me into thinking that is what I hear.
There is also the question "How much am I hearing what I want to hear?"

A few days ago I had a post all typed up but by the time (2 a.m. p.s.t.)I hit the post button the forum was down and my post was lost.

There are perceptions I hold and questions I would like to ask that require some care as to not appear pompous or critical so I am hesitant to do so. I fear not presenting them properly.

In the previous thread I made the statement,

listen to how the top responds to differing attacks, if it was spruce it would have to be way overbuilt.

that could easily be construed as criticism of the sound of this guitar. It is actually due to my perception that mahogany tops require patience in design philosophy and in the expectations of the player/owner.

I believe that to properly build a mahogany topped instrument it will have limited bass response for a while and that if it is built to have it right off the git go then it would be built to lightly.
I also believe they can take as much as a year or two for the bass response to develop. Another belief I hold is that they more than other guitars do not really come into their own until 5-20 years have passed.

Dave what I think I see is a guitar that is built in such a way that i will age into itself perfectly.

These statements really do seem a bit pompous but they are my perceptions and unless I put them out there to be challenged I will not learn much will I.

Dave is the top .125-.130 and even in thickness?

Do you think it would be possible to lighten the neck block and buttress anchors without compromising their structural integrity?

Why lime for the tail block?

I feel all mahogany construction and small bodied instruments have an special affinity?

Yes that means I thinks that D 15s are a mistake.

Do you feel comfortable discussing your thoughts on all mahogany construction and body size?(I would actually like to include cherry, walnut and koa)

Thanks in advance for your patience!

               with respect,
                          Kirby
Author:  Dave White [ Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kirby,

I've no problem discussing my thoughts on all mahogany construction and body size, but it is based only on two guitars - both small bodied, and both based on a killer 80-90 year old guitar but done X with bracing rather than the originals ladder bracing. I have made a Cuban mahogany topped Weissenborn-style guitar which sounds really nice too.

Firstly Candi specifically wanted an all mahogany small bodied guitar as the size is comfortable for her and she wants a guitar that will change and mellow with her as they both age together. Even when I am building spruce topped guitars, I am trying to build them for a sound potential that will be maturing one or two years down the track - as you say probably longer than this for mahogany tops. I probably build my tops thicker than most American (and probably European builders)as I believe that this helps set the trebles. I then thin out towards the edges and back of the lower bout area, but work with each individual piece of wood until it gives the flex and response that I think will work best - again I have only been making guitars for 5 years or so so this is the very first part of a very long learning curve. This top started at just over 2.5mm thick but is thinner in the upper bout and around the perimeter of the lower bout. I don't measure but go on the feel and response.

I also put bigger arches in my tops than most other makers, as I really think that this makes the tops "alive" and gives great volume and projection - I think of them as drum-heads and a sytem under tension that reacts when disturbed by the strings. It also helps the mids, but you can get a slightly "nasal" sound which dininishes as the guitars open up but I am still working on the bracing profiles to minimise this.

Part of this guitar's weight is in the neck, which is Cuban mahogany to match the body, has a deeper neck profile to suit Candi's playing style and has a 2-way truss rod installed. With the tuners the neck weighs just under 2lb.

As to your other questions:

Structurally you can certainly have a much smaller neck block with the butress brace/free flaoting neck system and builders like Rick Turner and Mike Doolin use much smaller ones than I do. As for the upper bout, it's not a case of having no bracing but having bracing that lets the whole of the top move to produce the sound that you are aiming for. I still use small A frame braces on either side of the soundhole re-enforcement that tie in to the neck-block, but this is for the soundhole area integrity. Also I have an upper transverse brace that arches the top area, as when this brace goes on the tap tone of the whole top becomes incredibly "alive". However this brace is shaped for the top's sound rather than structural integrity.

I like the stability/strength weight of lime and the fact that it can be carved/planed easily in any direction (it's the same family as basswood).

I have only worked with walnut and cherry as backs/sides and koa as a binding, but I have used maple (English Sycamore) as a top on a travel guitar and liked it. I suspect that a lot of woods would make "good" topwoods if you work with each piece of wood and know the strengths/limitations of the sound you are trying to shape - certainly I've seen Michael Payne say that his koa topped guitar is his favourite fingerstyle instrument. Heavier woods like the rosewoods would be a "challenge" though.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/