Official Luthiers Forum!

Rod, we build them in a domed dish and we graduate the tops.   Maybe we should call them round hole shallow arch tops...

I take a slightly different turn on the science and instruments debate.

For the last 30+ years I have spent my working life as a full time academic scientist, specifically as a Structural geologist/geophysicist. When I come home and go into my workshop the last thing I want to do is start thinking about the often wrongly applied science of the guitar. Torres and Heiber never knew about dear Mr Helmholz, and I personally don't want anything to do with him either. The feel of the wood in my hand is the test equipment for me. To me I want the creation of musical instruments to be art not science.

That said, the best steel string guitar I've ever played was the all polymer one produced by the guys at Loughborough University!

I've found something I agree with Rick about! I also like to graduate the tops on my 'flat-tops' as well, initially not to the degree that Rick does, mine start out usually in the 2.7mm centre to 2.4mm at the edge on assembly (Euro spruce). However, I always fit my bridge and do a rough set up before I finish the top and I then like to feather in the edges a bit more to get the final response I want, so the edge may well come down closer to 2mm.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I was a guitar player first, scientist second, and guitar builder much
later after that (and like Colin, I'm a Brother of the
Geosphere).  And I also very much enjoy lutherie for the pleasure
it gives the right side of my brain.  So, like Hesh, I build and
tap and listen and write nothing down...I just try to develop a feel
for what's working and what's not.



Scientifically, in principal you can certainly construct a working 3D
model of a guitar based on material properties etc that would allow you
to tweek any of the structural aspects and determine the resulting
acoustic changes.  And it would be great fun to play with. 
But there are two problems with this approach that make it unrealistic:



#1) The equations required to construct the model are too complex to
solve numerically unless you simplify them by dropping terms that may
(at first) appear unimportant....but may not be in practice.  And
like Al and Rick have said, it is virtually impossible to design an
experiment to isolate the effects of some of those seemingly
unimportant terms.



#2) The properties of the wood used in lutherie is sufficiently
variable that, for different instruments, different terms of these
complicated equations have more weight than they do for other
instruments.  So the model runs the risk of being irrelevant
across the whole spectrum of different wood species (maybe even for
wood examples from a single set of species).



This has already been tried with Strad violins, with unimpressive results.



I think Al's semi-empirical approach is the correct one...record enough
data for a bunch of instruments, and if a correlation emerges, you've
learned something.  This is why I need to start keeping a good
notebook....



...and also so that, when I get old and start forgetting stuff, I have something to jog the memory. 



Erik Hauri

Erik,
    I agree with your needing tostart keeping a log or notebook of things
you record during the build of a guitar.

    I've kept a detailed log of specific dimensions, weights and
fundamental resonant frequencies of parts of every guitar that i've built
under the Omega name....nearly 500.

   Being a system the create tone once they're assembled, I've always felt
that the parts will become the sum of the whole and their respective
characteristics will make notable contributions to that system.

   As we listen to guitars of idential dimensions buit from different woods,
we all hear abvious difference that prove this simple principle, but the
more subtle differences come from more than the choice of woods for the
top, back and sides. Bracing wood species makes a difference, but the
weight of each component and its fundamental resonance frequencies
also make contributions to the differences in guitars.

   I have a small shop log that a friend of mine had paid more money than
i would have thought possible for such a small book. It was hand written
by a violin building student almost 200 years ago and was claimed to be a
verbatim copy from the original shop notes of Andrea Amati who
celebrated having such noted students as Christofori, Guarneri and
Stradivari.

   In it are long list of dimensions and weights of wood peices to within a
fraction of a gram. Even diagrams of the the top and back plates with
specific graduations in thickness in different portions of them are roughly
jotted down on the pages. Having been written in Italian, he had it
translated to Eglish nd was kind enough to share about thirty or so pages
of the notebook's contents with me.

    I received it long after I had already established my habit of keeping
notes in more detail tha many folks would agree practical, but it was a
comfort to me that someone else, so long ago saw fot to keep similar
amounts of notes and similar detail.

   I don't think that there is a detail that can give insight into tone results
and the individual contributions of each component to the tone of the
guitar that isn't important enough to document. I takes a few seconds to
pick up the notebook and jot something down.

    I also agree with Hesh on the importance of developing an intuitive
approach and sensitivity to these kinds of things and that comes with
time and exposure to more instruments and their components as we
build, but our memories...at least most of our memories....aren't good
enough to recall what it was that made a difference on every guitar that
we've built, especilly when we get into the hundreds of instruments. It will
serve any builder well to have the reference of notes and actual
documentation on hand.

   I have file cab drawer dedicated to my stack of notebooks on each
guitar that i've built.

Just one of the quirly things that I've done for a long time,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Rick Turner wrote earlier, "To utterly reject the science is to reject one's
own learning of lutherie." and I feel that this the statement that would
sum up where the luthier should stand concerning science in his shop.

There will always be those who want to avoid the conscious application of
science to their building, but science is there regardless of our desire to
understand or apply it.

I have a close friend who recently secured his tenth patent in the pump
industry and is PAF on another four in the spray industry and metal
production industry....something to do with oxygen injection into cupolas
and other areas of metal foundry application. He has no idea of the
scientific principles and rules that are at work in his design and
development process, but he does recognize quickly, through simple
practical knowledge....and because of his close detailed documentation of
his past efforts, both successful and not....what will work as an
improvement ove hos last design or that of another person.

There's tons of scentifc principles and areas being touched on in his shop
every day and it's one of the more interesting and fascinating shops to
spend time in since he's got his hand in so many different areas and
industries. No notebooks, no computer, no blackboard on the wall to
write things down, but he'll tell you in a second which prototype it was
that exhibited any of a myriad of shortcomings and problems as he
developed each of his products or product improvements.

He's the epitome of the stereotypical "mad scientist", in the practical
sense and not the academic, and is still excited and passionate about
what he's doing.....and he's dealing with pumps and spray technology.
He's stumped many of the leaders in the fields that he's developed things
for and is working in close contact with people from 3M, Sata and others.

He's an inspiring guy to be around to say the least.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

One of the basic requirements in scientific research is that the system is described with mathematical formulas and then experimental measurements are taken to see how accurate the formulas are to the real system. All of this must be written down so that others can attempt to duplicate the results. Anything less is not real science.

I am not trying to knock others methods. In fact, I also like to take a predominantly non-scientific approach to my guitar building relying largely on tap tuning and feel.

People tend to talk about "science" as if all things scientific are totally objective and logic is the main ingredient but I think of the hypothesis as the most important ingredient of the scientific method and there is often nothing at all objective about it.  It could be argued that the biggest breakthroughs in science come from "aha!" moments that are often informed by the same kind of experienced intuition that we talk about in lutherie.

If I were taking pharmaceuticals, I would want to be confident that a brilliant hypothesis was followed up thoroughly with the rest of the scientific method.  As for guitars, a hypothesis that leads to a guitar I like is generally good enough.  It's not important that I can prove it or that others can repeat my results, only that I can!

I also think of it as similar to the hand tool vs. power tool debate.  If I hate power tools, I'm probably not going to build great guitars with them.  If I'm not excited about number crunching, I'm likely to build better guitars using a more intuitive approach.  And vice versa.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

This reminds me of the complexity of human beings and the seeming
infinite variability from person to person, yet we are ~99% the same! In
fact, genetically speaking, we are also very similar to apes! When
thinking of instruments, I try to keep that in mind.

Radically different, or better or worse, does not necessarily mean
*radically different*. The variability in every specie of wood, dimension
and placement can be changed very little and have overwhelming effects,
or none at all (ostensibly). Move a brace 1/16" and you may get a little
different sound, move the saddle 1/16" and it will change your world!
Intuition, it seems, more than science will direct those decisions. The
science kicks in when you write it down and decide to or not to do that
again.

I think the "science of luthiery" breaks down when one steps out of the
inductive process and begins to work deductively. Sure it can work, but
as in the case of the tube vs. transistor amps, it can also NOT work. What
one learns from data they trust can be used to guide their actions, but I
would personally hesitate to make too many predictive statements from
such data. If one does go for such predictions, the margin of error
should be pretty large. Of courese, as with the saddle example, some of
these things are more predictable than others.

Maybe what I'm getting at is that certain things (like scale length, saddle
placement, break angle etc.) will be pretty dialed in and somewhat
predictable when changes are made. But other things, (like TONE) simply
won't.

Science does not establish truth, it merely attempts to explain that which is already true. So a luthier's hands may know that this piece of spruce is stiffer cross grain than that piece, and therefor it is more appropriately used for this top vs. that one, and that is simply truth seeped into the hands. Deflection testing might also indicate that the stiffer top will be right for a particular design, too, but what you've done is basically to use the numbers to quantify what was already truth.   

Luthiers' and musicians' hands and ears have a big head start on the science.   Perhaps the science will never catch up, but perhaps also the science can help advance the state of the art and craft by quantifying some of the factors that go into guitar making.   I don't see any reason not to go for the help as long as it doesn't get in the way of the music.

Lots going on here!

I, too, am a 'thick top' guy. I often make steel string tops 3.5mm (.140") thick, or more, from the bridge on up, and taper them back to the tailblock. I've been thinning out my classical tops a bit more lately, but wasn't the '37 Hauser that Segovia so loved 3mm or so thick?

Barry Daniels wrote:
"One of the basic requirements in scientific research is that the system is described with mathematical formulas and then experimental measurements are taken to see how accurate the formulas are to the real system. All of this must be written down so that others can attempt to duplicate the results. Anything less is not real science."

Math and science are different things; that's why we have different words for them. As far as I can see, the two main criteria of good science are 'falsifiabilty' and 'repeatability'. Any theory that cannot be falsified by evidence is not a scientific one. Any experiment that can't be repeated (which calls for a certain level of record keeping) is suspect at best. Much of what passes as 'lutherie science' is not on a very strong footing by one or another of these criteria, if not both. But there's nothing in there about mathematics.

As far as I can see, it's often the stuff that gets simplified out in the physics books that matters most to us. In part that has to do with the fact that the designs of musical instruments are so highly developed: they are all so good by any objective measure that the differences between 'average' and 'great' ones are actually tiny. It's like race cars: even the losers are pretty darn fast, they just aren't fast enough to win the big races! Schelling measured the overall otuput of a bunch of violins, and the worst one, which he got at a junk shop for $15, put out only 5% less power than the best one, the Guarnari that Heifetz played. Obviously overall power isn't the main thing.....

Beside, the fact is that guitars are 'way too complicated to describe mathematically with any precision. We seem to be right on the ragged edge of chaos with these things, and deliberately so, as this makes them more 'interesting'. It sure makes them hard to analyse, though.

I, too, keep a file folder on every instrument I make. It is really handy to be able to go back and look at the records of the last several OMs you built as you start in on the next one. A lot of that data is in the form of numbers, of course, as they are a compcat way of recording things. But I have lots of charts; of spectra, for example, and mode shapes, to go with the data on weights and thicknesses and so on. It's all grist for the mill, and I often wish I had just _one more_ piece of data on a particular instrument. Anyway, I can't remember stuff that well, as anybody who has had to tell me their name four times in two days will attest.   

It is good that there is still a place for those people whos intelligence is all out in their fingertips. My older brother was 21 when he gradutaed High School. He's not very good at algebra and puts together about one complete English sentance a day. However, if he knows what a thing is supposed to do, or what it's supposed to look like, he can make you one. I often wonder which of us is 'smarter', and rather suspect it's him.

The bottom line is that there are at least as many ways to make a guitar good as there are people making good guitars. Some methods are a little easier to teach or record than others, and some rely on talents or training we don't all have. I bet there's at least one way that any given person can love, though. So, although we will probably 'discuss' the relative merits of out own ways forever, I think most of us will admit that somehow those other guys manage to do a decent job, even if their methods are hard to understand. What the heck; it works for them.

Well! This thread has gone way beyond my expectations! And, I’m happy to say that it has!

I have read every single post, and as I had hoped, it has been very enlightening, and encouraging.

I must apologize, I see now, that “The Science of Luthiery” was not the best choice of words.
“The Science in Luthiery” or, “The Science behind Luthiery” would have been more appropriate.
Quite honestly, I never meant to imply that Luthiery is based on science, or that the guitars you
build are a result of scientific application. Though, after reading the posts in this thread, to some
extent, that is true. Also, I got the impression, after reading many posts, in many other threads,
that you fine luthiers, seem to have such a deep understanding of how a guitar is built in relation
to how it will sound, that there appeared to be some sort of scientific approach to your designs.
And, once again, to some extent, that is also true.

At any rate, I’m sure I speak for many of those who have read but not posted in this thread, who,
like myself, appreciate all of you sharing with us, your experience, and knowledge of Luthiery.
Though, there are varying opinions to whether the use of scientific analysis in luthiery is necessary.
One very important point can be made from all of this.

There is no one method, whether based on scientific data, or through pure intuitiveness, and I’m
sure, other variables, that will produce a great sounding guitar!

I feel now, It would be fair to say, that the individuality of the luthier, and the hands on experience
of the luthier, are what’s mostly at work, when it comes to building of a wonderful sounding stringed instrument.

Also, perhaps it should be mentioned, that the relationship between builder and player are a factor
in building a custom guitar. When the player communicates to the luthier what he/she desires in
tonal qualities from the instrument to be built, and the luthier has an understanding, in such that,
the luthier can build the instrument so that these qualities are present in the completed instrument,

Well, that’s a real ART!

Thanks to all again,

Robert

_________________
Everything has beauty, But, not everyone see's it!

The builder/player thing has been especially important in my career; I've had perhaps more than my share of clients who trusted me to do something very different...very "next."   That is still going on for me now with a project of designing some new amplified nylon string guitars for Rodrigo y Gabriela each of whom have some very specific needs. Gabriela's will be a particular challenge because of the intense percussive work she does on the guitar top which needs to be handled separate from the string signal issues. I'm trying to figure out how to pick up several areas of the top equally without having too many pickups in the instrument.   I've got a pretty good handle on their current guitars and doing a dual source system, but now I get to design guitars from scratch to enhance their whole musical presentation. This is where it all gets really fun for me.

[QUOTE=Colin S] I take a slightly different turn on the science and instruments debate.

For the last 30+ years I have spent my working life as a full time academic scientist, specifically as a Structural geologist/geophysicist. When I come home and go into my workshop the last thing I want to do is start thinking about the often wrongly applied science of the guitar. Torres and Heiber never knew about dear Mr Helmholz, and I personally don't want anything to do with him either. The feel of the wood in my hand is the test equipment for me. To me I want the creation of musical instruments to be art not science.

Colin[/QUOTE]

I was pretty much going to say the same thing. Though I'm not an academic, I've worked for the past ten years or so in commercial research, much of it in electrochemistry, where the delightful Mr Helmholz also raises his ugly head.

The last thing I want to do is bring that guy home with me. I want the beer fridge stocked, either the footy or the cricket on the radio, and a semi completed 'guitar like object' on the workbench. They are only guitars after all.

They may only be guitars to you, but they are how I make my living, and I've raised four kids on the proceeds of guitar making, so anything that can help me make better guitars faster and for less money is supremely important to me.    If it's science, then so be it. I'm not running away from science any time soon.   Might want to run away from rosewood dust for a few weeks though...

[QUOTE=Rick Turner] Science does not establish truth, it merely attempts to explain that which is already true. [/QUOTE]

Great statement Rick!
I live and work in a science based community and truly wish more people here understood this. Many have it backwards.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Paul.
    Unfortunately, that Helmholz guy follows you home to your guitar
building bench....you just choose not to acknowledge his presence and i
understand your wanting to.

    I know they're only guitars, too, but I've raised my kids on them just
like Rick has and have put two of them thru college. I have a son leaving
in a few weeks for Life Chiropractic College in the Atlanta area and his
next three ad ahalf years are going to keep me busy.

   Granted, I did it first by building electric guitars and playing them
professionally through the kate 70s and the 80s, but the acoustic guitar
industry and the people in it have made for a much more relaxed and
enjoyable experience over the past fourteen years of full time building.

   They take on a whole new level of importance in your life when they
become more of a pursuit than a hobby.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to do that at all. It was a flippant remark that wasn't intended as a put-down, though I can see now that it could have come across that way. They're just guitars, but imagine a world without them

I have a huge amount of respect for the skills involved in making a living out of building instruments. But for me it's a way to relax and get the stresses of work out of my head. I don't expect to make any money out of it any time soon, if ever, as I simply haven't developed the building skills, but I'm having a lot of fun trying.

Perhaps Lance or Brock can change my status from Koa to Heretic

No Paul in a way you are right, they are just guitars.

They aren't the cure for cancer or a zero emission energy source, they are just musical instruments, and as such not even an end in themselves. Until they make music they are just expensive kindling.

No one will die if no more guitars are built, sure the world wouldn't be such a nice place for a small minority, and those that make their living from them would have to retrain for something else. But, all the guitar builders on the Earth aren't worth one Neuro-surgeon, or one bare-foot doctor.

It's all a matter of perspective, which we in the feather-bedded western world sometimes forget.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

[QUOTE=Colin S]
......... But, all the guitar builders on the Earth aren't worth one Neuro-surgeon, or one bare-foot doctor.........[/QUOTE]

Huh???????????    

[QUOTE=ToddStock] Colin:
What a perfectly silly notion - you must be running short of good mahogany...that will do it sometimes.

Todd

[/QUOTE]

Now that's a ridiculous and insulting thing to say even as a jest.

As I said, feather-bedded western world. In the greater scheme, 95% of the world would see guitars as just what they are, rich man's playthings.

If, like me, you'd spent 9 months in Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami then you'd realise that no, guitars aren't important, their just guitars. They may contribute to the happiness of a tiny minority, but contribute nothing to the misery of the rest, they are just unimportant 'things'.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Science can make a contribution toward understanding very complex systems. A couple of examples come to mind.

In the early 1700's naturalists spread out throughout the world documenting all the plants and animals that they found. Most of these were unknown in Europe. Samples were collected and drawings were made. They did this for over a hundred years. They published what they discovered and discussed their findings at the Royal Society. Questions came up like "Why are there so many different kinds of beetles in England?" (Thousands of beetles only four Beatles). It wasn't until Darwin came along that anybody made any sense out of it all. What Darwin came up with could be clearly explained to a 10 year old.

Similarly, geologists collected data from all over the world and tried to make sense of it for hundreds of years. I wasn't until the 1960's that enough data was collected that an obscure theory called continental drift moved from the fringe to become, perhaps, the underlying principle of geology.

My point is that complex system require the collection of a lot of data. That data may seem, at first, to be far too complex to be helpful. But all it takes is the right "Aha" moment or that one piece of extra data and things can become quite a bit clearer.

I think we are in the "naturalist" stage when it comes to science in lutherie. Data needs to be collected on more guitars. Different kinds of data needs to be collected. And, That data needs to be examined. From this data there may come a few underlying principles and maybe even the "Big Theory" that later luthiers will point to and say "That was obvious. Why did it take them so long to figure it out?"

I wish I could do it that way myself. I'm a terrible record keeper. I almost never write anything down. This is despite a conviction that that is the right thing to do. I have a folder for every instrument I've built and there is almost nothing in them. I always seem to remember to weigh my top after the braces are on or photograph the braces after the top and back are glued to the sides. For me, I have to use a more empirical approach and rely on feel and tap tuning. For those to take a more scientific approach, I applaud them and I wish I could do the same.

[QUOTE=Colin S]
.....
95% of the world would see guitars as just what they are, rich man's playthings.
........
snip
.......
contribute nothing to the misery of the rest, they are just unimportant 'things'.
.........

Colin
[/QUOTE]

Colin, I still don't understand your arguement.

Wouldn't you say a guitar and music often provide the greatest source of comfort happiness for many with little resources?