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: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to KMMI77)
quote:
Lets just say that it didn't inspire me to do it to my good guitars.
Let's just say that there is a compelling factor, with added nuance, to sell guitars with sound ports. It's new, it's different, and people would like to try them out.
Bob Ruck has been a master of the option for many years and he is always at the forefront of anything that appeals to the buying masses. If he builds it, then other guitar makers figure that there must be a selling point to try for their own profit.
Is it a good selling point? Obviously it has not taken over the market with traditional built instruments. If it had, then that would be proof enough to argue its positive points.
And my own personal view is that a well built, finely tuned, guitar doesn't need a side port, as its feed back and movement, in its over-all sound range, will speak to the performer without added ports.
I use to play flamenco guitar for dancers and I never had an issue of not hearing my guitar over all the noise from dancing feet. The key to that was playing a guitar that was loud to begin with.
Many designs just aren't loud enough and perhaps this was a reason to try and gain better audio feed back. But we should remember that sound ports aren't going to give the "audience" any better volume without a needed sound system.
The guitars I played vibrated and shook enough to where I felt every chord change with the dancers. And the sound system took care of the rest. I think these new ports are a distraction, perhaps pleasant, but a distraction nonetheless, for reaping what may be a marketing anomaly, which brings a new facet into the economy of guitars.
But I'm not interested in bringing a different feed back to my ears but choose to keep a fine tuned voice built into a living organism that moves and shakes with my embrace.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
This depressing thread is just full of things which have been turned around 100 times on this forum and besides that its full of prejudices and doesnt say anything new. Its depressing to see how so many of you memebers just want to continue babble order to promote your self and your totally fixed ideas on this subject.
Also interesting that those claiming that ported guitars loose value are the ones that dont like them. I´ve sold 20 - 30 guitars with soundports and havent lost any money on them. I´ve had guitars without ports that clients didn´t want because it have an inlayed soundport. So those of you claiming you are loosing money on ported guitars: How many guitars with soundports have lost value????
Soundports are a personal thing. Do they make guitars better? For some players yes, for others no.... Its so simple...... There´s no one religion. There´s no one taste. A ported guitar is not better or worse than a non ported one. Its just different. Be happy that you have a choice instead of bullying what you dont like. Its not serious. My personal taste is a blanca with a port which is not to big and which doesnt point directly towards my left ear. I like a subttle effect. BUT its just my taste and most probably I will continue building more guitars without ports than with ports.
Posts: 667
Joined: Aug. 20 2008
From: DFW Area, Texas
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
I am not a expert on the subject and have been studying the port issue every time it appears. I see the Master Guitarreros express their deep feeling on the subject, and most of the time they differ passionately.
That is why this Foro is a great place and gives us the opportunity to learn. I have come to the conclusion, as Anders has expressed, that ports are a matter of personal taste.
I prefer Traditional Flamenco, blanca non ported peg head guitars. I respect those that might prefer Nuevo Flamenco and the choices they make when the select their instrument. I applaud the diversity and keeps me coming back to this site to read and interact with individuals that have and interest in Flamenco, even though is a very small segment of the musical world it is as complex as all others put together.
On some subjects we might have to agree to disagree.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
Mr. Eliasson,
I found/find the thread full of fun. I have not seen the other 99 times where the subject was discussed on this forum. I have read many new ideas on it. (New to me, of course, but that's no sin.) Nobody, on either side, bullied anyone. I don't even know how that could occur on a forum
I see no prejudices outside of people who want extra holes and people who don't. (And all the people who don't don't care whether the people do do and the people who do don't care about the people who don't.) I would suggest that arguments about the number of holes in a piece of wood could not achieve such a lofty status as a 'prejudice'.
I have not detected any self-promotion (but I am a bit thick and might have missed that) outside of Mr. Blackshear's reference to his fine tuning but I find his comments too fascinating and gracious to worry about whether he's planting subliminal desires in my unconscious that will drive me to him, strings in hand.
I can't remember anyone claiming the guitars will lose value, but maybe they did. I postulated that that was a risk. Remember the original poster had made up his mind and wanted to hear from others who did the same... as an after-sale customization. The fact that there exists even one single person who does not like them suggests a downwards weighting in the market place. Ergo: One can always punch a hole, but unpunching is trickier. Deniz suggested that unpunching the hole was no problem. He's being disingenuous, of course. But still, no problem. If people want to argue black is white, it makes no difference. It's all just fun on a forum, no?
I butted in and put my three cents worth after Mr. Blackshear's remark for two reasons:
1. The internet is a place where people look for information. The sound-port love-in may have given a passer-by the impression that such a customization was an unreserved good thing. (Reread Deniz and Florian's views to confirm this, if you wish.) I didn't think there was enough balance in the the thread. Deniz and Florian and others are entitled to think and do what they want with their guitars, and I'm entitled to recognize self-delusion, (an ailment that plagues me also) and to worry that some kid might have a guitar, read the claims and then deface a perfectly functioning instrument. It all sounded like religion, or snake oil to me. So I wanted to have a little fun with it. I thought I came up with bonzer designs to compete with it but alas, impressed nobody but myself.
2. The positive claims were not suggesting a 'difference', it was all about gains/improvements. To me this was a clear postulation to the effect that all and any/every guitar would 'improve'. Nobody, when I entered the thread, was talking about differences; at least from the 'yes' camp. I can stuff a chicken in my guitar and it will sound different. (And dammit, maybe I will.)
This is, to me, interesting, and important as, if this were in science, for example, the inventor would be in line for a nobel prize for a fundamental discovery. 'All and any guitars can be improved with the extra hole.'
This would indeed be a huge leap for luthiers. (And you would all be leaping together.)
You ask 'How many guitars with soundports have lost value?' When the more rational question is 'How many guitars without a soundport have lost value by not having one.' (Remember how easy it is to make the hole and difficult to unmake... I know there could be repairs but you'd be a magician to punch a hole in the beautiful Brazilian rosewood sides of mine then fix it so that I couldn't detect it. The merest nailmark can hurt value (relative to the same guitar without the mark). And bear in mind that it was pointed out (by me, incidentally) that makers who regularly built guitars with soundports would not necessarily see any loss in value, for obvious reasons.)
Your question, like Deniz's comments, is disingenuous.
For me, a guitar with a soundport has likely lost all of its value. While the guitar without a port still has value to me AND the people who like soundports. Extrapolate that to a general population of people in the market for a nylon-string guitar and even with a tendency toward soundport acceptance, the price risk is on the downside for ported guitars (unless built by luthiers specializing in.... blah... blah) You get the drift here?
You are correct. It's not serious. And accusing everyone who does not agree with you of bullying, babbling and promoting fixed ideas is not polite.
But I do hope that I get the chance to try one of your guitars one day, ported or not.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson Soundports are a personal thing. Do they make guitars better? For some players yes, for others no.... Its so simple...... There´s no one religion. There´s no one taste.
After reading this thread i would even say its not just taste, but also personal character, ie being open minded or not. Otherwise you wouldnt have people disliking it without having any experience with it. Or people who want to convince others that they dont need a soundport.
About resale value: I was wrong to assume the resale value will drop in every case. It doesnt drop in those cases where you can find a buyer who doesnt mind the port or course, or even prefers guitars with a port, in which case he saves money (no need to port it again).
The port is nothing revolutionary. It serves the same purpose as the soundhole (stream air) and if its cut circular it even does look the same. Funny how people can take offense at the port but not at the sondhole. Brings me back to my top point: people simply have the fixed and unreasoned idea (=prejudice) that a guitar is not allowed to have a port. Thats why you cant convince them with advantages of the port or even your taste, that you simply prefer the port. It basically boils down to: you are not allowed to like it, or you are fooled by port marketing. You cannot have a reason to like soundports, its impossible because there mustnt be a reason. Thats where the religion and self-delusion accusation comes from.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Tom Blackshear)
I don't mind that this topic keeps coming up. This is how the interweb talks sites work, it's often random and disorderly. You can't expect it to be tight and logical.
The good thing is that more an more opinions come into view, the bad thing is you have to wade through lots of opinion in order reason out for yourself to find your truths.
My observation is that those who play guitars think the port is more simple than it really is. The guitar is a complex system and we who make them have not figured out all the angles of how to coax or control that system into doing what we want. The sound port is a system changing addition if you choose it. The more we as guitar maker learn about the way it changes the system the more can use it to help guitar player make music.
Everyone perceives it differently and I think it is still an experimental addition to the system. Guitars work fine without ports, port are not the same as the main soundhole which in a traditional flamenco guitar is a part of the system that is an absolute.
Changing the position of the main sound hole in a flamenco guitar will result in sonic problems to the system due to the change in the interior structure of the guitar and the way sound is moved through the guitar. If you were to move the main sound hole to the side of the upper bout or below the main harmonic brace it would radically change the system.
The sound port is not the same as the main sound hole and will always be an adjunct part of the system on a the kinds of of flamenco guitars based in the work of the 20th century masters. The sound port is a modifying part of the system, it is totally elective as a part of the system.
Being an elective part of the system it can modify the guitar to be better or worse depending on your personal listening of the guitar. In my opinion the port should not be used to differentiate between those who embrace change and those who are are reticent to embrace change. Some guitarists may choose to have one because they like that way it modifies this excellent system and others may not want it. The Spanish guitar was a compete system before the sound port and the sound port does not define a major part in the evolution of the design, it is a modifying aspect to a working system which can stand on its own without a sound port.
Seen in that light I can't support the idea that sound ports should define who is progressive and who is not according to how they choose.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
The Spanish guitar was a compete system before the sound port and the sound port does not define a major part in the evolution of the design, it is a modifying aspect to a working system which can stand on its own without a sound port.
Seen in that light I can't support the idea that sound ports should define who is progressive and who is not according to how they choose.
Steve,
I've been building guitars for over half a century, which is probably too long, and I have seen some pretty far out experiments. One was with tiny perforated holes in the sides of a guitar, up next to the lining near the top to release sound and vibration.
One thing I learned from this technique was that I could create a certain similar condition by thinning the sides near this area in the upper bout to release certain vibrations and movement of the guitars' equilibrium..... And to communicate its resonating influence without causing a distinct alteration in its appearance.
I hate to get deeper into these discussions because I teach these techniques for my living. But you probably already understand this idea of making the upper bout thinner than the lower bout. It's certainly been used for many years in the Spanish arts.
And you probably could show me a few things about the Santos designs.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to estebanana)
Stephen, nobody said the port is "the same as the soundhole". As to caring for traditional 20th century guitar building... well i dont care for that at all. I dont even care what kind of guitars were being built in the last 2 years I just want a guitar that sounds goooood. Good. And i like the port because i like what it does. This is such a clear and non-pretentious statement that i will call anybody, who is able to not get or deliberately misinterprets that, a douchebag.
ORIGINAL: z6 Remember the original poster had made up his mind and wanted to hear from others who did the same... as an after-sale customization.
(Reread Deniz and Florian's views to confirm this, if you wish.) I didn't think there was enough balance in the the thread. Deniz and Florian and others are entitled to think and do what they want with their guitars, and I'm entitled to recognize self-delusion, (an ailment that plagues me also) and to worry that some kid might have a guitar, read the claims and then deface a perfectly functioning instrument. It all sounded like religion, or snake oil to me.
I actually haven't made up my mind when I posted, I wanted to seek out more opinions on the matter, of it being an after market customization.
Honestly, if I had another lesser guitar that I could test it on, I would. I really like soundports now. It is definately not 'snake oil'. There's is a tangible difference between a guitar with a port and a non ported guitar. I wish I had a chance to play Florian's guitar when I met him to listen to it.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to XXX)
quote:
The port is nothing revolutionary. It serves the same purpose as the soundhole (stream air) and if its cut circular it even does look the same. Funny how people can take offense at the port but not at the sondhole.
Thanks again Mr. Blackshear. I wish I could try one of your guitars. I doubt I'd have any problem with them using any string, but I see what you're aiming for.
Here is a recent you tube video with Re Brune showing guitars in his stock.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Tom Blackshear)
quote:
After reading this thread i would even say its not just taste, but also personal character, ie being open minded or not. Otherwise you wouldnt have people disliking it without having any experience with it. Or people who want to convince others that they dont need a soundport.
Soundports are now a religious subject.
I find it interesting to read Estebanas and others posts on ports because he works guitars with and without ports. Just like me. But those who only make narrowminded theories and dont test them in real life they have no value in my world. Guitarmaking is something real. Not something mental. Last time this subject was up, I asked Mr. Blackshear how many guitars he had made soundports. He didnt answer, so I believe he has made ZERO. Judge yourself.
An interesting question would be: How many have made or have had someone make a soundport in their guitar.. How many like it and how many dislike it. Its not nescesary to answer or to make a poll. Just search the foro and you´ll know.
I´m not saying that a guitar with a port is better than one without. Its a personal thing and I have no problems building with or without ports. To me, soundports are an option. And thats it.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
quote:
The port is nothing revolutionary. It serves the same purpose as the soundhole (stream air) and if its cut circular it even does look the same. Funny how people can take offense at the port but not at the sondhole.
RE: Soundport AFTER guitar made? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
quote:
Last time this subject was up, I asked Mr. Blackshear how many guitars he had made soundports. He didnt answer, so I believe he has made ZERO. Judge yourself.
As many of the list's members know, I'm not into attacking someone's character. I have played sound ported guitars and I don't care for them. It's a personal preference and I don't condescend to, or try and put down players who like sound ports in their guitars.
A builder should build sound ports, if that is what he likes. And he should keep with what he feels is valuable to guitars. There is plenty of interest for both styles.
I hope that people will find a place to be agreeable about freedom of opinion, without taking personal offense. Life is too short.
I build about one guitar every two months, and most of them are classical guitars.
I grew up playing flamenco guitar but I have found a love for the classical guitar, and this is not going to change unless a player orders a flamenco. And this would be considered a special order to me.
I've shared certain techniques to those who would find them interesting but there is always going to be a difference of opinion about how to build a guitar, and arguments about this can be healthy, as long as they don't digress into personal insults.
Printable Version
I just want a guitar that sounds goooood. Good. And i like the port because i like what it does. This is such a clear and non-pretentious statement that i will call anybody, who is able to not get or deliberately misinterprets that, a douchebag. 
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