Schub: Yes. The twelfth fret is the highest on which I can bar with this design, and it is really only comfortable to bar across five strings. However this is far better than trying to bar on the 12th fret of a straight fret classical with no cutaway, where a 10th fret bar is about the highest practical and awkward at that. For the record, there is NOTHING that is more difficult on fanned frets than on straight frets. Except the visuals.shub wrote:I have a quick question though: Can you really bar the frets between the perpendicular and the 12th fret ? I mean is it not more difficult than on a regular straight-fret guitar ?
Thanks for you answer !
I am thinking that the fan on the next build will be 60c to 70c. Slightly less fan than the present one and more length on the low F#. The F# has a .074" string which is so fat that it clicks annoyingly between notes unless I succeed in damping with the right hand before moving the left, a cludgy technique. Therefore, a successful F# must be longer so as to permit a thinner string. Naturally you could tune to A and 68c would be fine, but I really like the pattern of fourths all the way down. I am hoping, fingers crossed, that 70 will be enough, as obviously it could get extreme... 72c?shub wrote:I agree with you Jack, something like 61-65 cm (almost exactly the Rubio one that Galbraith plays wich is 613-653 mm) is the best compromise. For the reason that you mentionned, but also in term of comfort and stressless play..
Do you have a dimension on that string? like, around .018" or .42 mm ?shub wrote:My 8 strings guitar has a fan at 610-655 mm. After a year of research on strings, I now have the perfect string set, and it sound really great. High A is a Savarez Alliance KF52.
Yeah, I tried the wound G (at F, too) and it has as short a life span as a gut high E.shub wrote:Also, at this length, you can have a clear G-4 string. In my opinion the wounded one (0.025"/0.64mm) is really a pain: no good results in term of sound and too short lifespan..
And what tuning are you proposing?shub wrote: I'm actually working on a 9 strings prototype that I hope will be built by Jean-Marie Fouilleul at the beginning of the year 2015. I'll post the specs as soon as the luthier begins the work !
And don't forget, you can and should specify the distance between the strings both at the nut end and at the bridge end. There is a possibility that because of the difference between the thicknesses of the extreme strings that the bass strings should be farther apart at the nut than should the trebles. Bear in mind that the critical distance is that between, say, the low F# and the low E when you are fretting the low B, because the finger has to fit in this space, around 15 to 20 millimeters, which depends on how fat your fingers and how high the action. I set these parameters very tight on this first build, and even though I re-cut the nut to spread them a littel farther, I have had to work very hard this year to make my left hand technique cleaner and more precise, so I will ease up on the next one, BUT my fear is that the fingerboard will be too wide to reach across, so I am thinking around 8.4 mm for the center-to-center distance - possibly graduated from 8 to 9 mm from treble to bass. On the bridge end, I also put the strings very close, at 9.6mm, and this is really too tight, but it has pointed out that the 11.0 mm or so on my other guitars is too much and I waste time (milliseconds of course) traveling across, so maybe around 10.5 or less for the next one. Hey, we should measure the fatness of our fingers and compare notes.shub wrote: In fact, I now aim for a really easy-to-play instrument, for both hands, as 9 strings are really more difficult to play than 6 if you want to really use the polyphonic potential of all the strings up to the 12th fret... If you think about it, the position of the perpendicular fret is really important too, and of course the range of the fan, and the global string length.
That's all for now...
Hi Maxi! I'm sorry that I have not been on delcamp for many months. But I do have, if not answers, some observations of my own.maxi78 wrote:...some months ago, searching for information about Brahms guitar I read this complete post before commissioning one to my luthier.
But now that the guitar arrived, I discovered a thingh I had undervalued! Infact neither me nor the luthier considered the need of making a narrow neck in order to facilitate the fingering of the left hand!!!
So my question is the following: can someone give me the exact measure of the neck used in the original Rubio project and/or in most common Brahms guitars? Are the neck width at the capo and the string distance at the bridge slightly reduced? Another question... is the neck perfectly flat as in common classical guitars?
Thanks for your answers!
Same here, although I've come to like the name Brahms guitar. Galbraith and Rubio refered to it as such, so why not? Besides, if it does take its place as the 21st century guitar, the name Brahms will probably subside and there you have it - classical guitar. I might be wrong though.Blkw wrote:Deep in my mind, I hope that the Octochord - far better than "Brahms" ?! - will be the XXI century guitar .
The high A and high E are still a little pinched sounding, at least so far, and because I often play the high A with right hand pinky, which is the closest to the bridge, and the bridge on the high A is really close to the sound hole, I have to keep remembering to move my hand away from the bridge and play over the sound hole. This is probably the biggest potential liability with this design - getting a nice round fat sound out of that high A string.
So I might even go for 650-615 cm, if necessary.jack_cat wrote:
The real problem with this design is that the 45-o angle of the bridge does not transmit the sound to the top well. Perhaps this should have been obvious before, but the proof is in the build... ...It seems clear that to succeed with the extreme angle of the bridge would require a complete redesign of the soundboard bracing and the position of the soundhole. As you can see, the root of the highest string is placed very near the confluence of two braces and the soundhole, and there is very little freely vibrating top for the sound to transfer to at that point. Hence the high A string is somewhat weak.
I like your handwriting, it's very neat! Thank you for sharing, I will try them out sometime.jack_cat wrote:Maybe you would like to play my waltzes - which I wrote out in grand staff - they are posted here --
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests