Official Luthiers Forum!

In my explorations across the web, I came across an unheard-of custom guitar company called Batson Guitars- interesting guitars, but I had a feeling they had something else up their sleeve regarding unusual structural design...

Truss Bracing- I have a screenshot of the page, because I can't link directly to it, being an irritating flash-based site, as you often have to wait for the pages to load, however fast the connection...



Homepage

Anyone who has come across this technique before, I would appreciate any comments and opinions on it. For now I am sticking with the tried and tested...

Very interesting find Sam.  I just checked out their site and I see some really nice craftsmanship/build quality and a very unique design.

It might be fun to invite them, through the "contact us" email address to come and tell us more?

I cove the sides of my "X" braces into modified "I" beams. In tests of sample pieces I got a 15% to 18% reduction in weight, yet only a 9% to 11% reduction in stiffness, so I think the improvement in stiffness to weight is in the 5% range for a real world brace.   

However, if you top a spruce or balsa brace with CF, you can get a tremendous improvement, but it's very difficult to go back and do any further voicing through the soundhole.   Smallman is known for just scrapping entire tops if his lattice doesn't work out to his liking. I prefer to have something I can work on after a guitar is essentially done.

The Batson thing looks pretty cool...

[QUOTE=ToddStock] Strength is not the issue - stiffness is. [/QUOTE]
Todd,
I think I've seen you post this before.
Why do you make this distinction?
How do you think it is helpful?
Thanks.

_________________
"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." G. K. Chesterton.

Todd is right. If you think of it , the shape influences the stiffness. What you want to do is find a shape that is able to create stiffness with the most efficient shape. This is economy of engineering.
   Wood under tension can take more load than wood under compression. On a top we have rotational , compressive and tensional loads. When I brace a top my braces are shaped differently in the different areas to address each load I am trying to control.
   Experiment with shapes and sizes and you will soon see what can effect your braces in the most positive manner.
john hall
blues creek guitars

[QUOTE=ToddStock] The wishbone truss is not a particularly efficient structural choice...[/QUOTE]

Would there be twisting issues over time, with perhaps the two peices of bracewood wanting to "go in different directions" with regards to humidity or lack of?

I can imagine this structure would work with, say carbon fibre braces with the quartersawn wooden trusses , but it would be interesting to see how this competes with the more conventional method.

Sounds like you won't get to test it if the system is patent pending.

_________________
Ken Franklin
clumsy yet persistent
https://www.kenfranklinukulele.com

Some of the Batson guitars appear to be flattop-archtops (an oxymoron, I know, but flattop construction with an archtop-like bridge.)

However, others are using a "Tunnel Bridge" (that I thought I "invented"), along with a tailpiece. After creating my Angelina guitar with the tailpiece built-in to the butt (and all the hassles of doing it), my next designs all have tailpieces and a tunnel bridge. So, of course, I think Batson is brilliant, forward thinking, thrifty, reverent, and kind... I predict their next move will be to move the string exit holes on the back of the bridge higher, as close to hitting the "stress-free" zone of the Steinberger/Grimes patent as they dare, to reduce the bridge torque force.

In my opinion, the great promise of a system involving a tunnel bridge and a tailpiece (OK, let's include suspended bracing or some sort of a truss arrangement to allow the shear force of the strings back at the tailpiece to resolve back to the neck), the great promise is in having a blank slate to design sonic bracing patterns without regard to structural constraints. Although that sonic bracing could be an X-brace sculpted to the luthier's wildest imagination, in my opinion, the likelihood that any *ideal* form of sonic bracing would resemble a variant of Martin's X-brace is very remote.

Thanks for posting this, Sam.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Dennis, I think it's a mistake to think that guitars without tension on the bridge and rotational force on the tops can be made to sound like conventional guitars. There's no such thing as a blank slate when the ears of millions of guitar players have been trained by guitars which have the string terminating at the bridge.

Also, I talked to Steve Grimes about that whole thing, and he isn't knocked out enough by it to keep building them. Jeff Babicz is now the guy promoting that whole thing, and with his thing, I've seen a lot more ads than guitars, if you know what I mean.

Wrist slashing suicide machines...

But I think they're really harp guitars in disguise.

Rick, I have played Martin Brunkalla's guitars that have zero braces, zero rotational forces in the top, accomplished via a tailpiece and a bridge that weaves the strings in-and out at the same height, and CF rods running head block t tail block. The guitars work, and they sound -very- conventional, which is as much a disappointment as anything I can think of. All that cool engineering and quite the accomplishment, yet, not a whole lot changed and in my opinion, nothing gained at all, except for being different.

And that is the danger, I think, in going too far overboard with the theoretical, too deep into over-engineering, etc. A great deal of my own work on a lot of this comes out of my years (many) as a repairman seeing what does go wrong with guitars that have had decades and decades of string tension on them.   I'm keenly interested in the engineering aspects, but it's in reaction to seeing failures. I am trying to tease apart structural and tonal components to a certain degree, but there are things about how guitars work...how guitar tops work...that simply are how they are, and there's not a whole lot wrong with them when you get out of your intellect and simply play the things. I am trying to get a lot of forward projection from my current series of guitars, and I am seeking long sustain of the harmonics. It's not a radically different sound, just a bit more of what I like, and I'm getting it.

One thing about the way I build is that experimentation with tops will be very easy when I have the time (and financial freedom) to go that way. I could put a new top on every day with the same body and neck setup, and I could even brace, do a finish, and pre-glue the bridges on a whole series of tops, and then glue them on, test, cut them off, and glue another on.   No binding, of course! In fact, that could be a terrific guitar making class project...or OLF project. Have a bunch of people make tops, and test one a day on the same box/neck. Or I suppose it could be speeded up using CA glue...

Of course this wouldn't allow any opening up period, but it could be interesting.

I believe these Batson folks live just a few miles from me, here in Nashville.I`ve been tempted to check out their guitars.Maybe now I`m going to have to do just that and report back to all you forumers as to how these guitars sound.
                               James

_________________
James W Bolan
Nashville Tennessee

Rick and grumpy (Mario),

I have only built one guitar, though I have spent countless hours pondering, sketching, and pondering some more.

I'll admit that I was surprised that my Angelina guitar sounded more similar than dissimilar to a typical Martin style guitar. Again, that leads me to the conclusion that the volume and shape of the box are most important in capturing/creating the timbre that with our eyes closed is "guitar-like." However, my guitar does have sustain, clarity and power in the bass to mid bass that is better than a lot of guitars I have played.

Before I say anything else, I want to stand up and be counted as someone who does not believe in the myth of the perfect guitar. Why should there be a perfect guitar? You don't see golfers buying that one weird club with the movable clubhead to play golf. They derive pleasure in driving with a driver, selecting just the right loft to move the ball down the fairway or wherever else it landed, and putting with a putter. Further, some love Ping; some love Callaway... And that analogy makes sense to me for guitarists as well, especially professional musicians who can afford several instruments. So, why make Martin clones? Doesn't Martin make pretty good Martins?

Mario, I would challenge the notion of "nothing gained at all" if that guitar is not in the process of folding up and will not ever need a neck reset. That in itself is an accomplishment. I know that an adjustable neck can lay claim to the same thing, but isn't it true that this is still at the expense of a distorted top and/or the inability to optimize bracing? Other gains may be more subtle, and certainly the myriad soundboard bracing schemes, bridge engineering options, and other refinements not yet tried may well produce results even more obvious.

To be perfectly honest, how many different bracing patterns and bridge refinements have been used so far on these guitars (with tunnel bridge + tailpiece + suspended bracing)? I think there is a lot of area yet to explore, and I don't think that is true for refinements to the Martin style X-brace, with strings that stop at the bridge.

If nothing else, luthiers building hand-built instruments should take a look around at their fellow luthiers, and realize there are quite a few luthiers building superb instruments in the Martin tradition. An engineering style that differs from that might just have a chance in the market, and the subtle difference in sound may very well be "the perfect guitar" for a percentage of the buying public.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Thanks guys, this is a great discussion.

Dennis, I would urge you to spend less time pondering and more time making sawdust...and guitars.   I think that most of the old-fart luthiers here would say that you start coming into your own at about 30 guitars, no matter what your theories are. You've got to develop the chops to pull off your theories. That means you have to learn to build really playable instruments...neck shape, fret work, all that stuff that has nothing to do with your concepts of engineering or tone. You also have to learn to build quickly...all this talk and writing about tunneled bridge and tailpieces and suspended braces will remain just talk until you build it and play it.   

The other thing is that if you're going to build "experimental" guitars, use good wood but make them simple so you don't waste a ton of time on decorative aspects only to find that the underlying instrument just doesn't work as you'd hoped. And then, don't trust your own ears; have good players audition the instruments and critique them.

Kasha is a perfect example of someone who got all up in his head and thought he'd developed the perfect guitar and then he handed it to Segovia who handed it right back. Kasha then spent most of a night with his hand inside that guitar shaving down braces. Segovia still didn't give up his Hauser nor his Ramirez.   So much for theory...

Ya can't just talk about them...Ya gotta build 'em...

Two friends were given Batsons. One is a well-known recording artist in
the Christian industry, Shane Barnard, and never liked it. It stays in his
Dallas studio. The other was an independent musician touring around
and never really liked his either. This was five years ago or so. I'm not
sure why there weren't big fans of the guitars. I never played them.

       I would say that after 10 guitars you start to understand you havn't a clue , after 50 you start to learn. There is not a perfect guitar out there that will make everyone happy.
       I am of the school that the facts are you need to be able to take and control the load yet convert the energy to sound as efficiently as possible. Body shape is slight in this quest. Control of mass and using the physical properties and material will make the most of your effort.
      john hall

[QUOTE=Rick Turner] Dennis, I would urge you to spend less time pondering and more time making sawdust...and guitars.   I think that most of the old-fart luthiers here would say that you start coming into your own at about 30 guitars, no matter what your theories are.

...

Ya can't just talk about them...Ya gotta build 'em...[/QUOTE]
Rick, I agree.

My gut tells me that it takes more experience to get a Martin clone to sound special than what I did. I think my engineering concepts offer a bigger "sweet spot."

I also agree that the luthier cannot be the (main or final) judge of the instrument quality or playability of their own instruments. I did put my guitar into the hands of every player and luthier that I could, and invited brutally honest critique. I'll continue to do that with every instrument I build.

The main reason I'm championing this concept (and exposed every detail in a thread on the Luthierforum) is selfish, but not egotistical. I'm not looking for a pat on the back (nor will I ever be a pro luthier.) I am hoping that some other luthiers will give it a shot too, and will be open with their findings. That way I might learn more, faster.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

I wouldn't want to be the sound engineer in charge of trying to mic one of these in the studio.

Dennis, I think many, if not most of us have years worth of our own ideas to get built, and we're not looking to others for new designs. That means if you champion it, you've got to build it unless you can afford to pay someone else to.

Will does his thing well

http://www.spacewaystudios.com/clients.php

[QUOTE=tippie53]        I would say that after 10 guitars you start to understand you havn't a clue
      john hall [/QUOTE]

John - no joke! I'm on classical #5 right now, and I still think they sound like OM's rather than that really dry (in my interpretation) Spanish sound.

Regarding Rick's earlier comment on whether or not an instrument that is not loaded and torqued at the bridge like a regular guitar would sound like a guitar. One of my projects that has been interrupted by real requests for real classical guitars is an Irish bouzouki that I have about 1/2 built, following a combination of the two designs in Graham MacDonald's book - I'm building a flat top with a conventional neck block. I've been wondering whether his pinned bridge bouzoukis sound like bouzoukis, or do they sound like guitars? Anyone know the answer??

Jim

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

Jim;
I have built three teardrop, flat top bouzoukis based on the work in Graham's book. They definitely do not sound like guitars. They are loud without being harsh. No dead spots, huge bass response... All the good stuff! But they still have that distinct (kind of "nasal") bouzouki sound. The flat tops seem to have a lot more sustain than the arch topped zooks I've heard.

John... You are SO right. I have just started # 20 & I know a whole lot less now, than I did after completing my first!

Sorry for hijacking your thread, Sam!

Daniel -

Cool! Onward and upwards! I really like zooks. (hopefully I'll have some time to work on it in a few months )

Jim

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu