Q For Freeman and the other builders

[Kap'n]

I was just spending a bit of time thinking about the way factory guitars are built vs. luthier-built instruments.

 

A luthier-built instrument is individually voiced and braced going on the sound and the characteristics of the wood. Stiffer top and brace wood allowing for lighter bracing, more nice vibration.

 

Whereas a factory-built guitar has little individual voicing, and the bracing is 'dumbed down' to allow for larger production with fewer failures.

 

Does it stand to reason that a better sounding factory instrument, like a D-18, D-28, etc. actually has substandard/weaker wood in it, because then the overbracing is actually appropriate for the instrument?

[bjorn-fjord]

The main difference between good hand-made guitars and good factory-made guitars is consistency. The luthier is able to give focussed attention to each instrument and can therefore account for the differences in individual pieces of wood and adjust his methods accordingly. This degree of attention is just not possible in a factory setting.
That said, a factory guitar can be every bit as good as a hand-made guitar. It just won't happen as often. There will be more variation in the quality of factory guitars than good handmade guitars.

I do not consider any Martin guitars to be "over-braced".

[Kap'n]

I do not consider any Martin guitars to be "over-braced".

 

 

Bjorn, are you talking -18's and higher, or all Martins?

[bjorn-fjord]

Bjorn, are you talking -18's and higher, or all Martins?

I'm talking all Martins. When I think of overbraced guitars I think of cheaper factory instruments, mostly built in the 80's and 90's. I think the main problem inhibiting sound in current models is too thick a finish.

In another thread I talked about how I think that many factory guitars are too lightly braced these days. Guitars are funny little critters. If they sound too good too early, it foreshadows a short life-expectancy. Many people think pre-war Martins sound good because they were so lightly built (or because of the Adirondack/Brazilian combination) but the real reason they sound so good is because they are old. I wasn't there but I'm willing to bet they didn't sound like that when they were new.

In my opinion, a great guitar should sound a little on the sweet side when its brand-new. As it ages (even in the first year, if you play it a lot) it will open up and the bottom end will develop. And it will be a much richer bottom end than is found in new very lightly braced guitars. I find guitars that are built too light to have a kind of "thumpy" bass.

These are just my opinions of course. Many people want their guitar to sound the best it will ever sound right out of the gate. I like the idea of a guitar improving as it is played. I have no quantifiable way to prove this but I believe that a guitar that improves as it is played will actually respond to the way it is played and will develop a personality based on the way the person who owns it plays. It's a bit of a romantic notion but I'm a big sap when it comes to strings and wood.

[Freeman Keller]

I think Bjorn has done a good job expressing the little I know about this too, but I'll try to summarize my thoughts

1 - my understanding of guitar bracing is that the X braces are primarily structural - the strings are trying to twist the top about an axis thru the bridge (pulling the lower bout up and pushing the upper down). The other braces - the popsicle, little ones next to the sound hole, and the big transverse brace across the upper bout are also structural and a builder may select the size and shape to go along with the thickness and grain of the top plate. As I read Roger Siminoff's book on voicing the top, he argues that the function of the two tone bars is to tune the top plate - this is where the whole idea of "tap tuning" comes in. Roger then talks about production guitar building - how do you extrapolate what you do to an idividual top and apply it to mass produced guitar?

2 - I believe Bjorn is right about modern production guitars not being overbuilt (like they were in the 70's). Martin still hand scallops braces and tone bars on their guitars, but they are aiming for a shape that they know works - not individually tapping and shaving each brace. I own a Martin from the 70's which was aftermarket hot rodded (scalloped, bridgeplate replace) and I can say it made a huge difference in the old git. It was definitely overbuilt - now it is much more like one being built today.

3 - When I built my 000 I tried to voice the top and back - it really isn't all that easy. What I ended up with is a pretty severly scalloped bracing, and the thing is darn responsive. Will it last? I don't know, but it blows the socks off my Taylor. When I built my 12 string I kept the chisels as far from the braces as I could - that puppy is under enough stress without my compromizing it any more.

4 - I think there is far less variation in the woods used for modern flattop guitars than something like a mandolin or an archtop or a violin. Returning to Mr Siminoff's studies of the old Loar mandos, each part of the instrument is carved to resonate to a different note (so they don't all resonate together) - Loar did it by ear while I had to use a strobe tuner. I contend this is why modern quality mandos (Gibbies, Collings, etc) can cost in the five figures - there is a heck of a lot of hand work and skill in making them.

5 - I hadn't really thought about the fact that so many new guitars really do sound so good until Bjorn suggested that they were underbuilt purposely, but it makes sense. Will they last 30 or so years? Probably not. Unfortunately we do live in a throwaway world and I doubt if anyone will be handing their Blueridge down to their grand kids.

I'm sorry, I seem to be kind of rambling. Back to the original question, I think that Martin has been returning to the type of bracing that was used during their Golden Era, within the constraints of available woods, and making some pretty darn good sounding guitars. I think that a luthier is able to take that one step farther, and to work with each piece of wood to extract the best it can offer.