It is traditional when building a short scale classical guitar to make the body smaller, so that the proportions stay the same. The result is that musicians with smaller hands are relegated to playing on guitars that many deride as children’s instruments or having to play on frets that are too far apart for their hands. Either way it is an impediment to many men and women who are not blessed with huge hands.
This year I decided that I should look into this issue. I do not have very large hands and playing on a 650mm scale guitar can be an issue for me. I often play arrangements by musicians who play on arch top guitars, which tend to have a scale length closer to 630mm (24.9″). Some of the stretches are very difficult for me on a 650mm scale classical guitar, so I decided to build a short scale, but full size body classical guitar for my own use.
In addition to the short scale, I wanted to get back into using solid wood for soundboards, and see if I could get performance similar to the double top soundboards I’d been building for the past several years. I had built a Bolivian rosewood/spruce guitar earlier in the year and been impressed with it’s volume, so I decided to try Patagonian rosewood with Englemann spruce. Both of these guitars have 7 fan braces and my pin supported soundboard design. I knew that I would have to use high tension strings for the short scale to get a tension I was used to on the soundboard.
I finished the guitar and have been playing it for a couple months now. I had some issues initially getting a set of strings I liked on it. I went through several sets while playing the guitar in the first few weeks. In order I tried;
D’Addario J-46 high tension nylon RC white high tension composite D’addario high tension Titanium Knobloch Actives high tension carbon
I normally use Savarez Cantiga/Alliance (carbon) strings, but did not have a high tension set. I expect to try those when I’ve exhausted the Knobloch Actives. So far the Knobloch strings are doing very well and provide the strong treble presence that I prefer. I like the steel core of the bass strings as well. I don’t like paying the extra cost for the Knobloch strings, but on this guitar they have excelled. I have a rather low action on this guitar and I might prefer a little more tension on the bass strings, but the sound is excellent and well balanced with these strings as is.
The overall result was a guitar that stands out very well given it’s short scale length. While it is not quite as loud as my double top instruments, it is very close and has qualities that I really like. I feel confident that I can recommend this to those who, like me, have smaller hands but don’t want a reduced size instrument.
I have always preferred ebony fretboards for the superior wear resistance they provide. As prices have risen over the years, I’ve also tried different ebonies and other very dense woods.
I’ve included the Janka Hardness value for each wood listed for comparison. Higher numbers indicate harder woods, which indicates greater resistance to wear. Generally speaking I alternate between African ebony, Mun ebony and Katalox on the guitars I build, but any of those woods listed below are available as an option on custom builds. I note which woods are in stock as of the end of 2021.
In order as shown in the photo;
African (Gabon) ebony – JankaHardness: 3,080 lbf (13,700 N) The standard black ebony everyone is familiar with. I do have some solid black boards in stock, as well as black streaked with white or brown. – In stock – – Indian (Ceylon) ebony (not shown)- Janka Hardness: 2,430 lbf (10,790 N) Softer than African ebony, not that anyone seems to notice. It is quite possible that Indian ebony is sold as African ebony as it is difficult to tell them apart. I don’t have any in stock that I know of.
Macassar ebony – Janka Hardness: 3,220 lbf (14,140 N) Black with pinkish red streaks. It does shine up really well with an oil finish. – In stock –
Mun ebony – Janka Hardness: 3,000 lbf (13,350 N) A favorite of mine, but extremely rare. When freshly cut it looks a lot like Brazilian rosewood but is very nearly as hard as African ebony. It darkens with use. I don’t know of any other guitar builders using this wood. – In stock –
Mexican ebony, Katalox – Janka Hardness: 3,660 lbf (16,260 N) A smooth, very hard wood with fine grain that darkens with use. It polishes very nicely. Considerably harder than the other woods listed here (see Brazilian ebony below). A superior fretboard wood with a purple tinge that darkens with use. – In stock –
Black and white ebony – Janka Hardness: 1,780 lbf (7,920 N) I’ve used this for bridges with good results. This is the softest wood listed here. The board shown would make stunning fretboards for anyone brave enough to flaunt a yellow fretboard with black, spider webbed lines across it. Very expensive and rare in this quality. – In stock –
TexasEbony – Janka Hardness: 2,820 lbf (12,560 N) Not a true ebony, although you’d never guess from it’s scientific name: Ebenopsis ebano . Another rare wood that appears to be unique to my for fret board use. – In stock –
Brazilian ebony (Blackheart) – Janka Hardness: 3,400 lbf (15,120 N) Very hard and more stable than African ebony. It resembles Katalox in color and is in the same botanical genus swartzia. A superior fretboard wood with a dark purple tinge that darkens further with use. – In stock –
Royal black wood – Janka Hardness: 2,520 lbf (11,190 N) Purpleheart that has been heat treated until it’s black throughout. Purpleheart’s bright purple color limited it’s use as a fret board material. Blacked, it is difficult to distinguish it from African ebony and is similar in hardness to Indian (Ceylon) ebony. – In stock –
When I first string up a guitar I listen intently. In a sense I savor the sound’s flavor, but not so much to appreciate it, but rather to register what it sounds like initially. With double tops, I use Savarez Cantiga/Alliance strings and most of the time it sounds just like I want it to, loud with a strong, full treble voice. If It doesn’t work that way, I start looking to other strings to fine tune the sound.
Now strings are not going to make an overbuilt guitar sound like a fine concert instrument, but as I learned long ago not to overbuild a soundboard, that isn’t what I’m trying to do. What I am trying to do is balance the tonal qualities of the instrument to strings that will maximize the instrument’s potential. Let me repeat what D’Addario shows on a string insert.
From the Warmest to the Brightest (treble strings) Rectified Nylon Black Nylon Clear Nylon Composite Nylon Titanium Nylon Carbon
I’ve found this to be generally true, as long as we understand that we are talking about the treble strings. Generally I don’t care much about bases. A well built classical guitar will usually handle bass strings well. Oddly enough, what trebles are in use do influence how the bass notes respond, at least in polyphony. It’s the treble response that I care about and how I judge an instrument.
I have built some guitars that are so responsive that I have to “dial it down” and replace the carbon strings with nylon trebles.
I recently built a short scale (632 mm) but full size concert classical guitar with a solid spruce top. I knew I’d have to use hard tension strings due to the scale length. I also suspected that I’d have to try a few sets of strings to find what worked best. I started with D’Addario J46 nylon strings and was immediately dismayed that the trebles just didn’t do anything. I then tried RC white HT strings, but the strings didn’t seem to get tight enough and the G string suffered towards the nut. There was also a disturbing initial click I didn’t like. Next I tried titanium, which seemed promising, but again just didn’t quite have it. I didn’t have any high tension carbon strings at the time so I ordered a string I’d never tried before, Knobloch (HT) Actives. These strings make this instrument sing with a nice, full treble. The bases actually are a bit stronger than the trebles, but the overall effect is quite nice and close enough to balanced that little technique change is required. When I change these strings again I’ll try Savarez Alliance, or maybe I’ll stick with Knobloch Actives. I built this one for myself, so I’ll have more time to experiment.
It may not look like there have been any changes to this website for a while, and that would be largely true, as I’ve spent more time adding youtube content than new items here. There are however some behind the scenes administrative and technical changes that may have some unintended consequences. I’ve been working to get these sorted out as soon as I find them, but I probably can’t find everything. So I’d ask if you find something on this website that doesn’t look right, a broken link, a missing photo or some thing else that seems broken, please let me know using the contact form (which I’ve verified works).
This guitar was started in 2019. The intent was initially to build a guitar that sounded as good as #251 which I built several years ago in Fort Collins. That guitar initially didn’t speak to me at all. It was a Cedar double top with Cocobolo back and sides and a 5 piece laminated neck. Now I tend to impatiently wait to listen to an instrument. I will often string a guitar up long before it is ready. This was the case with 251. I’ve been using water borne finishes for several years now and one of the things about it is that it takes up to a month for it to fully cure. Until it does, the guitar sounds dull. So the finish wasn’t cured when I first strung 251 up and I set it aside for several years while I built a few guitars that I french polished. No long waiting time for those.
At any rate, this summer I dragged 251 out of the case and started playing it and realized that it was one of the best sounding instruments I’d built. It was loud, had a great bass and the treble was as loud as the bass without being harsh. I impressed a few local players with it and decided to do it again, maybe trying a solid top this time. The photo below is of #251 before attaching the back.
The main thing missing from the photo is the set screw pivot that acts to support the small transverse brace below the soundhole from the carbon fiber rod. The other thing it doesn’t show is the support rods that replace the upper transverse bar.
The bracing pattern is my own creation, which I have dubbed the diamond spider. Diamond because of the centrally located diamond, and spider because it has 8 ancillary braces, or legs like a spider. All the angles except for the center brace adjoin at 90 degrees. The center brace adjoins the others at 45 degrees. I’d say this qualifies as a radial bracing pattern, of which there are many. But it started as a large, rather open lattice. Most lattice bracing is joined together at the crossings, often with carbon fiber threads and epoxy. My first try at this (a year or so earlier) sounded really tight and I tore the back off and reworked the bracing to roughly what the photo shows before it started singing well. So far, this bracing yields the best sound from a double top for me.
Now I can seldom leave well enough alone, so in addition to doing this bracing with a solid cedar top I decided to change the bracing a bit.
The bracing above is what I tried. I extended the top legs up into the upper bout and shaved the small transverse bar down a bit. The cedar top was thinned down to 2mm around the edge with almost 3mm in the center. This is a bit thicker than I’d normally have done it in the past, but I was going more by weight than thickness. Since I was in experimental mode, I strung this up with the back clamped on. I played it for several days and didn’t like it at all. There was no bass response and the treble was thin. I proceeded to drop the bracing down to 4mm tall and glued on the back. Oh, did I mention that I was using a wood rod instead of the carbon fiber ? I thinned that rod down too. Comparing it to #251 side by side was sad. I got a bit more bass out of it, but still not good.
The last thing I did, with the back still glued on, was to sand down those two extending braces below the soundhole almost level with the surface of the top. There was marginal improvement, but it wasn’t balanced. The treble was too shrill and the bass without depth. It has now been a couple months or more. I sent 251 off to it’s new owner and built another copy, #257 using Brazilian Rosewood. The next entry will be about that guitar. Against that guitar 253 sounded just as weak… sigh… I should mention that when I talk about the sound of this guitar it is in comparison to the other guitars it’s being compared to. In reality 253A wasn’t that bad a guitar and would have held it’s own against a good many guitars in most stores. But the bar is high here.
So top A came off and a new top B was prepared, along with some other changes…
This version (253B) is much more like the original 251 (and 257) and is a cedar double top. The transverse bar isn’t shown here. In addition, I made a few changes to the body as well…
Here the transverse support pivot can be seen with the set screw in place. I also added a carbon fiber support in the lower bout to sturdy up the lower bout, which felt a little too loose to me. That was probably because I had just finished the sides for #258, which are extremely thick and stiff. That brace across the lower bout would be a really bad idea if I didn’t have a vacuum press for gluing on the bridge. I’ll also mention that 251 and 257 don’t have the longitudinal back bracing, instead they have 3 transverse aromatic cedar braces. At this point I added the cedar (pink) transverse brace on the back. Then it was attach the new top, re bind and finish the top.
So to summarize all that. I started with a top that was too stiff, or such was my surmise having very little low end and a shrill high end. All my efforts didn’t get me to where I was satisfied, so I replaced the top and stiffened the back and sides. Having sent #251 away I wasn’t really able to compare the same way I had before the switch, however I can say with certainty that there is more depth in the bass response and that the treble is not shrill at all. Did I get close to #251 ? I don’t know for sure since 251 is gone, but it’s certainly much closer. It’s quite loud, which is a nice change. When I play it, I am pulled into a more romantic style, pulling for deep emotion. It has grown in the month that it has been strung up. It started sounding a bit mushy (uncured finish ?) but has opened up nicely in the past week or so. Another month or so and polishing up the finish on the new binding around the top and it should be ready for someone. I expect that I’ll be using it to judge 258…
Guitarists (and guitar builders) have been sold and hold dear a lot of misinformation which over time becomes accepted dogma. One such dogma is that dark tropical woods (OK, rosewoods specifically) are required for a great sounding guitar. It should be noted that great builders like Torres have built excellent guitars from domestic woods in the past.
We’ll pass on the question of what constitutes a great sound for now. A more pertinent question is: Is there an objective difference in sound between guitars built with expensive dark colored tropical woods and those built with cheaper domestic woods ? Do you really get what you pay for or are you just being bamboozled into paying more for the same sound ? The only way to determine this is with double blind studies where listeners don’t know what instruments they are listening to. Many unofficial studies have been done on violins and guitars, and point to the possibility that there is no discernible difference when the only difference is the woods used in the back and sides. This adds credence to the old story of Torres’s paper mache guitar and the idea that it’s all about the soundboard.
Recently the Leonardo guitar research project published the results of an in depth study that into just this question. The study parameters are well thought out and executed. The results are in and it appears to put a nail in the coffin of this old dogma. See https://sites.google.com/site/leonardoguitarresearch/research-report-lgrp and https://sites.google.com/site/leonardoguitarresearch/research-report-lgrp-2
The only remaining question is how long it will take guitarists to catch on and give domestic woods a chance ?
For those wanting to cut to the chase, the following conclusions are directly from the study:
• All 216 respondents perceived combinations of several guitars (including both T’s and NT’s) as being ONE guitar.
• In this test it was very difficult to differentiate one guitar from the other, and virtually impossible to distinguish between
guitars made from tropical wood species from those made from non-tropical wood species.
• Although several people demonstrated outstanding listening abilities (by indicating 7, 8 to 9 correct transition time points),
the ability to detect the nature of the guitars was notably less pronounced.
• This test shows that the distinctive sound qualities and the supposed nature of T’s and NT’s were not distinguishable one
from the other.
• This test implies that neither group (Tropical or Non-Tropical) possesses inherently distinctive, readily identifiable sound
• Indeed, as there are clearly more time points detected between T’s and NT’s made by different builders than time points
between T’s and NT’s made by a given builder, it would appear that the builder may have a more pronounced effect on
differences in sound quality than the wood species used for back/sides, bridge, fingerboard and neck.
We should, however, exercise caution as some respondents indicated in their comments that they were able to detect
transition points based on “clicks” caused by editing rather than on a perceived difference in sound quality between guitars.
We are still in the process of analyzing whether or not there were more detectable “clicks” or other editing phenomena
between different builders than between guitars from the same builder.
• Furthermore, if we consider other studies on this subject (see extra info), the question has to be asked as to whether the
woods for back/sides, bridge, fingerboard and neck are really as important as has been previously assumed.
The new CITES treaty updates make export of any and all rosewoods difficult, impossible in some cases. These new rules make it all that more important for guitarists to shed the blinders of convention and learn to listen with their ears instead of their eyes. There are some amazing sounding woods, many with great beauty, just waiting for talented musicians to pick up the mantle and show the world how its done.
In the inventory now are 3 instruments built with readily (and legally) available woods that sound great. Sycamore (known as Plane tree in Europe) has been used in Spain for “low end” flamenco guitars. That is a completely undeserved classification. It is cheaper to purchase than rosewood or cypress, but it is by no means low end in terms of sound. While it is a “white” wood, it should not be limited to the flamenco realm. The two instruments in stock show the best of classical and flamenco characteristics.
Black Poisonwood (Metopium brownei) has been marketed by the false name of Caribbean rosewood (it isn’t a dalbergia sp.) and the unfortunate name of Chechen. Coming from the same family of plants as Poison Ivy (the family Anacardiaceae) the bark of the tree produces urushiol, the same chemical skin irritant that Poison Ivy produces. The wood is safe however, and is one of the most beautiful woods on earth, far exceeding any rosewood I’ve seen. The color is similar to some lighter shades of Brazilian rosewood, but with more depth and movement.
Both of these woods are excellent choices for guitars of the highest quality.
There are two dominant factors that must be considered when building a highly responsive guitar. The weight and stiffness of the soundboard. These two factors determine the volume and tonal properties of the instrument and while bracing is very important, it can only do so much. It won’t make a poor soundboard equal a great one.
The dance between weight and stiffness is a hard one to master. The best soundboards are lightweight and relatively stiff. The problem is that stiffness and weight are inextricably linked. Reducing the weight of a solid soundboard is normally only possible by making it thinner which makes it less stiff. If it isn’t stiff enough, the tone suffers and consistency suffers more. The result is erratic instruments with loud and quiet notes causing problems with consistent performance. A thicker soundboard will be stiffer and thus less erratic, but won’t have the volume required by today’s demanding musicians. This is the base dilemma of building stringed instruments from solid wood.
My experience has shown that a truly responsive guitar (nylon/carbon strung), in terms of volume requires that a soundboard, thicknessed, cut to shape and ready for bracing should weigh no more than 120 grams for spruce. This will differ depending on the body shape, but it’s a good rough number for this article. Depending on the variety (Sitka, Englemann, European etc) this will be very thin. As mentioned before, thinner means less stiff and less stiff means erratic results.
The answer to this dilemma for me is composite soundboards. I can meet weight targets while increasing stiffness by building soundboards that are mostly air. More often referred to as “double tops”, the construction is two thin sheets of wood encasing an open Aramid® honeycomb core. The vast majority of weight is in the wood sheets, which must be very thin. Spruce and cedar are used for the outer sheets, which can be as thin as .5mm. Care must be taken when building these tops and proper construction can nearly double the time it takes to build the instrument, but it is worth it. In all cases I’ve built, the finished double-top weighs less and is stiffer than solid tops from the same woods.
Of course it is quite easy to build a bad double top as well. The devil is in the details that take considerable experience to master. I have replaced or completely reconfigured many double-tops in the past decade. Each time the resulting instrument vastly outperformed it’s original setup.
Way too much attention has been given to the back and sides in discussions of guitar responsiveness. There are no magic woods that if used for a back and/or sides have any guarantee of tonal quality, volume or responsiveness. For the soundboard you can make a case, but not the back and sides. The reason being that the back is not the primary resonator on a guitar.
But let’s look at the back anyway. There are a few primary functions for the back:
The back defines the volume of the body, i.e. air cavity. This results in a major resonance known as the body resonance or the air resonance, depending on who you are talking to.
The placement and size of the soundhole is also a factor in determining this resonance.
The flexibility of the back also contributes to determining this resonance. A stiffer back will push the air resonance up somewhat and a more flexible back will lower it somewhat.
The back itself has it’s own set of resonances. The main back resonance is the least important of the three main resonances; top, air/body and back. However, if it is in the wrong relationship it can cause problems with comparatively loud or soft notes or even causing a specific note to waver.
Other than the effect on the resonances, a stiffer back is more likely to act as a reflector. A more flexible back is more likely to act as a resonator. Any back will act as both to some extent, but to what degree depends on the stiffness (and weight).
Some woods are highly resonant in the sense that they resonate strongly within a confined frequency range. These woods tend to be very dense and heavy woods, and true rosewoods are in this category. But density alone doesn’t assure a highly resonant wood.
In “tap” tests, the unassembled back is tapped and analyzed by how clear the resulting sound is. When viewed on a spectrogram, this is a narrow, sharp peak for the highly resonant pieces.
The assumption has always been that the highly resonant back woods are superior, but guitars built with them can be noticeably erratic in the response, volume and sustain of individual notes.
Other woods are much less resonant, and will resonate more evenly across a broader spectrum of frequencies. Woods like maple are in this category. Lower density does not guarantee this kind of response characteristic.
This actually makes for a more balanced guitar, with fewer hot notes and fewer dead notes overall. It’s still possible to have these problems if the overall frequencies are in conflict.
I categorize back/side woods according to density, response type and appearance. Appearance being unimportant to sound.
The stiffest and heaviest brace on a guitar is the bridge. Changing the mass and/or the design of this important element will have discernible effects on the sound of the strings.
A relatively heavy bridge will cause the attack (response) to be slow when compared to a relatively light bridge.
A relatively heavy bridge will also reduce the overall volume as it takes more energy to move a heavier object than a light one. Thus a heavier bridge makes for a less responsive guitar.
However the law of inertia implies that it will also take longer for the heavier bridge to stop vibrating (An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.) So the heavier bridge augments sustain. How much that matters with the weights involved here is debatable.
Taking all this into account, my approach is to go for maximum attack and volume by using relatively light weight woods for bridges. My target weight is 20 grams for the bridge, not including the saddle. Using a lighter wood like sapele, I can get a bridge as light as 14 grams, which includes a tie block overlay of a denser wood like ebony or gidgee. I also save a few grams by making the saddle from a dense wood like african blackwood or snakewood. The end result, when used in conjunction with properly built composite soundboard with diamond bracing is a very loud and responsive guitar. No one has complained of lacking sustain on these instruments.