edvard
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
|
Post by edvard on Aug 28, 2014 1:34:59 GMT -5
I was thinking the other day (quick! run to the hills!!), about the benefits of carved tops, and how one might do it without so much labor (heresy!!). Then I remembered I had play-tested a guitar back in the late '80s that was a bit unusual. It was a slick black number in super-strat style with a bound neck and de rigeur Floyd Rose bridge, but what made it unusual was it's comfort. It was constructed like a neck-through, but the 'wings' or 'sides' curved away and downward from the centerline, with a corresponding concave on the hip side. Not only did the curve eliminate the need for a forearm contour, but the hip concave just kind of 'snuggled up' to me. Kinda like this guy, but with the entire back concave, not just a scoop out for the strap pin: theguitaraddict.blogspot.com/2010/12/brian-moore-guitars-i91.html...or this number, but in a super-strat body style: theguitaraddict.blogspot.com/2011/05/spector-cular-arc6-pro.htmlSO... that got me thinking... what if one would construct the guitar in the same manner as a neck-through, but simply bevel the join where the sides attach to the center piece, so they angle down and away? and could you then do the same with the back end, attaching a butt piece angled away from the rear of bridge, thereby ending up with the gestalt of a carved or arched top, perhaps a tad more angular, but arched nonetheless? I'm sure it would mean a mess of join angles that would be quite the hassle to clamp up, but I never claimed my thoughts were safe. Here's what I'm thinking: I'm seriously considering doing a guitar that at least has angled sides, if not the butt angle. That part looks like it'd be hard...
|
|
|
Post by lunaalta on Aug 28, 2014 4:59:15 GMT -5
That looks interesting............
But, both of the example guitars you cited appear to have flat rear bodies. Your projected design might tend to 'dig in', since it has a concave rear body. A flat, or sculptured rear body might well be more comfortable.
Which leads me to thinking....... change the joint angle and shave off the back, or have straight joints and shave off the front.....
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 28, 2014 5:56:11 GMT -5
I assume that the diagram above exaggerates the actual angle at which the wings would be attached to the neck-through. You wouldn't want it that concave, but shallower, right? I can think of no good reason why it wouldn't work, at least for the side wings. As edvard notes, adding a third angled piece for the butt would be tough. It occurred to me that a headless design would eliminate the need for that third piece . . . This guy is a custom builder who seems to be doing something similar, although its not clear from the photos whether the wings are angled or whether he just carves out the back- likely the latter. But his photos do show a slightly concave rear: destroyallguitars.com/models/item/557-esoterik-eso-c/category_pathway-270
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 28, 2014 18:56:59 GMT -5
Call me more cynical than usual, but does this design strike anyone as a design for fat guys with guitars?
A planer\joiner is going to be a requirement for the "wing" design your propose. Make sure you get one with a good adjustable calibrated backstop.
HTC1
|
|
edvard
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
|
Post by edvard on Aug 28, 2014 22:53:35 GMT -5
But, both of the example guitars you cited appear to have flat rear bodies. Actually, the second one mentions there is a curve to the back side as well:
"The ARC6 Pro is a reflection of its bass siblings, sporting a curved top... & rear. In my opinion, this is the signature Spector feature making it less ordinary & very attractive." The one I remember playing was actually very comfortable, though I can't recall if it had a rib contour or not. Most probably did. I assume that the diagram above exaggerates the actual angle at which the wings would be attached to the neck-through. You wouldn't want it that concave, but shallower, right? Yes, the angle is exaggerated. That's 10 degrees. I'd say anywhere from 3-5 would be sufficient, though if I had the time, I'd do a few experiments with some "throw-away" wood to confirm the best angle, as well as the best center/wing ratio. Though that might be over-thinking things... Nah!! Yes, I think it'd work great for a headless guitar with the open rear tuner access. Though I don't think a normal guitar with just the side wing angles would be unattractive, and if it did turn out to be a contender in the "ergonomic" category, at least it would be recognizable as a regular guitar. Those ergonomic guys get downright zany sometimes... Call me more cynical than usual, but does this design strike anyone as a design for fat guys with guitars? Exactly what I was thinking! In the late '80s I had hip bones that fit nicely into the contoured back of the guitar I remember. Nowadays, that contour would make a nice pocket for those extra slices of meatloaf.
|
|