Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
Neck reset?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
thomasst
Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 22 2008
|
Neck reset?
|
|
|
Hi, Only just discovered this place, some great info. Wonder if someone could help. I recently bought a guitar that has turned out to be a bit of a donkey, the soundboard was basically ruined, which I have removed, before doing this I ran a straight edge down the fretboard to the bridge, it was pointing about 4-5 mm from the soundboard, which is entirely wrong is it not? Anyway the gist of this question is, would it be possible to remove the neck and try to change the angle? is this a waste of time? does this require a lot of experience even to try? can I at least try and salvage the back/sides/neck? At the end of the day this "guitar" is basically firewood as it stands so there is not much to lose. Any advice would be much appreciated, even if it is a "get the petrol out" btw the back and sides are maple, neck looks like one of those premade ones from madinter. Cheers
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2008 11:54:51
|
|
thomasst
Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 22 2008
|
RE: Neck reset? (in reply to HemeolaMan)
|
|
|
Hi Hemeolaman, Thx for the reply, you opening two words fill me with confidence . I have included some photos, running a straightedge along the neck it seems to be almost parallel with were the soundboard should be, is this correct? I've also noticed there is about a 2mm gap between the back of the heel block and back of the soundbox, which would explain why the action was so bad, as soon as I put any strain on the neck, string tension for example, the heel block is going to move until it rests against the back, surely? What's the best way to get the back off, steam iron? v carefully, then try and get the neck parted from the sides? Is it possible that this 2mm gap is the source of the problem and no need for a change of foot angle? your help is appreciated.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2008 20:26:05
|
|
HemeolaMan
Posts: 1514
Joined: Jul. 13 2007
From: Chicago
|
RE: Neck reset? (in reply to thomasst)
|
|
|
a heh. wow s h i t. well. see that is the problem. but in finding that, you've found another one however that piece of wood came off, never do anything like it again! use heat (not a hot air gun or blowdryer) to melt the glue, and gently pry. after you clean all that garbage out of there...which may be a while, i want you to go to the library or order william cumpiano's book, and any other guitar building books you find. YOU WILL NEED THEM basically, it looks like you need a new top. and some kerfing. so you will need those books big time. boy oh boy. theres a lot to be said about this project. the simpel answer is, stuff some wood shims in there and you may not have to re angle the foot etc. however, it may turn into a piece of crap. couldnt tell ya. i would recommend though, that you kill whoever sold this to you. then go to lmii.org and buy either a flamenco kit or a new top, and a new precut neck. wow that thing is haggard lol
_____________________________
[signature][/signature]
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 23 2008 15:49:14
|
|
thomasst
Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 22 2008
|
RE: Neck reset? (in reply to Per Hallgren)
|
|
|
Thank you all, at least that's made my mind up, all things considered, doming the top is the least of my problems. I will make a solera at some point but I don't think it's worth the effort for this, I have some spruce arriving in a couple of days, I did start making a classical a couple of years ago from Mr. Cumpiano's book, got as far as making the neck, jointing and thicknessing the back and sides, then I starting working shifts, had another baby and here we are! I am certain that I can make a new top fairly easily and steal the bracing design off of per hallgren's excellent post (hope you don't mind Per) just to get this strung up and take it from there. As someone pointed out this is at the very least something to make mistakes on and if it turns out playable so much the better, if it doesn't, take it apart and start again. Many thanks for all your help. Thomas
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 24 2008 20:12:47
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14897
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
RE: Neck reset? (in reply to jshelton5040)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jshelton5040 quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo If I read it correct, only some of the guys that use Cedar tops a lot make a true "flat" top. All of the cedar top guitars we make and all I've examined have domed tops. I don't know why cedar would be any different from spruce regarding the advantage of using a solera. Ricardo is it true that you've never played a cedar top flamenco guitar? What about Ramirez or Gerundino? Remember I said "some of" meaning, well, J. Ramirez III I guess. Point being most guitars are not "flat", so why would you want to make a flat one??? I have owned Ramirez in the past, and played pedro de miguel and Gonzales guitars that are Cedar top flamencos, but at the time (meaning not long ago), I never was aware about the dome thing behind the bridge. I always assumed that was the way the wood bends from the bridge tension overtime. So I never examined a Ramirez to know for sure if there were any flat tops. My statement that "some guys" make flat tops was based on the info of a.arnold in this post where he talks about Ramirez. I assume "M ramirez" is a mistake, and he refers to J. Ramirez III: quote:
Ricardo, John Shelton is spot on with his description of how guitars are arched. As I'm sure you know, this is completely different than the strong arching one sees in a lot of American steel-stringed (usually f-holed) guitars. Torres' guitars were arched as John S. describes, as were the guitars of his predecessors and contemporaries in Spain, but it is a subtle arch -- a few mm. Lay a straight-edge parallel to your bridge and it will be obvious. I have seen 19th century Andalucian gut-strung guitars in the Smithsonian collection (when I worked in their instrument restoration lab) that had 2 cm of arch. EXCEPTION -- Manuel Ramirez started building nearly flat-topped guitars in the 60's. Segovia's guitar was one, and it was so widely copied that a trend toward flat tops started and arched tops almost disappeared in the "Madrid School" during that time, and they still tend to be flatter than the Granada school. These near-flat guitars were a departure from Jose Ramirez I guitars, which were arched like Torres'. Segovia's M. Ramirez had a cedar top, too, and I've heard it said that the reason M. Ramirez started making those flat tops was that cedar was too stiff to bend easily; luthiers: is this true in your experience? I have an arched cedar, and I don't think they are a particular rarity these days. Dieter Hopf makes cedar tops and is renowned for his precise control of the arching, but his are designed to draw level under tension. His principle seems to be that the top should be just strong enough to resist deformation by string tension (no stronger) and free to vibrate in both directions. Cedar tops were virtually unknown before M. Ramirez, but they got a reputation for loudness that made them popular with professionals who followed Segovia into the large concert halls. My personal experience tells me the loudness difference is overrated, if not fictional. Of course nowadays, there are a lot of cedar-topped negras and classicals made, but cedar-topped blancas are a relative rarity, at least before the 80's. I' be interested in the Foro luthiers' opinions, but I suspect the arch works like an architectural arch to stiffen the top and force it to vibrate as a "rigid" unit -- at least more so than a flat top would, which is structurally more free to bow inward and outward in response to string vibration. Thinning an arched top at the edges and arching it in the middle causes the whole top to (tend to) move as a unit since it CAN'T flex inward (much) any more than an architectural arch could, so it flexes more around the edges, while a flat top tends to "flap" both inward and outward. (Think of the whole arched top jumping up and down rather than flapping in and out). I'm exaggerating the difference, obviously, since cedar tops (reportedly) compensate by gaining stiffness from the material rather than from the arch design (so take words like "flap" and "rigid" as illustrative hyperbole) but I think this structural behavior may be responsible for the greater punch in arched-topped (mostly spruce) guitars. They can be thinner (Huber reports that flat cedar tops average 10% thicker than spruce) and yet still be stiff; less mass means they accelerate faster in response to bridge vibration. The arch architecture means they accelerate as a unit. Sounds like a recipe for punch to me. Anyway, the Granada school generally stuck with the (Torres/Jose Ramirez I) arched design. Shifting bracing around can result in refinements (Mike Kasha, a physicist here at Florida State U., where I teach (not music), developed some pretty radical brace design innovations that really made his guitars loud, but the off-center hole looks too unconventional for my taste), but I will go out on a limb and say that the combined effect of the arch and the reduced mass on sound is major (compared with fan bracing arrangement). Huber's book says that the Granada school arched top is much more sensitive to string selection (compared with flat cedar) because of this tendency to vibrate as a whole unit. I'm not quite sure I understand why that should be, but my guitars (all but one are arched spruce) do sound very different with different strings. The cedar one (Rafael Morales of Granada, 1972, also arched) doesn't seem to change much with different strings.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 28 2008 8:43:28
|
|
thomasst
Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 22 2008
|
RE: Neck reset? (in reply to thomasst)
|
|
|
Hi Folks, I actually finished this about 6 weeks ago, waiting for it to ping apart at any moment!, but so far everything has held. Overall there were no major disasters (apart from buying it in the first place) many minor annoyances, things moving while being glued ( the fingerboard moved about .5mm down and slightly to the treble side, but amazingly it's mostly ok), managed to get all of the bracing from the offcuts of the soundboard. One thing this has been good for is the fact that it was basically a lost cause, there was no, carefull, carefull to the extent of carefully making it worse, it really was a ballpark attempt eg the bridge was glued on using a coupla heavy books and some steel rules. The attempt at french polishing was a disaster, quickly scraped off and finished the whole guitar in danish oil. I've already started from scratch on a 1933 Santos Hernandez using canadian cedar (is this monterey cedar?) spruce and cedar neck, we'll see how this goes, thanks for all your help. Regards
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Attachment (1)
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 17 2008 19:16:01
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|