Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 19:18:13 GMT
Anyone know the approx volume in cubic centimetres of a typical reso? Just wondering, cos I theorise that having a shallower well might beneficially affect the tone - I estimate that having a well shallower by 0.5cm gives over 200 cubic cm more volume. But if it is a comparative 'drop in the ocean', then probably not much difference... There you go... TT
|
|
|
Post by bod on Oct 20, 2014 19:30:45 GMT
If you have a spare body, I guess you could fill it with liquid* and measure the volume of liquid required to fill it...
* or sand (or...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 19:48:21 GMT
Good thinking. Where's my posidrive? TT
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Oct 20, 2014 19:57:25 GMT
This will mean having a more dished coverplate, the neck will have to sit higher and your tail/p will have to be `packed-up`. wouldn`t it be better to make the body 2 or 3mm bigger? PT no good will come from messing with trusted shapes and sizes...... you won`t catch me doing anything like that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 21:16:14 GMT
Not cecilcerily pete. I inadvertently made my well too shallow - the cone is about 1mm under the coverplate, and the biscuit sticks up a bit. Small saddle, but it all works fine. I'm thinking that my 'mistake' might actually have made the thing sound better. TT
|
|
|
Post by Keith Ambridge on Oct 20, 2014 21:23:17 GMT
I recon the volume of an acoustic would be (very) roughly 15000cc or 15L.
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Oct 20, 2014 21:23:30 GMT
Most say that a shorter saddle gives more bass, a tall one more treble, could this have more to do with the `better` sound?? PT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 21:45:08 GMT
Pete - maybe. But would the only reason for a shorter saddle be a shallower well?
Thanks Keith - how did your calculate that BTW?
TT
|
|
|
Post by Keith Ambridge on Oct 20, 2014 22:08:49 GMT
Just took the area of 2 circles about the sizes of the upper and lower bouts added them together, multiplied by the depth of a guitar and subtracted a bit. I did say "Very" roughly!
K.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 21, 2014 8:43:57 GMT
After much experimenting and many prototypes, John Dopyera got it 100% right. I have never seen a resonator guitar with different dimensions and/or geometry that was an improvement on John Dopyera's designs. Deeper bodied Dobros for more bass, shallower bodies for more punch...etc. None of them can touch the original National & Dobro designs. Well that's my opinion and I am sticking with it Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by zak71 on Oct 21, 2014 13:21:11 GMT
But what about something like a National Aragon? Although I have never heard one "in person" they DO have a reputation as sounding fantastic, in spite of being quite different from other Nationals. It could be argued that the body is a Kay design, and that the Dopyeras weren't terribly concerned that the body was a standard Kay archtop's back and sides outfitted with a thick plywood top.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 21, 2014 13:37:45 GMT
It is a fair point Zak. My own 12 string Havana is also an extraordinary sounding guitar.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by zak71 on Oct 21, 2014 14:54:21 GMT
I always thought that the genius of the Dopyeras' design lay in the fact that the resonating system worked efficiently in so many different body types. Different materials, different shapes, different construction methods...they all work although they are different enough from one another to please a variety of tastes.
Somewhat off-topic, but still along the "body affecting sound production" theme: has anyone ever compared a pear-shaped single-cone tenor to a guitar-shaped tenor (with f-holes) made from the same material? I've never had an opportunity to directly compare the two, and I am really wondering whether the tenor's lowest range is low enough to be affected noticeably by the presence or absence of f-holes?
|
|
|
Post by davey on Oct 21, 2014 15:26:53 GMT
Having repaired my two Duolians this year, I think it's the break angle over the saddle that makes most difference.
My 14 fret had a bow in the neck and the string slots were very deep.
Once the bow was fixed, it was playable but just on the verge of buzzing. When the string slots were filled by 3 or 4 mm there was a massive increase in volume, bass and sustain and no buzz.
Break angle's only about 5 degrees, I'll try and figure out a way of measuring it accurately. My other Duolian came out with nearer 10 degrees and it sounds a bit tight in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by preacherman on Oct 22, 2014 17:26:44 GMT
I own a skylark Miniolian and though it resonates it has a sort of pock pock feel when played hard like the volume is stuck inside, I think this is about the body size.
I also have an orpheum jumbo 6string like Michaels 12 string it has a great attack and bass tones, and a wood bodied Donmo where the coverplate is flat and the saddle in the biscuit is very high, the Donmo has a treble end to the sound with a woody overtone.
I once set out to make a square violin from oak and was corrected by a fiddle maker that people had worked for centuries to perfect the design and there I was trying to make a square one, which is now a wall hanger.
I suspect Michael is right there is more engineering to making a reso, and we've probably all been around a bad un at some stage to wonder how/why?
I'll watch this thread with great interest,
Preacherman
|
|