Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
The top is ready. I lay my brace not just into the kerfed lining, but just completely though the sides. The ends will be covered by the binding, so I do not see why others bother with just only the lining slot. The brace measures a 2.5mm/ 0.1" at that spot. I always do a dry clamping to see if all is right. It did, so the top is clamped on:
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
My understanding of why the Selmer/Maccaferri small mouth is preferred by gypsy jazz players is that indeed it is designed to emphasize treble notes played in rapid succession that have few overtones so that they are clean and do not interfere with each other.
The design accomplishes this in a number of ways. The top is thin (as little as .070 inches towards the tail block) and therefore low mass, has multiple horizontal braces that inhibit long amplitude movement while encouraging short amplitude movement (the kind that strengthens treble), and utilizes strong arching in two directions, which stiffens the top, once again encouraging treble response.
On the other hand, the small sound hole lowers the resonate frequency of the box, whether this has any effect on treble response I don't know.
I've noticed lead gypsy jazz players don't use the bass strings much and like to play close to the soundhole, which is consistent with the treble sound in their music. Treble has a way of "cutting" through lower frequency music - witness that a smallish mando can hold its own against several guitars, and so gypsy guitars sound loud as well as producing good clean treble no matter how fast they are played, and good gypsy players are like lightning when they play the lead with one of them.
Considering the specific music they are used for, I do not consider them to be overbraced, though the braces seem thicker than necessary. It is the short interval between them that pushes the sound towards treble. To shorten the intervals one must have more braces. But I have a question whether their thickness and consequent heavier weight offsets the advantage of low mass vis a vis treble. It might be interesting for an experimenter to leave them as tall as the plans call for, but carve the sides back until they reach the top as a triangle instead of a squared off rectangle. Mando braces are often tapered. OR, some of the extra wood removed from tapering might be added to make a taller brace, which would be even stiffer than the original design, given the geometry of the cube rule of stiffness as it relates to the height of braces.
What interests me most about the small mouths is the beauty of their outline and relationships between their various parts, especially the bridge. And the compound bending of the sides where the cutaway joins the heel is a genius level recognition of the obvious solution that no one had ever tried. Yet my recognition of their beauty was a kind of paradox. At first they seemed awkward looking to me, but they really grew on me as I accommodated the difference between my expectation of what a guitar should look like and the way Maccaferri worked out his own solution, a very original solution that remains as original today as it was 60 years ago. They have a stunning visual presence and do not require elaborate ornamentation. I suspect too much ornament (think Martin's 1,000,000 dread for an extreme) and they would look pretty bad.
I've got a couple of back and sides sets laminated by Michael Collins himself and plan to build at least one of them with a more balanced sound, just because I love the overall look so much, but prefer a wider range of response. I remain puzzled how the laminated backs, which tap like a piece of cardboard, can work as well as they do. The laminated sides with laminated linings, on the other hand, seem just the right ticket to force both top and sides to become the easiest path for string energy to expend itself, which might also contribute to the "loudness" associated with these guitars.
Good luck Herman. You have chosen a path in this build that is not often traveled. I am excited to see where it leads.
The design accomplishes this in a number of ways. The top is thin (as little as .070 inches towards the tail block) and therefore low mass, has multiple horizontal braces that inhibit long amplitude movement while encouraging short amplitude movement (the kind that strengthens treble), and utilizes strong arching in two directions, which stiffens the top, once again encouraging treble response.
On the other hand, the small sound hole lowers the resonate frequency of the box, whether this has any effect on treble response I don't know.
I've noticed lead gypsy jazz players don't use the bass strings much and like to play close to the soundhole, which is consistent with the treble sound in their music. Treble has a way of "cutting" through lower frequency music - witness that a smallish mando can hold its own against several guitars, and so gypsy guitars sound loud as well as producing good clean treble no matter how fast they are played, and good gypsy players are like lightning when they play the lead with one of them.
Considering the specific music they are used for, I do not consider them to be overbraced, though the braces seem thicker than necessary. It is the short interval between them that pushes the sound towards treble. To shorten the intervals one must have more braces. But I have a question whether their thickness and consequent heavier weight offsets the advantage of low mass vis a vis treble. It might be interesting for an experimenter to leave them as tall as the plans call for, but carve the sides back until they reach the top as a triangle instead of a squared off rectangle. Mando braces are often tapered. OR, some of the extra wood removed from tapering might be added to make a taller brace, which would be even stiffer than the original design, given the geometry of the cube rule of stiffness as it relates to the height of braces.
What interests me most about the small mouths is the beauty of their outline and relationships between their various parts, especially the bridge. And the compound bending of the sides where the cutaway joins the heel is a genius level recognition of the obvious solution that no one had ever tried. Yet my recognition of their beauty was a kind of paradox. At first they seemed awkward looking to me, but they really grew on me as I accommodated the difference between my expectation of what a guitar should look like and the way Maccaferri worked out his own solution, a very original solution that remains as original today as it was 60 years ago. They have a stunning visual presence and do not require elaborate ornamentation. I suspect too much ornament (think Martin's 1,000,000 dread for an extreme) and they would look pretty bad.
I've got a couple of back and sides sets laminated by Michael Collins himself and plan to build at least one of them with a more balanced sound, just because I love the overall look so much, but prefer a wider range of response. I remain puzzled how the laminated backs, which tap like a piece of cardboard, can work as well as they do. The laminated sides with laminated linings, on the other hand, seem just the right ticket to force both top and sides to become the easiest path for string energy to expend itself, which might also contribute to the "loudness" associated with these guitars.
Good luck Herman. You have chosen a path in this build that is not often traveled. I am excited to see where it leads.
John
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
Thanks John,
If a next gypsy comes around, I will alter the braces profile to the triangle shape you do fancy too.
But for now I'll try to follow the plan as much I can.
I glued the top on. No pic, bcause it looks as the usual. I am happy with the fit. It did actually fall right in place. Little clamping, no force. It is now nicely curved to all sides. according to the plan, the tail must sit 16mm below the bridge area to accomplish the right break angle of the strings over the bridge. Here it is 14 mm. Not perfect, but I can live with it. I am glad I made the lower horizontal brace 12' radiused instead of 7. Now it makes a gentle curve.
Inside the JJB 330 was attached, as installing after completing the box would be difficult with the small soundhole.
Ok, a pic of the back clamped on. Ordinary view.
Started on the neck. American walnut. The original has a very complicated head to neck mortise joint, of which I don't see the advantages, over a proper modern joint design. Only the routing of the head's back could be difficult. But I'll do that by hand.
For that I made a simple scarf joint. Not difficult and solid as a rock. (Send the original fanatics over, we drink one.)
Time for a peaceful smog.
If a next gypsy comes around, I will alter the braces profile to the triangle shape you do fancy too.
But for now I'll try to follow the plan as much I can.
I glued the top on. No pic, bcause it looks as the usual. I am happy with the fit. It did actually fall right in place. Little clamping, no force. It is now nicely curved to all sides. according to the plan, the tail must sit 16mm below the bridge area to accomplish the right break angle of the strings over the bridge. Here it is 14 mm. Not perfect, but I can live with it. I am glad I made the lower horizontal brace 12' radiused instead of 7. Now it makes a gentle curve.
Inside the JJB 330 was attached, as installing after completing the box would be difficult with the small soundhole.
Ok, a pic of the back clamped on. Ordinary view.
Started on the neck. American walnut. The original has a very complicated head to neck mortise joint, of which I don't see the advantages, over a proper modern joint design. Only the routing of the head's back could be difficult. But I'll do that by hand.
For that I made a simple scarf joint. Not difficult and solid as a rock. (Send the original fanatics over, we drink one.)
Time for a peaceful smog.
-
John Parchem
- Posts: 2746
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:33 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
Nice looking body, the project is moving along quickly; thank you for posting!
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
John L. mentions how his laminated backs tap like cardboard. Well, now the body is completed, I did some tapping.
There is nothing I can recall from my other builds. These others all have a certian "poiiiing" to them. More or less tone and sustain. This gypsy has only a "pok" when tapped ,and then ..... nothing. Very disturbing to me. Will it ever produce decent sounds?.....
But then I trust on the fact that a gypsy guitar is build like this and the fact all other gyspsy's I layed my my hands on did sound like a cheap box to me. To be honest, that is probably due to my simple fingerpicking style. In the hands of those who have intergallactical speedy fingers they did sound right.
In history we must trust. I guess.
Herman
There is nothing I can recall from my other builds. These others all have a certian "poiiiing" to them. More or less tone and sustain. This gypsy has only a "pok" when tapped ,and then ..... nothing. Very disturbing to me. Will it ever produce decent sounds?.....
But then I trust on the fact that a gypsy guitar is build like this and the fact all other gyspsy's I layed my my hands on did sound like a cheap box to me. To be honest, that is probably due to my simple fingerpicking style. In the hands of those who have intergallactical speedy fingers they did sound right.
In history we must trust. I guess.
Herman
-
John Parchem
- Posts: 2746
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:33 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
I think you are correct in your trust, I would find it hard to ignore my experience when building a new style. My first ukulele sounded more like a classical guitar with a 5th fret capo than a ukulele. I remember making adjustments as it felt too stiff. I liked the sound of that tenor ukulele but it was not really a ukulele sound. As these instruments are made to project and hold their own in a band any poiiing you hear from the back is stealing energy from the top.
Re: Gypsy Guitar Selmer Style Oval Hole
Herman, I have a theory that I would not rush to the ramparts to defend, nonetheless it might make sense to you or someone else.
The cardboard sounding back might act as a dampening agent, that is, it shortens sustain so that one note does not interfere with another as the gypsy jazz player pumps out a bazillion notes a second. Some people I've read call this kind of clarity "bell like" when it is applied to a Guild Blonde F-50, which has a laminated maple back. Yet it is opposite the way bells work - they ring and ring and ring and as other ones are rung it all mixes together. In any case clarity describes it well when I apply it to the maple F-50 I own - the notes maintain their distinction from one another. If that is "bell-like" in someone else's vocabulary, that is fine with me.
Because I do want sustain, at least in the wide range instrument I am designing, I am planning on using a solid IRW very thin back for it. I am building it for myself, so there is no worry a client would find the result unacceptable.
In any event, Dave Bagwill needs to chime in here. He once discussed the cardboard back issue with Michael Collins himself. If I remember correctly, Collins said the bracing addressed the clunky-thunky issue, or something like that. One thing I can say about Michael's backs is they are light and would make for a light guitar, despite the full 16 inch lower bout. Even the sides, though very stiff, are also light. Light guitars just feel better when you play them. (I suppose this does not hold true for the dark side and their love for solid bodies.)
The cardboard sounding back might act as a dampening agent, that is, it shortens sustain so that one note does not interfere with another as the gypsy jazz player pumps out a bazillion notes a second. Some people I've read call this kind of clarity "bell like" when it is applied to a Guild Blonde F-50, which has a laminated maple back. Yet it is opposite the way bells work - they ring and ring and ring and as other ones are rung it all mixes together. In any case clarity describes it well when I apply it to the maple F-50 I own - the notes maintain their distinction from one another. If that is "bell-like" in someone else's vocabulary, that is fine with me.
Because I do want sustain, at least in the wide range instrument I am designing, I am planning on using a solid IRW very thin back for it. I am building it for myself, so there is no worry a client would find the result unacceptable.
In any event, Dave Bagwill needs to chime in here. He once discussed the cardboard back issue with Michael Collins himself. If I remember correctly, Collins said the bracing addressed the clunky-thunky issue, or something like that. One thing I can say about Michael's backs is they are light and would make for a light guitar, despite the full 16 inch lower bout. Even the sides, though very stiff, are also light. Light guitars just feel better when you play them. (I suppose this does not hold true for the dark side and their love for solid bodies.)
John