Sir! Long time lurker and enjoyer of your guitars and videos. As a resident of the Osage and Ozark territory, I adore this one in particular. I would love to know how this axe has held up over the last few years? Thanks!
Whenever I see these videos, I start thinking about ways to optimize the process. It seems to me that you're starting out with wood that's already been made thin, and taking time to glue wood in places to make it thicker again (especially referring to the box side pieces). Why not start with wood that's twice as thick, and use a router with a guide template, to remove half the thickness in square sections, leaving the same shape that you're using glue and braces to construct -- I bet you could knock those out in minutes, with a router, and no gluing/clamping/waiting.
I've thought about that. The only reason not to is that you'd then be relying 100% on the structural integrity of that one piece. By using the braces, you've got grain going in the opposite direction of the the main pice. To my mind that gives you a bit more protection against splitting. Beyond that, there would be more waste. Having said all that. . . I think it's an interesting idea and would still like to try it some day.
I’d pay up to $2000 for a Martin. I’d pay up to $25 for the Boxwood, and the only reason I’d want it was for comedy. You have a hard sell ahead of you bubba.
They're clearly not for everyone. For what it's worth. . . I've got a waiting list. Also, if you can find an HD-28 for $2000, buy it. Or buy two if you can!
I make traditional and rectangular guitars. The work is about the same. It's one thing to disagree with the points I present (I'm happy to debate them) but it's another thing entirely to make assumptions about my motivation. I didn't play much on the video because it was of many I made for my website. This purpose of this one was to just explain why I choose to build instruments this way. There are several others on my channel that have extended playing samples.
no offense but those look extremely uncomfertable, and a bit odd, i would look into making the shape a little more intresting rather than using the simplest shape known to man, just seems a little like an excuse to not have to work rather than a choice backed up by good reasoning. the curvy shape is probably never gonna be replaced
Clearly, they are not for everyone. Nor is it my intention to replace anything. I make these and traditional guitars and the "work" is more or less the same.
I agree with you Will Ferrell the box Guitar has a louder sound. I like the Idea I mean I assume the Guitar stands up without a guitar stand or do you still need a stand? Also I am I Ovation player I am used to Odd shaped Guitar btw your Guitar sound like it would be great for Rockabilly or Bluegrass. btw I am a Huge Fan!
You could definitely make the back and sides out of plywood and still come up with a decent sounding guitar. The top is a different story. . . Plywood on the top would be a serious tone-killer.
@boxwoodguitar3618 I have seen old kay guitar s with plywood soundboard s also seen old united brand acoustic made from thin birch plywood including soundboard
@@largefamilyreviews9 Perhaps I replied with too much snark. I apologize. I get a lot of comments accusing me of making them this way because they are cheaper or easier. Those comments sort of imply that I'm trying to put one over on customers by not making them in a traditional way. The truth is building guitars by hand at any price point is a labor of love. Even the best builders struggle financially.
Yet parlour guitars have some of the best acoustics i've ever heard. And they haven't got much "real estate" at all. I don't understand ?. Also, bass frequencies tend to gather in corners. What do the low strings sound like in contrast ?
Fair points! But I think you'd agree that the distinct sound parlour guitars is that there is a pronounced mid-range with less warm in the low end. I'm really aiming at a dreadnaught or OM style sound where that real estate is way more important. With regard to standing waves and bass response, it's good to remember that's how we think about how sound behaves WITHIN a room. With a guitar, we are really only concerned how it sounds OUTSIDE the instrument. If you've ever used a pickup with an internal mic, you know that, even in traditional guitars, a mic placed inside still sounds pretty awful whereas a nice mic placed 12'-14" away from the instrument sounds great. All that to say, after 150 or so rectangular guitars I haven't had any issues.
That body shape actually looks pretty cool, i was expecting this was a more cheap homemade style and a sorta one off thing, But you actually have a nice grain and its a proper guitar. Looks cool cheers for sharing!
I am still building. During covid, when I couldn't perform it was more of a business. These days, I'm back to performing full-time and I make these for fun.
This was a full-time business for a bit when the pandemic shut down live performance. Now that I'm able to gig again, I do it a bit for fun. I make a few instruments and post them on my website when time allows.
I agree that the modern day build and shapes of the guitar may have decreased its potential of sound You must also love the martin backpacker too my friend!!!!
There's really no comparison. You shouldn't be asking us anyway, you should be testing it on a computer and measuring the difference. And you would certainly need to record it with a condenser mic I think you have it wrong. The sides should be thin, but braced (see, for instance, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MG9uS_2vVns.htmlsi=ryc08n0bRABy9db6) The back and top should be thin and of course the top braced. Is the thickness - or better yet stiffness - the same as the Martin? Driftwood guitars cuts up guitars and measures them with what looks like inexpensive meters. I would measure them to see if they are the same. Otherwise, I can't see anything wrong with your idea. It would be vastly cheaper to manufacture
It's all a matter of taste. You wouldn't use sophisticated equipment to prove that chocolate ice cream is a better flavor than vanilla. That's not to say I don't think there is value in testing a design in an academic way. The purpose of the video was to provide context. Most people know what a Martin HD-28 sounds like, and from that reference point they can make comparisons.
With respect to the video, he is saying the same thing. You thin the sides to bend them, then you brace them back up to provide rigidity. My point is, you can control the rigidity of the sides using the thickness of the side material. If you are not bending your options are wide open. Two different (but acceptable)solutions for the same problem.
@@boxwoodguitar3618 Sophisticated? It's not sophisticated at all. Just record a note from both and see if they different. You can record two different guitars and then the Martin. You can't really depend on your ears. And even if you had good ears they would change from day to day. You want to say, "my instrument sounds the same as a Martin".
@@boxwoodguitar3618 I am not an expert but I am sure that what he is explaining is a different process than the one you're using. I can only imagine that there's a reason for having the sides be thin and then brace them rather than having thick sides. But the main thing is to measure the thickness of the top and the bottom and the stiffness and see if it is the same as the Martin.
@@AnnoyingCritic-is7rp He is definitely explaining a different process. What I'm saying is that we are solving the same problem in two different ways. The top and backs of my guitars are built exactly like traditional guitars in terms of bracing and thickness. Nothing different there.
Well the guitar's quality is due to the ability for the top to be thin and the bottom to be thin. What are the measurements? Also isn't it uncomfortable to play?
