Harmony guitar comparisons

[Herman]

Sorry john, for sustaining the hijack. But I agree with your listening. They all are a bit different. In the high area they all sound the same to me. At the bass-end I like the X-braced the best. But the ladder-one is close. I think in general I hear overbraced tops. But nice sustain though. This FWIW. Probably little. I guess I do not want to copy Harmonys
Herman

[ken cierp]

we should get this listening part of the thread moved to its own post, as we are starting to hijack this thread.

Done

To all ---- Please don't high jack -- especially a construction log, its simply not necessary. Just start your own thread -- Thank you

[ken cierp]

Well to these old ears -- all had "underwhelming" bass for what appear to be a fairly large instrument. Like Tim, I thought the "X" braced was louder, I detected more complexity of overtones as well. The pinned bridge was acoustically a minus. These were likely a pretty good deal $$ wise back in the day. The massive ladder bracing looks like the makers way of assuring these would not fall apart like many of the Gibson's of the era.

[John Link]

Didn't mean to "hijack" Will's thread. He has asked me a number of questions about ladder bracing over the past few months and brought it up in his current build, so I addressed it. I thought, and think, the three guitars show what happens when a top is overbuilt - treble dominates and it does not matter much which style of bracing one uses. Of course there are subtle differences, but the three sounded more alike than different to me (I am a congenital "lumper"). A 0.17" spruce top is quite heavy to begin with, etc. The most typical problems found in the 1260s that remain are poorly fitted dovetails and broken truss rods, but few top cracks or "hump" deflections, the problems Ken suggests this approach would eliminate.

I also did not want to diss the H1260 as much as it might appear that I did in making my construction point. I found another well restored specimen that apparently did not involve altering the basic body design. The player, wisely I think, leverages the clarity and ring of treble notes that is inherent in the design. He plays south of the sound hole. You also get whatever advantage there is to 40 year old wood. (I listen with a complex, bi-amped stereo setup that uses 6' ribbons for everything but bass, large subs for the rest.)

[Dave Bagwill]

That's the vid that made me decide to do a few ladder-braced instruments, with a somewhat more up-to-date methodology.
That's a great sound, to my ears.

[John Parchem]

John, I think this topic is great. I only suggested we move it as it began to grow on its own.

I think the instrument in the recording sounds good. It is hard to feel the presence of an instrument in a recording as a quiet rich sounding guitar can easily sound like a loud rich sounding guitar. I am reminded of high school musicals if the microphone fails, the voice of a great sounding student disappears.

If one is going to predominately mic a guitar or use internal pickups\mics, overbuilt might be a plus. Maybe a cleaner sound with long sustain ... Basically no need to waste energy on volume. I always wondered if that was one of the reasons that Ovations where popular with performers. Well that and the fact that they are nearly indestructible. I always liked the sound, I have a Ovation folk lore. But it does not have the volume or presence in a room un-amplified as some of my guitars.

But to your original point, I was surprised in the recordings that the top seemed to contribute more to the voice then the bracing scheme. Although I have been reading that very point in many guitar design books.

[John Link]

John, your comment inspired further reflection.

The top is called the soundboard, for good reason, I suppose. Ideally, the point of bracing is to 1) protect the top from deforming and ruining the action, and 2) organize its response for the desired sound (fill in the blank for what "desired" means). These seem secondary to the intrinsic sonic potential of the top wood itself.

The best looking wood is not often the wood that impresses me most in its raw state. I hold the raw plates about 1/5 of the way down to find the best node, then tap and measure the length of response. My current selection of tops range from a 5 second response on down to 2 seconds. The 5 second top cost $25 and one of the 2 second tops cost $250. The expensive one is a real beauty, though.

Violins, mandolins, and arch tops minimize the strengthening aspect of "braces" - more often called "tone bars" - and use them to alter the responsiveness of the top as much or more as they strengthen it. This seems to hinge on "gradation" from the center line outward, culminating in a recurve at the edge. I am considering the role "gradation" plays in those instruments as relevant to flat top construction. That is, looking at the way their spine is thicker and stronger, but the edges are thinner and more compliant, with the sound holes usually moved off the spine. And the recurve too, though that seems much harder to implement. I've been reading Siminoff's work about these matters.

I have tried mild thinning of the perimeter and it makes an audible difference for richness of tap tone and frequency in the white. And certainly general thinning of the top which, at what feels like great peril, I have done right before applying finish. It loosens the top, lowers the frequency, and makes a richer response, if a tap can be thought of as "rich". (I just bought an electronic device for easily measuring top thickness of a closed box to calm some of the fears of going too far, instead of letting my fearful imagination run wild after guesstimating a pile of sawdust.) Have never attempted to build two identical gits, one with and the other without edge thinning. But, as hand builders, dealing with this is easily within our grasp. A better sounding, more responsive tap over a wider area must be assumed a positive, however. If there is something there that helps, it should apply to all styles of bracing.