Nice! You are so lucky to be friends with luthiers and have the opportunity to visit so many workshops, you gotta promise you will record a few audios and take a few pics if not recording a few videos, for the next time you visit a luthier.rojarosguitar wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:05 pmJust came back from Sebastian Stenzels' workshop near to Freiburg. Hew was so kind to fill and redrill the tuner holes on my Alvaréz flamenca blanca - the only sore point on otherwise very nice guitar.
By that occasion I could marvel at two newly made guitars he just finished. One of them is a Cedar/Californian Walnut classical that is going to GSI on preorder; the other one is a most stunning Spruce/Honduras RW classical, which is a bit heavier than his guitars usually are due to thicker sides. This guitar has really the most incredible sound I have ever heard on a Stenzel, which always have beautiful sound anyway.
Maybe I'll have the possibility to post some pictures soon...
I remember reading an article by a luthier who said that the sides of the guitar didn't make much difference to the sound - I forget who it was. His argument was that the sound of the guitar depends on the soundboard (and bracing) and the back. He reckoned that it was a waste of money using solid wood on the sides because their main function is to be as rigid as possible to minimise energy loss - unlike the soundboard which needs to be flexible to move the air. He said it was easier to make the sides out of laminate and they were more rigid so that's what he used.
I'd assumed that they were sold wood sides, but maybe as you say they're laminated. In fact if they're very thick it's quite likely that they were laminated or they'd be very difficult to make. Nevertheless most high end guitars have solid wood sides as a matter of course for some reason - possibly simply because people expect that.
Yes, I agree entirely.Michael.N. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:55 amWell the vast majority of laminated guitars tend to be made to a pretty low price. It's hardly surprising that most of them don't sound great. I strongly suspect that it's much less to do with the lamination of the back/side material and a lot more to do with a soundboard/strutting that is done to a pre determined average irrespective of the material properties of that soundboard. Of course they also sprayed with thick coatings of varnish/finish which hardly helps either. The cheaper guitars also tend to err on the side of caution. You are never going to get a thin Torres type soundboard on such a guitar (and even more expensive factory guitars too). It's just too much of a risk. The actual profits on such guitars are small. They don't want to deal with high volume of returns. You can hardly blame them for the decisions that they make.
To say that the top is most important is probably never wrong, but the question is: how much is 'most' of the whole?Grasshopper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:29 pmYes, I agree entirely.
I wasn't trying to be contentious about the subject because I don't know enough about it, but from my experience it seems that the most important factor is the soundboard. The best guitar I have is a Cordoba C12 which has a very thin, slightly domed lattice braced soundboard - it also has solid wood Indian rosewood sides and back. This is quite an expensive guitar. But I've also got a 50 year old Cordoba (when it was a Spanish company) which also has a very thin soundboard (it's cracking up in fact) but with cheap laminated back and sides - it cost me £10 new (£9 19s 11d to be accurate). Yet it sounds very good indeed - looks terrible.