Are build threads of any practical interest?

[PTChristopher]

Hiya Gents,

I managed to not make a total mess of my over-committed 2011, and now have some scheduled goof-off time.

I just started a small (14 1/2") spruce-topped archie.

It will be a slow part-time fun (for me anyway) project.

Do you think some rough pics and random comments would of some interest in general?

If so, I can blather a little about the design and build, then we'll see how it all ends up sounding.

It might just be too slow and of limited general interest though,...

Chris

(I was here before as NiAg, but have either goofed up the account or can not get a password reset right.)

[mr. beaumont]

We don't have too many lutheirs aboard...I think it'd be a cool new edition--I'll watch!

[SamBooka]

NiAg is back? I think that alone is worth some applause...

[TruthHertz]

Hey, yeah start it up. I'll follow. I've built archtops, worked with a partner and showed at the Montreal show. We've worked with alternative sizes, arching patterns and alternative woods. I don't do it much now 'cause my time's limited but I'm launching a new line up of guitars in 2012. Post it, and try some of the other forums too, there are a few my partner posts on with tons of advice and debate. Congrats on a new enterprise!
David

I have a 15in 7 string, SO comfortable. Used a low arching pattern with a close grain spruce top. I'm going to do another that size with a mahogany neck, warmer sound. I spent a lot of time making it just right and took it to Philly on the megabus. Somebody tossed a 2 ton suitcase on top of it and the top and back both matchsticked. Funny thing, after having repaired so many just as bad or worse, I just resigned myself to the fact that my handbuild project just became a 2 month restoration project. In the end, I'm playing it and not noticing a thing. I'll still seriously injure the owner of that suitcase though.

[Dookychase]

PT, please do so. I'd also like to encourage other luthiers to do this also. I think it would be alot of fun to watch, and also very informative.

[jcayer]

Chris,

To build a guitar has always seem interesting to me but I don't have the patience to accomplish such an artwork, so I'm very interested in seeing the building steps and (of course) to ear the results afterwards

[PTChristopher]

[T'Hertz] >>> tons of advice and debate. Congrats on a new enterprise!

Well, not an enterprise. A fun experiment that I plan to just keep.

The simple reality is that I can design and build a custom interior of some sort for easily 4X the income vs. building a guitar.

I first built four guitars as a kid in the summer of 1978 (or something like that). They all sold quickly enough, but the modest net hourly income was eye-opening. But then I got seriously into repairs the next year and the overall income was really pretty good.

Anyway, on to the build:

A couple, of years ago I tried a Collings City Limits Jazz and was really surprised. The body is emptied out solid mahogany with a carved, x-braced (as I recall) spruce top.

Remarkable sound. More balanced acoustic tone than you might expect, and fantastic through an amp. It costs more than my first several cars combined, but it is a unique and superbly executed design in my opinion.

So I figured I'd try something along those lines - but far less bejeweled. In my opinion the CL Jazz is a little too tarted up - but that is just an opinion on appearance.

Mine will be a little too bland probably - sort of an over reaction to bling.

[T'Hertz] >>> tons of advice and debate

Definitely do lay on opinions, criticism, any "I told you so." views, and of course second-guesses and offers like "Here's how I would do it."

One thing is for sure, there are some remarkably different ways to get to the same good result and alternative views will keep the thread from getting too dull.

So the specs:

14 1/2" lower bout (unless I slip with a tool, then 14 1/4")

Solid Honduran Ma-Hog' body - routed out to a 3/8 to 1/2" outer perimeter and maybe a 1/4" or thinner back. I'll see how the wood feels and rout as seems right at the time. Sitka carved top - X braced (probably X, but this may change depending on how the top wood behaves) Moderate arch - a touch under 3/4". And some sort of f-holes.

25" scale, 1 3/4" nut, very slightly chunky C neck (mahog'), 10" radius FB (kinda tight, to accommodate my lumpy index finger in barre situations)

Benedetto S6 PU most likely.

I'll take a pic of the drawing (such as it is) and some wood in rough shape.

[PTChristopher]

And pics:

The side view of the arch looks weird because the paper is badly wrinkled.

The Spruce is very wide/loose grained, so this will not be a "Oooh-Ahhh" looking top. On the other hand, sitka can sound just great even when it is less than the aesthetic tight-grained "ideal" - in my opinion.

Also, I had this spruce laying around doing nothing - which was a big part of including it,...

The neck mahogany is very light stuff. I am trying to sneak in as much resonance as I can in this small guitar - so a mahogany neck, and a light one at that.

The dual action truss rod is not really there for two-way use. I just like that you do not need to anchor the bottom end, or weaken the nut end of the neck with room for a nut and washer. So the install is idiot's delight with a basic two passes on the table saw.

Schertler tuners. I like the look, the light-ish weight (resonance is the goal), and the black color.

I need tiny headstock ears where the E-string tuners will go so most of the ears will be cut away.

Step 1 on guitar wood looks really ugly. With any luck the pieces will look better as the work progresses. I'm using Titebond 3 glue. I'll also use Titebond for the neck joint. I do not see ever doing a re-set on something like this - so arguably there is no reason to use hide glue for the neck joint. Famous last words,...

Oh, I have no neck mount shown in the drawing. I am thinking to go with a Les Paul style tenon - sort of the so-called transitional tenon. Or more specifically, a flat bottomed tenon that is the full neck width on the bass side and is set in on the treble side. I'll go with a ~3" tenon, so the last 3+ frets on the FB will be floating above the top.

Progress will be slow, but I'll post when anything possibly interesting comes up.

[PTChristopher]

The top shows some grain runout - you can sort of see it up where the neck will go.

But I do not see this as a big deal, particularly on an archtop, where the grain is running out all over the place anyway.

Oh, and I cheated and got the FB slotted from LMI. They do it cheaply, and very accurately. Also, I still have the emotional scars from when I used to draw the slots by hand on graph paper, glue this to the FB and slot by hand. This somehow seemed reasonable during the Carter administration,...

Anyway LMI charges $9.00 to slot a fingerboard - that is dirt cheap vs. doing them myself.

Interestingly, the LMI slot method includes something I used to do by hand anyway. They cut a "zero" slot. By my measurement, the CENTER of the zero slot would be where the front of a nut is typically placed (at the calculated end of the scale).

So if you cut the FB off by removing the whole zero slot, then the nut ends up slightly forward of the calculated end of the scale.

It is a long dull story as to why, but in my opinion/experience sneaking the nut forward slightly results in better intonation in the low fret positions. So a nice feature from LMI. I'll call to check if this is intentional on their part,...

LMI closed a few minutes ago. I vaguely remember something on their site about the zero fret slot, but there is no mention of the relative position this puts a nut in. I'll follow up on this. It may be a little too detailed for this thread, but it is sort of interesting. In any case, I am not complaining about the zero slot - it helps position the eventual nut for better intonation down low.

[TruthHertz]

Pre cut fingerboards are so nice, you using a medium fretwire? I have a V joint on several of my guitars. A lot of trouble but really handy, good distribution of the force and one time my guitar fell over, clean break, no grain break, not even a chip. I was on the road. A makeshift elastic jig and the headstock was back on the next day.

Zero fret height is a little low for a lot of people, it's a pretty critical clearance and when the neck warps, bows or the action changes seasonally, I like to have enough space for forgiveness, 'til I can set it up anyway.
Have you heard of the synthetic fingerboards? I never would have considered it in the past but the diminishing quantities of stable quality ebony, the Lacy act and bad experiences with twisting curing ebony have me thinking... I'll let you know what I ever decide myself.
Nice design. I can't wait to see it!
David

[PTChristopher]

>>>you using a medium fretwire?

I tend to like tall frets for my own use, but I'll decide on the fretwire later.

>>>I have a V joint on several of my guitars. A lot of trouble but really handy,

>>>the headstock was back on the next day.

Nice. Gotta love the guerilla repairs under un-ideal conditions.

>>>Zero fret height is a little low for a lot of people,

I have no idea if LMI mean for zero frets to ever be used. The position of the slot is right for a fret, but surely most end up with good ol' nuts. I have a [water]buffalo horn nut blank that may go well with my black hardware look. Now I need a black turtleneck shirt and maybe some Bono glasses.

I have never used horn for a nut, so it may be a disappointment. But I'll try the horn material for fun.

I am 53, so just old enough to have caught the tail end of ivory being available for nuts in the late 70's. Ivory was great, but if I had any real understanding of ivory trade back then, I'd have been happy to move to bone anyway.

>>>Have you heard of the synthetic fingerboards?

I did warranty work for Kramer Guitars. Aluminum necks with ugly wood inserts (and lots of gloppy epoxy) on the backs of the necks and black phenolic (as I recall, anyway) fingerboards.

The FB material felt just fine actually. Maybe a little odd and super-smooth if you thought about it too much, but fine if you just played.

[calgarc]

i generally post on luthiers forum for that stuff, but its always good to share

i do some luthiery/modding at times too

[Meggy]

Awful to hear about the idiot with the suitcase and damage to your lovely guitar! But I love threads like this, should be a great guitar, and please keep it coming!

[cosmic gumbo]

Talking about suitcases, my neighbor Floyd is a guitar builder also, but he's no lutheran, he's a baptist.

[PTChristopher]

I spoke with LMI on the phone and indeed they cut the "zero" slot of a fingerboard so that the .023" slot is centered on the end of the scale length.

Sooooooo,...

When you cut the FB to remove the entire zero slot, and but a nut up against the cut, the nut face is then .0115 forward of the calculated zero position.

This is not an accident, and it has intonation benefits for several reasons [probably beyond the scope of this thread].

So thanks LMI.

[David/TruthHertz]>>> I have a V joint on several of my guitars.

I like the concept of the V-joint, but I have never done one. I guess it is a little faceted looking in the way that it is most commonly done.

Of course I'll probably put a nearly-useless volute on this new guitar. Hard to defend any good reason for doing it.

I used to scarf on a 1/2" headstock with a contrasting veneer between the headstock and the neck. It looked really nice after carving and I never had a headstock break off.

But these days a scarf joint is more associated with a low cost MIK guitar, so I guess they are frowned upon - even though the oft-used MIK scarf joint is farther up the neck (and works just fine).

[PTChristopher]

Small update:

Got the top in basic shape today before the super cold tomorrow (Massachusetts) makes the shop area a little chilly.

Partially integrated X-bracing. Looks rough now, but the bracing (and backside in general) will get considerable carving and cleanup still.

But this since I am also the customer, I feel no need to get super clean in areas that will be buried and invisible - so I plan to leave a glue lump or two in there just because I can.

The top got surprisingly lively at about 5mm around the reflex area of the perimeter- so I may leave it around that overall thickness even though I had planned to go a thinner.

The bracing will get carved, but will stay fairly deep. I want this to be a gig-bag luggable battleaxe vs. a delicate flower.

The spruce is a little uglier than I wish, and the grain is really wide in places (most places really), but the tap sound is great for such a small, and somewhat, thick top - so I'm juiced to keep this going.

Maybe a tobacco-ish burst instead of natural?

Chris

[Meggy]

Interesting to see how you have done the top bracing - a tough, road-worthy carved archtop, that sounds like a very nice guitar to have. Looking forward to seeing how it develops, cheers!

[TruthHertz]

How did you decide on your arching pattern? And your top thicknesses? If I may ask? Often the braces would go on after the top is arched, graduated, thicknessed and tuned, then the X brace would be chalk fitted. Just curious. This means your x has a substantial amount of the X itself that's not oriented with a parallel grain.
Like jazz. I like to see personal style. It's really shaping up! Exciting!
David

[PTChristopher]

Meggy,

Thanks for the comments. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all sounds.

Hi David,

>>>How did you decide on your arching pattern?

I had planned on a somewhat higher arching pattern - more steeply arched down in the lower part of the body - just trying to squeeze some action out of this small body. But the wood was more lively sounding than I expected, and my planned pattern (all freehand and very non-scientific) was starting to look very bulbous. So I dropped the arch height by a little more than 1/8" while I was in progress.

>>> And your top thicknesses?

I first shaped the front, then started taking away wood from the back assuming that I would end up around 4 or 4.5 mm in the middle, and more like 3+mm out toward the edges. This is thinner than many "electric" archtops, and thicker than some acoustic archtops, and was only a rough plan - subject to change. I have ended up considerably thicker. Not modern Gibson L4 and L5 thick, but still thicker than I had expected.

********************

EDIT: I think am being a little sloppy with my description here. Archtop thicknesses vary all over the place. I have seen them thinner than 3mm (~1/8") and a touch thicker than 12mm (~1/2"). I was thinking that 4.5mm in the center might be about the target to squeeze as much acoustic response as I can get out of this small guitar. I ended up at around 6mm in the center and 4.5mm out at the reflex. My comment above that 4.5mm is thicker than some acoustic archtops may be misleading. A larger (say 17") archtop that is 4.5mm thick in the center, would be fairly thin. While top thicknesses vary very widely, it might be more accurate to say that a 6mm top that tapers to maybe 4.5mm at the edges is somewhat typical of what many builders are doing. But again, there are many (many, many) significant variations out there.

******************

>>> Often the braces would go on after the top is arched, graduated, thicknessed and tuned, then the X brace would be chalk fitted.

Yep. And I think that many builders feel that they have the experience to tap the top while shaping and have a good feel for how this will translate into the sound of the top after it is braced (and mounted on the guitar body).

But this is a very small, and arguably unusual configuration. I figured that I might maintain a better feel for how things were going if I had the brace wood partially in place while shaping the top.

*************
EDIT: I think I should have also mentioned that the braces are very often adapted in thickness and depth after they are mounted on the top. So a traditional top would be carved, then really finally "tuned" by adjusting the braces after tapping and also by flexing the top to suggest how stiff the bracing should be.
*************

It sure is a pain to freehand shape the back around some integrated bracing, so the whole thing took quite a while vs. just shaping the whole backside as one area.

I have not shaped the bracing or cut the f-holes yet, but the top has a fairly impressive ring to it at the moment - more of a tom-tom sound vs. a sort of bongo sound that I am hoping to avoid in this small hunk o' wood. I may still fool around with the thickness a little after the braces and f-holes are farther along.

>>> This means your x has a substantial amount of the X itself that's not oriented with a parallel grain.

Yes, definitely. So you have parallel bracing that often runs substantially in line with the grain of the top. Then typical X bracing with the bracing grain running at a significant angle to the top grain - arguably providing some stability as the top shrinks and swells with humidity changes. And then there is this top, with the bracing made up of an arguably weird combination of grain directions - but not necessarily anything that is in-principle harmful.

I know that some modern builders have taken heat for integrated bracing designs ("lazy CNC hacks", etc.), but the only objection that I can really see being a potential problem is the lack of some stiffness and stability provided by some crossing grain in an X braced, fairly thin top.

I figure that i will have enough 'cross grain' bracing material left after shaping to provide some stability. The short bridge at the center of the X is to provide strength to the X leg that is cut into two sections (vs. the leg that is continuous).

We'll see.

I am having a good time with this - and subject to enthusiasm beyond the dry facts. But so far the top has a better sound than I expected (which may not mean much once I attach it to a hogged-out hunk o' ma-hog') - and it feels very stiff when I press directly down where the bridge will go.

The grain has several flaws, but all in all I'm pretty happy with it so far.

Maybe an Alaskan Yellow Cedar one at some point? I can imagine the weird smell of that wood (a sort of spiced mashed-potato smell) really coming out while making an archtop out of it.

Chris

[PTChristopher]

The patter of little feats:

I got a little shop time in, so the braces are shaped and the f-holes are in.

The braces are for downward pressure, so the fibers farthest from the top do the work in tension. The caps on the integrated braces are quartered sitka with the grain running as it would on a traditional brace.

I thinned the top a little more, and it sounds good to me. A little final sanding and it's on to routing out most of the body slab of honduran mahogany.

Chris

[Banksia]

I like luthier threads. Before I got the Interwebz a few years ago, I had been playing and buying guitars for 40 years with practically no idea what was involved in building them. At least now, when I go guitar shop browsing, I can ask some intelligent questions and understand the answers.

[Meggy]

Looks beautifully done, very clean in fact. Like the f-hole shape and design too, nicely judged I think.

[PTChristopher]

Thanks Megs. I'm also following your Tru-Oil layer-o-thon thread to see how the gloss builds on the Strat.

I'm going to go back and maybe edit some of the thickness comments in this thread. They could be a little misleading since I am taking the small size of this (14.5") guitar into account when thinking about relative top thickness.

In any case, for final thicknesses I am around 6.25mm (so .25 or 1/4") at the thickest areas right under the bridge. Then the top is tapering to about 4.5 mm (about .18") at the thinner areas.

In my opinion this is slightly thicker than I expected for a body this small, but the wood is singing - so there you go. I doubt that it has much to do with my weird braces, which are a little taller than typical, and unusually tapered from a broad base to a fairly sharp ridge. And or course the braces are also made up of an unusual combination of grain orientation.

I think these thicknesses can be considered fairly typical for many carved archtops (with MANY significant variations by very skilled builders), but on a guitar this small, the thickness is a little chubbier than I expected. I suppose the lightness of the mildly undesirable wide-grain sitka has something to do with it.

As mentioned earlier, I do not want this thing to end up being overly delicate. It is to be played and carried with only moderate care. So while it might be fun to try to drop the tap tone even lower, I am not going to get into some of the very thin dimensions of some acoustic archtops.

Come to think of it, I have an Eastman 805CE that is around 3mm in some places and sounds great. It also moves around like crazy as the humidity changes.

Anyway, I rambling here as I talk myself into leaving the top alone now and moving on to some other parts.

[Meggy]

Not that I know anything about carved archtop guitars (or proper guitar making in any form...), but maybe you should follow your intuition with the top thickness? If something is telling you it's going to be good as it is, then I reckon that's probably true.

[PTChristopher]

And the back/sides (such as they are).

This is a solid hunk o' honduran mahogany. The back is about 3.5 mm thick, thus the bracing.

I was going to leave the back thicker, or arch the exterior and leave the interior flat. Either way may have avoided bracing. But I want to get the air volume (not that there is much) that comes from making the box as big as possible.

I made spruce braces, but they looked like a flat-top acoustic against the mahogany, which inexplicably bugged me. So the second set of braces are mahogany, and stiffer than necessary as it turns out - but I'll leave them alone and not bother to thin them some. They do look kind of chunky in there though,...

The top is slightly bouncier than I had expected when pressed down into the body. But gluing in a 14.5" top will stiffen things a bit more than gluing in a larger top, so I think I am in the right range to get some life out of this very small guitar.

The body shape is slightly altered vs. the plan. I took about 1/8" away near the F-holes and at the bottom. This makes it slightly classical in shape - just to be different from the more round archtop shape.

So, on to gluing on the top.

[Meggy]

Looking very impressive. Are you intending this guitar to be mainly played amplified? And what type of pickup will it have - I am guessing a floater? It could be really great for a portable archtop, with the archtop sound plus the convenience of a solidbody. Anyway, I like it!

[PTChristopher]

Yes, this will be an electric guitar. It will have more acoustic volume than a Telecaster, but I intend to play it amp'ed.

The PU will be a Benedetto S6, floating on the pickguard. For thematic consistency I'll use thumbwheel tone and volume pots mounted under the pickguard.

There are many small archtops out there. The top of this is only slightly smaller than the decades-old Ibanez George Benson. For that matter, if I extended the top upwards to join the neck at the 12th fret, the top would be almost the same size as a classical guitar.

I have played quite a few of the 14 to 15" archtops that are out there, so at least I know what I am aiming for and what I am trying to avoid. So no maple here, an X-braced spruce top, lightweight tuners (makes a surprising difference sometimes), and as much of the top free to move as seems practical.

It might have been a good idea to stay with a more common built-up back and sides, but this is a fun variation (if somewhat messy - that's a lot of mahogany chips that get dug out of the body).

Anyway, I am not expecting major acoustic volume. I am just trying to get more acoustic "archtop" character into this small package. There is always a danger of going too far and getting major resonance peaks in the body/neck - thus dead notes, "wolf tones", or weirdly inconsistent response. I would be smart to install a cross-grain plate under the bridge area that would be friendly to a later-added soundpost if needed to calm things down.

Of course installing a soundpost, with some width to it, through the small f-holes would be a significant challenge. Maybe I just think happy, even-resonance thoughts and march forward.

Kidding aside, the basic idea here is fairly sound - we'll hear the results in a 6 or 8 weeks.

[PTChristopher]

This is a slightly odd experience to air out one's thinking through a build - to say nothing of showing some of the ugly-looking parts of the process.

But what the heck. For a sound sample, I guess I'll have to play the same thing through a Tele and maybe my Guild X-180 to calibrate the sample for easy comparison to this new axe. Otherwise, the variables in recording, and playback would make a sample sort of useless.

I guess most players know what a Tele and a basic maple jazz box sound like. So if I record those two guitars first, then this one under the same conditions, the sound sample may be more useful.

[Stevebol]

I think build and repair threads would be an excellent addition! I work on old (quality) catalog guitars and I should start taking pictures of some of the things I encounter since it might help others interested in part time lutherie.
I have to add some kind of support rod to a guitar without one. I'm not sure if I should put in a truss rod or some ebony or maple. I love the sound of the guitar but there are bowing issues.
Also, I'll be adding a P-90 pickup to another guitar.
I'll take some pics and post them when and if I come up with some jigs to complete these projects. IMHO, there can never be enough playable archtops in the world whether they are new or old.

[PTChristopher]

Stevebol,

It may lack old world (or old catalog) charm, but carbon fiber is just so much stiffer than ebony or maple that it is really the way to go in my opinion.

Or you can go with an adjustable truss rod, in which case I would suggest a dual-action rod only because it is an easier installation and requires less wood removal under most typical installation methods.

It would be great to see pics of your projects.

Chris