Posted on July 8, 2024July 8, 2024 by Dale Phillips Not Only Cones Make It — and Cylinders Almost Do Not Only Cones Make It — and Cylinders Almost Do by F.A. Jaén Originally published in American Lutherie #101, 2010 In the years since Tim Olsen’s article “Cylinders Don’t Make It” appeared in AL#8 (Winter 1986; also BRBAL1) the main ideas presented there have been accepted, developed, and finally, simplified and distorted. Many, including myself, remembered it more like “Only Cones Make It.” The first indication that something in my ideas was wrong was when I made a CAD model of a fretboard some time ago. I wanted it to have a constant curvature radius of 300MM (around 12"). There are many customers that still want that, in spite of offering well-designed conical-shaped fingerboards. My first thought was to draw two circles, 12" diameter, one directly above the other, at the distance from nut to end. After that, I would trace two diverging straight lines connecting both circles and defining both the edges of the fretboard and the widths at its ends. The surface could then be generated by moving one of the edge lines towards the other, using the end circles as rail curves (what is known as a “sweep” command in many CAD packages). Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on July 8, 2024July 8, 2024 by Dale Phillips At the Outer Limits of Solid Geometry: The “Twisted Neck” Guitar At the Outer Limits of Solid Geometry: The “Twisted Neck” Guitar by Leo Burrell Originally published in American Lutherie #12, 1987 and Big Red Book of American Lutherie Volume One, 2000 I was greatly amused by remembering my own struggles while reading the articles in AL#8 about the compound radius of the fretboard. I was actually practicing these techniques before knowing what a plain old radius is. I have only been in the music business since applying for patent letters for my naturally rotated (twisted) string assembly (all of the components that define the string alignment: nut, neck, bridge, top of the body). That was April 1984. And I never would have built an instrument at all, let alone carve a compound radius, if the “Music Moguls” had had any respect for my invention. But they didn’t, so I did. I enclose a photograph of me holding an instrument I modified in June 1984. I shaped the neck from a solid block of cherry given to me by Dan Rowe, shop teacher at Western Beaver High School, Industry, Pennsylvania. I whittled and otherwise shaped it during evenings for about two weeks, using the kitchen counter for a workbench. Oddly enough, I roughly followed the procedure you described in your article “Cylinders Don’t Make It” to shape the fingerboard. However, in my case, the procedure was complicated by the approximate 45° rotation. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on July 1, 2024July 9, 2024 by Dale Phillips Letter: Technical Qualm with Jim Blilie’s Article in AL#100 Letter: Technical qualm with Jim Blilie’s article in AL #100 by Alan Carruth Originally published in American Lutherie #101, 2010 Tim — I really enjoyed AL#100. It’s a nice mix of “technoid,” “art,” and “craft” articles. Lots of good info, but I did see a couple of things I wanted to respond to. First, in Jim Blilie’s article, which was excellent overall, I have a disagreement that rises above the level of minor. He says, on p. 31: “The fact that the relationship between stiffness (Young’s modulus) and density is inherently linear shows that just changing wood species doesn’t affect the stiffness-to-weight ratio very much.” The problem with that is, while the lengthwise Young’s modulus (E) values for both hardwoods and softwoods tend to fall on straight lines, they are different lines, owing to differences in basic structure in the woods. I’ve been measuring the properties of wood samples for several years. I’m enclosing a graph of long grain E vs. density for most of the pieces I’ve measured so far (147 samples), with eyeballed “average” lines drawn in. The softwoods include all of the usual-suspect top woods, as well as white pine and Mediterranean cypress. As you can see, the points fall very close to a straight line toward the left side of the chart. The hardwoods include a lot of lutherie woods (most of the samples are Indian rosewood), and some others, with balsa and blackwood being the end points. As you can see, the scatter of the points is greater, but they do at least suggest a line. One could, of course, draw a single line that took in all of the data points, but at the cost of accepting quite a lot more scatter in the softwood data. Given the relative homogeneity of softwood structure, this seems unwarranted. Besides, the resulting line would not approach the origin at all closely, which would be illogical. As is, the hardwood line is in no way an extension of the softwood line. Balsa, and yew, ’way down on the left, overlap the softwood area, as do a few of the softer hardwoods, such as butternut. Still, compared with the softwoods, hardwoods tend to have higher density for the equivalent E value. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on July 1, 2024July 9, 2024 by Dale Phillips Opinion Opinion by Keith Hill Originally published in American Lutherie #63, 2000 Everyone who practices an art, a craft, or a profession belongs to only one of two groups: Those who love the art, craft, or profession; or those who love being involved in the art, craft, or profession. That which distinguishes these two groups is that those in the latter group are in love with the idea of being an artist, craftsman, or professor while those in the former love the art itself. What does this have to do with being a musical instrument maker? Everything. The art and craft of the professional instrument maker hinges on knowing how to reliably produce a musical instrument which equals in every way the quality of the best that has gone before. To deny this reality makes a farce of the whole business. Why? Because if you replace the words “musical instrument maker” with the word “chef” (as in gourmet cook) and the words “musical instrument” with the word “food,” no one would quibble with that statement. Since musical instruments produce sound which the ears “eat,” I see no difference (nor did Mattheson who used the same metaphor in discussing music back in the 18th century) in how the standards of quality should apply. Yet, the field of professional musical instrument making is plagued with the attitude that “because we don’t know and can’t know how the great instruments from the past were made, we do the best we can and focus our attention on what we can do well” which, unfortunately, means building instruments that appeal to the eye and not to the ear. No one would hire an engineer to build a bridge who had that attitude. No one would hire a chef who had that attitude, much less want to eat anything cooked up by such person. Yet, in the field of music, such an attitude is normal. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on July 1, 2024July 9, 2024 by Dale Phillips Letter: Disliking Kasha’s Criticisms Letter: Disliking Kasha’s Criticisms by Jason DuMont Originally published in American Lutherie #64, 2000 Dear Tim/Guild, In Michael Kasha’s letter in AL#62, he took what I consider a jab at Mr. Ramírez, stating that Ramírez’ 1986 article “Bars and Struts” (Big Red Book of American Lutherie, Volume One, p. 292) “show[ed] how far the luthier’s intuition can be from the mechanics of the instrument.” In typical Kasha fashion, he started with his findings that will soon be published, yada yada, yada. I also read an article in Discover magazine in which Mr. Kasha says that “a prominent builder whose design came to him in a dream, will be surprised when our findings show his guitar has no bass.” It was obvious to anyone in the lutherie community that he was talking about Thomas Humphrey’s Millennium guitar. My first instinct was to start bashing the Kasha design, his personality, and the pseudo-science behind his ideas. But it dawned on me that this is a perfect chance for me to contribute to the Guild in a positive way. You see, I’m just an amateur luthier, having built only six guitars. I’ve felt I have nothing of technical worth to offer. I am, however, a professional sales representative for the largest musical wholesaler in the country. I can offer some advice to Mr. Kasha as he tries to “sell” his design theories to other luthiers, players, and instrument brokers. Never, never criticize a competitor’s product. It is so low brow! Even if your comments are true, you come across as a negative person and negativity always repels people. If your product is superior, trust that it will speak for itself and others are smart enough to see it. For example, after reading his comments I plan on using the blueprint of the Kasha guitar that I bought from Luthiers Mercantile as a decorative cover for a computer table that I had accidentally spilled India ink on, rather than giving his ideas a go. My loss? Perhaps. But Mr. Kasha’s rudeness simply turns me off. Incidentally, seeing as how he has commented on Mr. Ramírez’ faulty intuition, I’m compelled to ask how many instruments Mr. Kasha has crafted with his own two hands to develop his superior knowledge of guitar mechanics. Surely tactile input from actually working the wood has had some place in his ground breaking theories, hasn’t it? ◆
