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.
|
|
|
RE: Building two under influence of a 1973 Sobrinos de Esteso
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
ernandez R
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar. 25 2019
From: Alaska USA
|
 RE: Building two under influence of ... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
First thing I noticed here was how the closing lower struts seemed to be much closer to the bridge, or rather, there was more of an unsupported area of the top plate aft of them.
Also the forward end of the sound bars were up against the lateral brace. Tapered at that end?
It would seem any lifting of the top, domeing? Would come from the unsupported bottom of the lower bought but that would depend how it was thicknesed?
A lot of good food for thought regardless and nothing like a wholesome food fight ;)
Ok, another sip of some bad box red Cab and I'm thinking, could the lower two struts work as a sort of Brouchet bar?
HR
Edit: would like to see the bridge position on the diagram.
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
The top bracing- here’s a rough guide-
I have to make a new plexiglass half template for this model from the tracing and notes I took, but fast and dirty this is what we’re dealing with.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
_____________________________
I prefer my flamenco guitar spicy,
doesn't have to be fast,
should have some meat on the bones,
can be raw or well done,
as long as it doesn't sound like it's turning green on an elevator floor.
www.instagram.com/threeriversguitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 13 2020 1:31:34
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Building two under influence of ... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
quote:
Mr. Marlow, this is just another negative consequence of playing the fakemenco. But that is seriously a good story about the braces falling off and throwing them away I literally laughed out loud on that one ! And now I am again just typing this. Does this mean braces are overrated ?
That’s one of the best stories I’ve heard about braces. Apparently braces are only important to kids with gappy crooked teeth, and dentists.
I remember playing a 1a Paulino Bernabe at Ivor Mairants's shop in London, some time in the 1970s. It had only one brace, a fairly hefty one on the center line of the top. I played a 1a Contreras there that day too. A friend had asked me to bring him a first class Spanish classical, cost was not a really big deal, time was a fairly big deal.
I couldn't get to Spain on that trip, so I brought my friend a 1a Ramirez from Mairants's shop. The markup wasn't too stiff, and I liked the sound of the Ramirez a lot better than the other two.
I remember it had the fret board tapered off on the bass side on the higher frets, as did a lot of Ramirez's of that era, and it would have had a 660-664mm scale. Mairants claimed Segovia liked them that way. It made for a very high action on the 5th and 6th strings above the tenth fret, but my friend never complained.
He regularly played a steel strung Martin 12-string, so he had a Herculean left hand.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 14 2020 6:51:12
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Building two under influence of ... (in reply to Tom Blackshear)
|
|
|
quote:
The bridge position on the top should remain the same by simply shortening the length of the top at the 12th fret for a shorter scale........This will shorten the box a little but retain the basic pattern, as I understand it.
I find Steve's tutorial very interesting.
I don’t think so, the bridge changes location very slightly on the top in relation to scale. This is a fundamental guitar design convention. If you changed the shape of the upper bout where the body and neck join you’d have to redraw the plantilla every time you use a different scale.
It’s more like this:
Bodies or plantillas with back lengths of around 19-1/4” are suited to longer scales in the 655 to 665 range, they all work by splitting the difference at the 12th fret and leaving the plantilla the same size.
Bridge placement only varies 5mm in either direction if you look at 660mm scale as a median mensure for a 19-1/4 “ back. If you then use a 655 you will move the bridge a few mm towards the sound hole- because you automatically correct for compensation of the intonation and hold the bridge back a couple mm anyway.
Then if you are using 660 as a median and want to use 665 or 666(!) then you move the bridge a few mm lower for the scale and then a few more for compensation.
What this means, and I could draw you a chart with exact numbers, is that in relation to the body join point at the top of the plantilla, the bridge is only moving in a very limited space. Because half the expansion of the system is taken up by the neck getting longer- the point where the stretch happens is the 12th fret.
To dramatize it, if you have a 650 scale and want to increase it to a 660 scale you look at what half a 650 is: 325mm The length from nut to 12th fret is 325mm
Change to 660 and the distance from nut to 12th fret increases to half of 660: Which is 330mm - the distance between nut and 12th increased by 5 mm that’s equally distributed between frets ( let’s just say that it is )
How much does the bridge move away from the 12th fret between 650 and 660?
It moves 5mm
No Big deal - add compensation it moves about 7mm also no big deal.
It’s not a big deal because that much variation in placement does not effect the sound, you may think it does, but it doesn’t ( I can get into it later on that point)
So what’s the solution?
It depends on where you wants to break the 19th fret with the edge of the sound hole, because there is ‘slop’ in the system to move the sound hole 2 or maybe 3 mm up or down to change the visual relationship between sound hole and saddle.
Think about it.
Another solution is to use a slightly smaller plantilla for the 640 to 650 range guitars. All you need to do is have a plantilla with a 19” back length and the bridge location situation is less important. This back length works well for slightly shorter scales.
The problem is one of those things that you solve by drawing plantillas and looking at scale length, sound hole radius, where the 19th fret intersects with the sound hole and other small design details. The reason some guitar makers designs have a beautiful proportion or ratio as a whole is because they looked at all these design conditions and worked out beautiful sets of compromises to create a whole instrument with graceful continuity between all the parts.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2020 3:17:02
|
|
 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.
|
Printable Version
But that is seriously a good story about the braces falling off and throwing them away I literally laughed out loud on that one ! And now I am again just typing this. Does this mean braces are overrated ?
