I think I missed a step here - in this pic I've removed the corners which defined my facets, so I've got a more or less even curve over the top. You can tweak this lots, regularly checking the shape with light from different directions, and looking at it in profile. It's all just adjusting the convex curve to your tastes.
I use this to introduce a recurve arount the edge of the carve. This is a lousy picture, so I'll try to explain what's going on in the next post. Ok - Explaination of the recurve. With the spokeshave you can only create a convex curve - like in diagram 1. I use the scraper to create a concave curve around the edge of the carve, so it ends up like diagram 2. Once this is done, you can use a combination of scraper and spokeshave to flow the two curves together, your aim being something like the curve in diagram 3.
This was a bastard to photograph On some instruments this recurve actually ends up being more exagerated - so the carve actually goes below the height of the binding, them back up towards the bridge. And here's a shot of the carve - on a real instrument there would be a bunch more sanding, but the bulk of the work is done. The knots in the pine made the waist of the cutaway side impossible, so it's still pretty rough.
Thanks Devon. Setch, what if any consideration would you have to take when planeing the neck angle on a double cut guitar, say a PRS? Do you think the neck angle should carry into the horns? How would you attack a PRS top? On my double cutaway I wanted the fretboard to sit on the binding at the neck joint, so I calculated the neck angle to allow this, then planed that angle into the neck joint area.
However, the angle couldn't continue along the horns, since it would have made them thinner than the body, and broken through the maple top into the mahogany body. It's hard to describe how the carve flows to accomodate the neck angle, but the shape achieved is a lot like Ormsby's vine guitar - rebated all around the perimeter, with crests along the top of the horns and a shallow "valley" where the neck meets the body. The other approach is to simply carve the body to a shape you like, and then have the neck sit in slightly proud of the body.
I used to think this was 'cheating' somehow, but I've since seen it utilised very elegantly by a few folks, most notably David Myka, and I now think it's a perfectly valid solution, which also makes for a less involved top geometry. I have a few questions I'm thinking of doing a double-cutaway mahoghany guitar with a carved maple top.
Bolt on neck. I don't want the carve to be too severe, pretty much like a Les Paul. The way I was thinking I would do it would be to attach the maple top, cut out the body shape, do my pickup routing and drill the holes for the TOM bridge, and then make a sort of skid, and run a router over the body perpendicular to the glue-line.
Then for the back of the guitar I would freehand sand it down to the right angle or whatever. Will this work? Do you forsee any problems I might have doing it this way? Are there any other ways to do it? This isn't the first guitar I've built, but the first carved top, and I'm not sure how to do it properly. Thanks for your help.
Just remember, free hand is your worst tool. It's just a simple plywood base, which raises the router above the top. Instead of a bearing, it incorporates an adjustable plywood guide, which the guitar is run against, controlling how far towards the centre the cutter can reach. It's pure genius. I'm a-make me one of those. Well, something similar at least. My work surface isn't that big or nice.
So shiny! Could be the pickups I got though. I like the look of the carved top a lot, but I understand trying to keep costs down. Looks alone, I love carved top double cuts. I like having a carved top just because my forearm lays in a better spot than a flat top, makes for more comfortable playing I think.
Orpheo 2, I'd go for a carved top. MicahC Carved tops are prettier. And like Drex said, it's supposed to change the sound a little bit, but I couldn't tell much difference. Just remember you are unique. Holy Smoke. That is just so lush, so beautiful. You are going to be playing a genuine, irreplaceable treasure, Vinny! I just can't stop drooling over this.
Thank you all for your replies. I do hand clap the rhythm but needs to be better. I can do so to a metronome at slower speeds too. I can't sing notes to the rhythm, especially while clapping The search for point and meaning strikes me as a problem of expectations. Looks a fab choice, I love my AR and this looks a step up from that! I don't think I could name a single favorite. Search Titles Only. Last Jump to page: Posts 1 to 25 of Advantage of Carved Top vs Laminate.
Thread Tools. Join Date Jul Posts What do you prefer, a carved or laminate top. I realize there may be no "better". That said, I was comparing guitars from Peerless and one from Painter. The top of line Cremona from Peerless has a carved maple top. It's twice the price of the similar Jazz City which has a pressed maple top. It occurred to me I'm not sure how tops are usually constructed.
I also was considering a painter P which has a custom laminated maple top. I'm not sure exactly what pressed means for that matter.
Could it be a steam pressed solid piece of wood? It must be cheaper to construct but does it have big flaws? The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary. Yes, better acoustic tone, but still. In a performance, when do you EVER play completely acoustically with an archtop?
Carved-top solid body Thread starter Uri Thraburn Start date Dec 20, Uri Thraburn Senior Member. Messages I've always wondered if carving the top of a solid-body guitar is done for looks or tone--or both. Les Pauls are the obvious example. Messages 4, Originally, that was just how Gibsons were made, if they had tried to make a new guitar where like half the factory wasn't involved, there would have been a near revolt.
Messages 1, Klatu Member. Whiskeyrebel Silver Supporting Member. Messages 30, Well, it does raise the bridge relative to the end of the neck, which allows the neck to be angled back from the body as it is on a hollowbody archtop.
I mean, you could do that on a slab-face guitar just by making the bridge taller but that would make the bridge to be more heavily built or more vulnerable to damage. I know, I know, if Gibson cared about vulnerability they would not make any 1-piece necks. I've heard it posited that having the perimeter of a solidbody somewhat thinner than the area under the strings IS beneficial if not for fundamental 'tap' tone but so that the vibrations out there don't fight and cancel the strings' vibrations down the center between the nut and bridge, which are after all primary.
Which kinda makes sense. Messages 6,
0コメント