Guitar Build Science

[Idunno]

I think we should discuss this at length just to separate the facts from the notions and then work up a good build idea from what we've decided.

 

Wait....are there any facts?

 

Synergy of the whole of a guitar aside, let's extrapolate for the sake of science then and move forward to the build.

 

The parts and stuff we've read on these forums are itemized below along with the aspects of rendering quality of sound and other extraneous influences on that same sound.

 

Tops - Material species, saw methods, mill thicknesses (varying over the top, selectively), flexibilities (stiffness), densities (mass), area in square inches, grain qualities and inclusions (so-called figuring). (We'll leave out coloring for now but keep it in mind for when the science reveals is has an impact on tone).

 

Sides - Same as for Tops.

 

Backs - Same as for Tops.

 

Bracing - Same as for Tops.

 

Necks - Sames as for Tops.

 

Fretboards - Same as for Tops.

 

Tuners, Pick Guards, Strap Pegs, Bridge Pins, Rosettes, Back Center Strip, Bindings, Inlays, Cuts, Finishes, Fret Wire, Bridge, Nut, Saddle and Electronics - To Be Determined.

 

There, I think that's pretty much all inclusive to start the discussion off properly.

 

Now, we can start an intellectually-assumed discussion starting with Tops or,

 

We can pre-empt this discussion and talk about our best Bazooka Joe moments, which I consider on a par with the above intellectually speaking, but they can be concurrent with this discussion as an option.

 

Sorry for the slight of read -

 

I just came from another forum where this stuff actually engages people to the (illogical) point of discussing it at length only to finish such discussion with the "fruits" of having discussed it at length. I can't help but feel in the pit of my stomach a sense of emptiness for such a gathering of minds.

 

The facts of guitars and their sonic properties are real, myriad and ultimately and paradoxically intangible as a combined state in final form (synergy), and inescapably lost to theory. That's right folks, acoustic guitars are theories where discussions are many and often heated in attempts to create or derive facts. Think of a baked cake full of ingredients and then a serious discussion to scientifically extrapolate facts supporting its weight, taste, density, elasticity, resonance (after-taste), and etc, etc. Make sense about making no sense whatesoever now?

[Freeman Keller]

While you discuss that I'll be out in the shop making a guitar.

[Freeman Keller]

I can't let this pass without telling three little ancedotes.

 

I've been building guitars for nine years now. For my first I was simply trying to get all the pieces to stick together, the neck angle reasonably correct, finish not too bad. It turned out pretty good and has been my daily player for all those years. Lots of people have said some very nice things about the way it sounds - beginners luck I guess.

 

For my second and third I read every bit of guitar science I could (I'm an engineer, I pretended I understood that stuff). I went to seminars by Siminoff and Greven and Bourgois, bought a fancy strobe tuner and some FFT software, did all the "tap tuning" and "voicing" mumbo jumbo. Those guitars sound OK, the first one is better.

 

Somewhere along the way I built two identical weissenborns - same wood, shape, yadda yadda, except that one was braced in the traditional '30's style, the other more modern. The modern one sounds pretty good, the traditional one sounds great.

 

My last acoustic was a little all mahogany 00 sized guitar built like the cheap depression era Gibsons and Martins. Traditional bracing and materials - nothing special. Last summer at the GAL conference I submitted that guitar for the Acoustic Listening session - basically 35 different guitars played sequentially by the same person. The builder then stood up and described the construction, materials - remember we are talking about luthiers talking to luthiers - there is a lot of show here. The guitar before mine was one of these fancy modern things with holes in the sides and frets that didn't line up and bracing that I can't pronounce. After Mark Swanson played mine I stood up and said "my guitar is the antithesis of the one you just heard - cheap, simple, built in the old ways". The woman who was sitting next to me whispered "I like yours the best".

 

Now I'm going to go to the shop...

[garthman]

. . . . .

 

I just came from another forum where this stuff actually engages people to the (illogical) point of discussing it at length only to finish such discussion with the "fruits" of having discussed it at length. I can't help but feel in the pit of my stomach a sense of emptiness for such a gathering of minds. . . .

 

I've left that forum forever. I was taken to task for disagreeing with the owner which makes him a cheap little despot. Enough.

[Idunno]

And that's what I'm talking about, Freeman. When I can't fathom it or pronounce it I promote Yamahas.

[Idunno]

Well, you're right about that but me thinks the person in charge over there now is Little Toby Walker gauging by the freedom he has to shill his products and endorse other people's. The site has become a mega-billboard for him.

 

It's alright, though. I put that much on ignore and tread the music side of it mostly. Some of those cats are pretty good. Otherwise, it's the same old tripe I read to practice my eye-rolling technique by.

[Freeman Keller]

http://www.goreguitars.com.au/attachments/POMA_paper.pdf

 

 

 

[Idunno]

Beer Brewing Science.

 

I think we should discuss this at length just to separate the facts from the notions and then work up a good brewing idea from what we've decided.

 

Wait....are there any facts?

 

Synergy of the whole of a beer aside, let's extrapolate for the sake of science then and move forward to the brew.

 

The components and stuff we've read on from sources are itemized below along with the aspects of rendering quality and other extraneous influences on that same quality.

 

Grain - Material species, harvesting methods, climate of growth (varying seasonally, selectively), moisture content (wetness), densities (concentration), amount, impurities. (We'll leave out coloring for now but keep it in mind for when the science reveals is has an impact on the final product).

 

Yeast - Same as for grain.

 

hops - Same as for grain.

 

water - Same as for grain.

 

Methods - To Be Determined.

 

Amounts of each of the above - To Be Determined.

 

 

There, I think that's pretty much all inclusive to start the discussion off properly.

 

Now, we can start an intellectually-assumed discussion starting with Grain or,

 

We can pre-empt this discussion and talk about our best Bazooka Joe moments, which I consider on a par with the above intellectually speaking, but they can be concurrent with this discussion as an option.

 

Sorry for the slight of read -

 

I just came from another forum where this stuff actually engages people to the (illogical) point of discussing it at length only to finish such discussion with the "fruits" of having discussed it at length. I can't help but feel in the pit of my stomach a sense of emptiness for such a gathering of minds.

 

The facts of beers and their qualities are real, myriad and ultimately and paradoxically intangible as a combined state in final form (synergy), and inescapably lost to theory. That's right folks, beer and brewing are theories where discussions are many and often heated in attempts to create or derive facts. Think of a baked cake full of ingredients and then a serious discussion to scientifically extrapolate facts supporting its weight, taste, density, elasticity, resonance (after-taste), and etc, etc. Make sense about making no sense whatesoever now?

 

TwoF, I couldn't'a said it better myself.

[Idunno]

http://www.goreguitars.com.au/attachments/POMA_paper.pdf