Wu / Lora Archtop For Big Hands ... A Few Questions For Owners

[Saxophone Tall]

Yes, it's is quite helpful, thank you!

I can't drop 10 or even 7 grand on a guitar right now (I actually just did that for a saxophone, my primary instrument). So, enter Wu...

Good to know there is a standard for neck taper as far as thickness goes. I would think a standard "C" shape would work for this project. The main goal is more string spacing between the strings.

Yes, I would need a wider bridge for this project. I think you are stating that the strings could travel to a narrower tailpiece?

I am in fact looking for taper, with the nut narrower than the area where the right hand plays. I have a 7 to 6 string conversion that is string spacing (not nut) 1.75" @ nut and 2 5/8" @ right hand play area. Wood nut, specially made.

I'm looking for just a bit bigger than that at both measurements. Since a luthier is too expensive for this little bit extra string spacing, I'm looking at the Wu.

[rlrhett]

Yes, the spacing on the saddle does not have to match the tailpiece. It is more obvious when you look at a mandolin (archtop construction was historically based on mandolin and share many traits). The strings on the mandolin often taper back to a narrow tailpiece.

The issue for you will be the non-standard saddle for your archtop. Wu can’t make you a custom TOM ABR1/Nashville saddle. They can make a custom ebony saddle, but it will sound different to a brass saddle. 1-3/4” string spacing at the nut implies a 2” nut. A classical nut is usually about 2-1/16”, but the saddle is usually spaced at 2-5/16 (58mm), not the 2-1/16” of a standard TOM. I also like a bit wider string spacing, but have never found a TOM with 54mm, let alone 58mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sgosnell]

The string spacing at the bridge is limited by the width of the neck, and its width taper. You can't get wider than the neck, or the strings would be over the edge. Wu guitars, IME, tend to have wider spacing at the bridge than standard TOM saddles allow, and are ebony unless you specify otherwise. You can change the string spacing yourself, within the limits of the neck, by just cutting new string slots, but the ones I've seen are already about as wide as possible. The neck also has little depth taper, and is almost as deep at the nut as at the 12th fret. That's fine with me, but I suppose you could specify more taper if you wanted it.

Another limitation for the string spacing is the pickup. If you use a pickup with adjustable polepieces, you need to have the strings over them. If you use a blade pickup, you need to keep the strings over the blade, not outside it. A pickup designed for a 7-string, without polepieces, might be what you need, but I can't say for sure. Just know that getting a really wide neck will inevitably create problems of some sort, and compromises will have to be made.

Perhaps at least some of your fretting problems are caused by technique. There is no need to fret each string with a separate finger. I fret multiple strings with the same finger if practical, and it usually is. Thicker fingers make this easier. But I might be confused by what your issue actually is, and if so just ignore me.

[Saxophone Tall]

Thanks. If I understand guitar luthery at all (and I certainly might not...), one cannot swap necks on an archtop.

Warmoth offers up to 52 mm necks (like on my Start clone 8 > 6 string conversion), but they're not archtops.

Also, if I understand this correctly, if I want to use my left hand thumb for the lower notes, maybe I can get away with a less wide neck?

[sgosnell]

One can swap necks on an archtop, but it's a major operation, and would cost nearly the price of a new guitar. It's far from easy, and you can't just buy a neck like you can for a plank.

Lots of players use their thumb. It's a very common technique, frowned upon by classical players but often used by electric players. I don't care at all about classical technique - I don't play classical music nor a classical guitar. If the thumb helps with playing a chord, use it, it's all fair game IMO.

[Saxophone Tall]

Right, that's the idea of the custom neck. I luthier offered to build me just the neck (to put on an old guitar) ... for about $6,000 USD. Then he said I couldn't have a cut out.

Yeah, an 8 string blade pickup would be ideal. I'll have to see if Pete Biltoff can make one.

It does help if I hold the guitar in the classical position. That also helps with stretching horizontally. So, I can play a minor 7th chord shell, 3 note, 1, b7 b3) that way. Held normally, I can't make the stretch and I unintentionally mute the middle string.

But I shouldn't "have" to hold the guitar in the classical position, should I? Joe Pass did, nut not everybody....

[RJVB]

One can swap necks on an archtop, but it's a major operation, and would cost nearly the price of a new guitar.

Not on a Ken Parker or an instrument inspired by it, where action is adjusted by raising or lowering the neck. Isaac from Cranmer guitars in Scotland makes them too, for a lot less than a Parker. He's also an already nice guy who loves to tackly original problems.

But I shouldn't "have" to hold the guitar in the classical position, should I? Joe Pass did, nut not everybody....

I do too, remember? Of course there's no obligation for this over the other position except by what your body dictates. I sometimes would like to be able to switch position, but I can't make a single barré chord in "folk position" (which is NOT normal for me). And honestly, the only thing that feels more natural in this than in classical position is neck angle when you'd looking at your left hand. Everything else feels much more ergonomical in classical position, esp. if you use a guitar support so both feet can be flat on the ground.
If adopting classical position means you can do with a more standard neck width then why would you not do that? Plus, I suppose your legs are in proportion, so you shouldn't have any issue housing a >16" guitar between them!

[Saxophone Tall]

Using the thumb might certainly help. I just tried it using a minor 7th chord off of the 5 string, and, no unintentional muting!

I suppose the added fourth below is generally acceptable (when using thumb to cover 6 and 5 strings...)

Actually, I get my height from my legs. My arms are also long. I'm "that" type of tall person. The "other type" has a long torso but normal length arms and legs. I had a client once who was 6'9" (3" taller than me) but my legs were longer than his.

I'm not "against" the classical position but it's nice at my guitar playing level to see the fretboard (it's too close in classical position to see through my 63 year old eyes). I actually just bought a snare basket on a really tall stand so that I can experiment with guitar positions and still see the fretboard (plus, I wanted a walk away stand anyway).

I'm also trying NOT to "f---k up" my wrists here. I have bad TMJ from playing sax for half a century. Don't need carpel tunnel!

[rlrhett]

The guitar across your chest at a 45° angle is better ergonomics than holding it flat on your strumming side with the neck pointing away from you. Your wrists will thank you.

I simply can’t recommend that you have a custom guitar made for several thousand dollars that is significantly different spec than standard. Everything will be problematic, from properly communicating your requirements to Wu to finding appropriate hardware and pickups. If you get it wrong, you will have an expensive piece of wall art with no resale value.

I have a 6’4” friend who can easily palm a basketball too. He plays a Gibson SG with a tiny neck. Clearly technique can overcome physics.

You can ask for 45mm nut rather than a standard 43. Maybe ask for 23 or 24mm thickness at the first fret rather than a more standard 21. But unless you have played many many guitars and know exactly what you like and need I wouldn’t go too far from these specs.

FWIW $6,000 for a new neck on an existing body is ridiculous. I suspect the luthier just didn’t want to do it, and it was their way of saying “no” without actually saying it. Of course, I don’t know the specifics. Maybe there was a reason for that. It wouldn’t be the same as buying a $300 strat neck and screwing it in, but not $6,000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Saxophone Tall]

I do have a "standard" archtop guitar. It's a Cort Joe Beck. It's a really nice archtop and sounds great. Got it for $500. But it's really just too small. The Matt Raines 335 clone is 47 mm nut fanning to 62 mm at right hand, and fits pretty well. I can get an Eastman 7 string converted the same way, with the same specs. The Raines ($850) is set up really well. Going slightly bigger than that is where Wu (or a luthier) can come in. I'd buy the Eastman before the Wu, if I don't need super big, so this forum certainly helps!

The luthier who wanted to do the neck is in Woodstock, NY and regularly commands 10K to 20K for a whole guitar, so I think he was sincere. He sounded rather intrigued by the challenge, actually. But that's crazy pricing at my level of guitar playing.

I "am" intrigued by the use of the left hand thumb. That could be the ticket, perhaps with using the classical position (if the two can be combined).

Believe me, having just dropped $7,000 on a minty Selmer Mark VI alto sax (1957), I'm not really in the mood to spend more money on instruments! To show you how crazy "that" area is, the one just two serial number off of mine (how impossible is it to find "that" after 64 years?!?) just sold for $14,000 (museum piece; mine has "some" lacquer loss, but not $7,000 worth!).

I was 6'4" when I was 15 or so. A lot of stuff fits at that size that just doesn't at 6'6" .... And with economies of scale that seems to be the breaking point. For example, I have a Schwinn Tempo racing bike that is perfect for 6'4" ... but too small for 6'6", so I had to spend big to get a custom Waterford, but it was well worth it.

[RJVB]

I'm not "against" the classical position but it's nice at my guitar playing level to see the fretboard (it's too close in classical position to see through my 63 year old eyes).

I can kind of relate to that; in order to get a sufficient view of my fretboard I currently have to ditch my glasses, or put an (extra-wide) pair of regular reading glasses in front of my for-far glasses. I'm not certain though if I always have the fretboard in clear focus; like probably anyone I've grown used to dealing fuzzy vision when I don't need fine detail. And after a certain age (probably much younger than 55-65) most people won't be able to focus completely when doing a quick glance down on the fretboard if they were focussing at a different distance before, esp. when lighting isn't ideal. I still remember having to memorise the speed dial on my MC because I'd have to take my eyes off the road for too long to get the numbers into focus at night. Maybe a thought?

Interesting question in fact. I've been noticing that I'm often more precise in position shifts or even grabbing less easy chord patterns when I don't look at the fretboard than when I do look. I should look into (hah ) if that could have anything to do with not having the fretboard in focus, or not having proper depth view (binocular vision) of it. Ultimately though I'd like to be able to NOT have to look; I can't think of many other instruments where so many players seem to need having to guide their playing visually.
(Or need "lefties" ... ever saw a lefty piano or even a synth with an option to switch to RTL mode? O:-)

Anyway, I do notice I sometimes prefer the sound I hear from my steel-strung guitars when they're on my right leg, but that comfort doesn't outweigh the discomfort in my left arm (or even in my right shoulder which gets pushed up too much). I've been experimenting a bit with the very relaxed looking position you see in some jazz guitarists, with the guitar rather far down the right leg, leaning back against your chest and the neck almost in classical angle. The overal position of my arms and back (rotation) feels quite natural (think classical dancer...) but it does require bending the wrist a lot because the fretboard is so much turned upwards. And that's a reliable way for carpal issues when you need to apply more pressure as in bar chords or intervals requiring finger extension.

[Saxophone Tall]

Of course with saxophone, one does not look at the keys; it's 100% tactile (except when practicing fingering only ]without blowing] slowly and looking in a mirror, as I did when I first started).

I'm not sitting on a couch or even a regular chair, I'm sitting on a drum throne (Roc N Soc), so I can't "lean back." Although i prefer a slight upward tilt of the fretboard for visual angle, this of course is NOT good for proper hand position and largely incompatible with having any hope of not inadvertently muting strings. I DO prefer the sound (it's louder) in the non-classical position. I note that this is on my 335 clone, which isn't as loud as a 175.

Last night, I tried my "standard size" Cort Joe Beck model 175 clone. It really is too small to quickly change from 2m7 to 5dom7, but I'm having an easier time if I use the classical position. It IS a little better for Tal Falowish thumb positions than the 335 clone is (the latter has the much wider fretboard).

It would be nice if someone made a "moveable" fretboard as a "fitting" fretboard like they do with bicycles!

[RJVB]

I've been experimenting a bit with the very relaxed looking position you see in some jazz guitarists, with the guitar rather far down the right leg, leaning back against your chest and the neck almost in classical angle.

Or with the left leg crossed over the right, cf. Freddy Green here:

[Saxophone Tall]

That's actually somewhat similar to my preferred playing angle and position (without the crossed leg). He does appear to be using his left hand thumb (Google "Freddie Green Voicings").

The Count was the first concert I saw, back in 1974!