I am 42 and a luthier in Nor Cal. Since 1990/91(?) I have been focused on building and playing the lute. In 91-95 I played in a Renaissance ensemble (those were the days!). In 2001 I studied continuo, but that is the extent of my formal Early Music training. I now am interested in the Baroque guitar.
Thanks for asking. I haven’t got the plan that you mention so I’m not sure what sort of bracing is shown there.*
Generally speaking I would be rather cautious to rely solely on virtually any publicly available plans of baroque guitars, in particular when it comes to such parameters as soundboard thickness (if it’s at all indicated) and / or bracing patterns. Either one of these or indeed both are often found altered. I do believe that the two-bar bracing pattern is what would originally be there on the 17th - early 18th century guitars, with the soundboard thickness set up accordingly so that there is no ‘abnormal’ flex in it in front of the bridge. If it’s all done properly there is no need to use an extra-stiff soundboard wood for there is a danger of ending up with the rather different sort of sound. Personally I never had problems with soundboards flexing too much on my guitars and vihuelas (which are, from the constructional point of view, rather identical) and I only use traditional (European) varieties of spruce. Adding an extra bar in front of the bridge (which is not uncommon on modern baroque guitar reproductions) creates some different, ‘nasal’ sort of sound, plus also slowing down the instrument’s response, in other words making it sound more like an early 19th century ‘Romantic’ guitar (of French school of makers in particular). However, Stauffer was still using only one bar below the sound hole well into the 19th century and his guitars sound quite remarkable, to me anyway.
* “Warning! Warning!” is what would be resounding in my mind if I were to encounter with an item from that particular brand of a draughtsman :) In any case, if possible, it's always best to examine the instrument in person.
I thought of pointing to this link when I wrote my reply (further below) but could not remember who gave it and if it's still there. As it just occurred to me it was given by mel (http://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/mel) and illustrates rather brilliantly the changes that were made to the original two-bar construction (and some other parts too) in the 19th century:
Hi Michael,
Now I’m confused ... I’m not sure which “original Voboam brace” you are talking about. There are only two braces in that guitar – one above and one below the rose that can be considered as original. There is a possibility that one more brace, just below the neck block (which is an integral part with the core of the neck), is also original but it’s difficult to say for sure without close examination.
Alexander
Alexander Batov
Thanks for asking. I haven’t got the plan that you mention so I’m not sure what sort of bracing is shown there.*
Generally speaking I would be rather cautious to rely solely on virtually any publicly available plans of baroque guitars, in particular when it comes to such parameters as soundboard thickness (if it’s at all indicated) and / or bracing patterns. Either one of these or indeed both are often found altered. I do believe that the two-bar bracing pattern is what would originally be there on the 17th - early 18th century guitars, with the soundboard thickness set up accordingly so that there is no ‘abnormal’ flex in it in front of the bridge. If it’s all done properly there is no need to use an extra-stiff soundboard wood for there is a danger of ending up with the rather different sort of sound. Personally I never had problems with soundboards flexing too much on my guitars and vihuelas (which are, from the constructional point of view, rather identical) and I only use traditional (European) varieties of spruce. Adding an extra bar in front of the bridge (which is not uncommon on modern baroque guitar reproductions) creates some different, ‘nasal’ sort of sound, plus also slowing down the instrument’s response, in other words making it sound more like an early 19th century ‘Romantic’ guitar (of French school of makers in particular). However, Stauffer was still using only one bar below the sound hole well into the 19th century and his guitars sound quite remarkable, to me anyway.
* “Warning! Warning!” is what would be resounding in my mind if I were to encounter with an item from that particular brand of a draughtsman :) In any case, if possible, it's always best to examine the instrument in person.
Jan 7, 2010
Alexander Batov
http://www.flickr.com/photos/funcrunch/3159347206/
Thanks a lot to mel for making it available.
Alexander
Feb 3, 2010
Alexander Batov
Now I’m confused ... I’m not sure which “original Voboam brace” you are talking about. There are only two braces in that guitar – one above and one below the rose that can be considered as original. There is a possibility that one more brace, just below the neck block (which is an integral part with the core of the neck), is also original but it’s difficult to say for sure without close examination.
Alexander
Feb 8, 2010