The future of the guitar? Discuss..

  • Thread starter Thread starter muttley600
  • Start date Start date
xtp said:
Cheers for that, it made an interesting read.

While a concrete guitar would not neccesarily be overly practical, [i assume it would be heavy] it would be interesting to see how this develops.

I wonder if they are going to attempt an acoustic or a solid body. It would be interseting to see what kind of acoustic response concrete yields.

If they attempt to build an acoustic I wonder how they would create strength in such a thin sheet of concrete.
Click to expand...

An acoustic would pretty much be a non starter. Not just for the integrity reasons you suggest but because as a material it just doesn't have the strength to weight ratio that a purely acoustic instrument needs. Spruce and occasionally cedar are the timbers of choice for tops because of the high mass to stiffness ratio that allows the thin top to project a relatively large volume of air. Concrete just wouldn't be able to do that.
 
There is a simple mistake in this article, the university stated a "cementitious" instrument, which is not concrete as the writer goes on to say. Concrete contains an aggregate of about 10mm minimum,(to be considered concrete) which makes it bulkier as the aggregate size increases, Portland Cement however can be added to a host of other materials, plastic, epoxies, rubber, saw dust etc etc. and used in completely different applications.
 
muttley600 said:
An acoustic would pretty much be a non starter. Not just for the integrity reasons you suggest but because as a material it just doesn't have the strength to weight ratio that a purely acoustic instrument needs. Spruce and occasionally cedar are the timbers of choice for tops because of the high mass to stiffness ratio that allows the thin top to project a relatively large volume of air. Concrete just wouldn't be able to do that.
Click to expand...

:)Yeah I was kinda trying to imagine it while I wrote that.

I was looking at the thickness around the soundhole of my acoustic [its parked by the pc, I even measured it - 6mm] and I was considering the idea of different mediums like slate or rock acoustic guitars. [archtops in my case]

What would the tone be like?

Not only would it be heavy but extremely cold.

I have often wondered how a ebony archtop would sound. Ebony always reminds me of rock for some reason.
 
xtp said:
:)Yeah I was kinda trying to imagine it while I wrote that.

I was looking at the thickness around the soundhole of my acoustic [its parked by the pc, I even measured it - 6mm] and I was considering the idea of different mediums like slate or rock acoustic guitars. [archtops in my case]

What would the tone be like?

Not only would it be heavy but extremely cold.

I have often wondered how a ebony archtop would sound. Ebony always reminds me of rock for some reason.
Click to expand...

If you mean the thickness of the top around the soundhole on a traditional flat top, in all likelihood yours has a supporting patch under the top local to the soundhole. Traditionally the thickness of a spruce flat top would be between 2.5 and 3.5mm. Archtops are thicker being more in the region of 6mm to 8mm.

That is mainly because the top needs to be sturdy enough to stand up to the static forces it is always under and light enough to respond well enough to the vibration of the bridge and the energy of the strings. Spruce is chosen because it has a very high strength to mass ratio which allows it to do just that. The bracing of the top also plays an important role both strengthening the top and as an aid to spreading the vibration across the grain.

Ebony has a few things against it being used for a purely acoustic top. First, cost, it would be hugely expensive. Second the available size of the stock would result in it having to made of multiple pieces rather than a book matched set. It has the strength but not the elasticity so it would be quite quiet in terms of volume and response compared to other timbers because although it is "strong" the ratio of stiffness to mass does not compare. It would also be quite heavy even if you could work it to a thinner top and brace it to be structurally sound.

Those properties of ebony though make it ideal for uses as a bridge or fingerboard and why it is used. It's tough and wear resistant as well as tight and even grained.
 
They go on about the likes of Clapton and Slash inspiring people to want wooden guitars. Not one mention in the article about the simple fact that CONCRETE IS QUITE HEAVY.

They also mention concrete's use in deadening sound.

I think the whole study is dumb and a total waste of money.
 
muttley600 said:
I'll do that right after you tell the guys at NASA.
Click to expand...

While I see what you're getting at, NASA work within a specific area, and it's not medicine. They have however developed a lot of hardware that helps with the treatment and detection of cancer. It would be like expecting Pfizer to reseach aeronautical technology.

Universities however, are not generally confined to a specific area and could certainly put their funding to better use that making conrete guitars. Something which I view as reinventing the wheel and adding corners to it.
 
legionserial said:
While I see what you're getting at, NASA work within a specific area, and it's not medicine. They have however developed a lot of hardware that helps with the treatment and detection of cancer. It would be like expecting Pfizer to reseach aeronautical technology.
Click to expand...

And without the work of acousticians we wouldn't have had the development of ultrasound, lung flutes, many non invasive operating techniques a few dental techniques, hearing aids, disaster detection management tools, the list goes on.. Most research disciplines have direct or knock on outcomes that benefit other areas of research. That was my point I was illustrating exactly that. The concrete guitar is just a profile raiser for the wider abstract of the research.

Universities however, are not generally confined to a specific area and could certainly put their funding to better use that making conrete guitars. Something which I view as reinventing the wheel and adding corners to it.
Click to expand...
I know exactly how research budgets are allocated and run. Especially with in the academic/university environment.;)
 
The guitar is only a fad. In a month or so it will be forgotten and everyone will go back to playing accordions.
 
muttley600 said:
And without the work of acousticians we wouldn't have had the development of ultrasound, lung flutes, many non invasive operating techniques a few dental techniques, hearing aids, disaster detection management tools, the list goes on.. Most research disciplines have direct or knock on outcomes that benefit other areas of research. That was my point I was illustrating exactly that. The concrete guitar is just a profile raiser for the wider abstract of the research.
Click to expand...

I appreaciate all of that, but I think there are better things to research in that field than a concrete guitar.
 
legionserial said:
I appreaciate all of that, but I think there are better things to research in that field than a concrete guitar.
Click to expand...

I think if you dig a little deeper you will find that is not solely what they are doing. It is a publicity generating exercise to raise awareness of their real research and more importantly to highlight the dangerous direction in which our current government are attacking both state and independently sponsored research projects. The devil, as they say is in the detail.
 
xtp said:
My acoustic guitar is a Archtop with a oval soundhole. It has a spruce top with a mahogany back and neck and ebony fretboard.

I don't actually own a flat top.
Click to expand...

In that case a thickness of 6mm is typical depending on a few things. I undercut the edge so that they don't look to bulky. That isn't always true of factory made archtops though.
 
muttley600 said:
I undercut the edge so that they don't look to bulky.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude I didnt realise you made guitars, I thought you seemed very knowledgeable about the acoustic properties of wood.

I like the sound response of Archtops. To my ears it is as if something about the physical characteristics of the archtop act as a band pass filter, gently attenuating both the upper and lower frequencies.

I have spent many years thinking about this characteristic and what it is I really like about the archtop sound.

Last year I embarked upon a project to build a bandpass filter effect unit for my solid body electric guitar that would emulate what I believe it is I am hearing.

It is still in the testing/development stage on a breadboard [my wife calls it 'the brain']

The frequency attenuation I have done by ear so it is not overly scientific; it has however been a lot of fun.:)

The idea is not so much to make a solid body sound like a archtop; [if this was the case it would have been far simpler to shell out the coin for a L4, L5 or Super400 ] but more so to be able to shape the frequency characteristic my ears enjoy.
 
Discouraging Lack of Creativity here...

I'm more than a little discouraged by just how lightly the contributors to this thread considered the subject. The people here profess to be inventive and creative! Les Paul is dead. His idea of winding a bunch of crappy transformer wire around a cheap magnet and wiring it into a poorly designed audio amplifier have beed idolized and venerated for more than long enough. 70 years of electric guitars and we are still winding crappy transformer wire around cheap magnets and calling it a musical instrument?

That I can think of, there have only been a couple of revolutionary attempts to create the guitar of the future (MIDI Guitars and Piezo Pickups). This whole pickup idea may have been the best that could be done before the atomic bomb, but it is time for some revolutionary ideas. How about mass sensors on each string feeding six individual digital signal processors being mixed to a single output, or feeding six seperate amplifier channels that can be mixed/modeled externally. Model a regular six string as a Martin D12 or a nylon stringed classical guitar. Dynamically moving the 'pickups' by shifting what harmonics are picked up or dampened.

New materials are a great idea, but it can only be an evolutionary change in the guitar. How about a digital siginal guitar.
 
I'm more than a little discouraged by just how dumb some n00b5 can be........
 
I've never played a cement guitar but my fingers often feel like they're made of the stuff. I can tell you right now that that doesn't work.

They will learn more about cement than guitars as they work through this study. The project isn't pointless.
 
gcolbert said:
I'm more than a little discouraged by just how lightly the contributors to this thread considered the subject. The people here profess to be inventive and creative! Les Paul is dead. His idea of winding a bunch of crappy transformer wire around a cheap magnet and wiring it into a poorly designed audio amplifier have beed idolized and venerated for more than long enough. 70 years of electric guitars and we are still winding crappy transformer wire around cheap magnets and calling it a musical instrument?

That I can think of, there have only been a couple of revolutionary attempts to create the guitar of the future (MIDI Guitars and Piezo Pickups). This whole pickup idea may have been the best that could be done before the atomic bomb, but it is time for some revolutionary ideas. How about mass sensors on each string feeding six individual digital signal processors being mixed to a single output, or feeding six seperate amplifier channels that can be mixed/modeled externally. Model a regular six string as a Martin D12 or a nylon stringed classical guitar. Dynamically moving the 'pickups' by shifting what harmonics are picked up or dampened.

New materials are a great idea, but it can only be an evolutionary change in the guitar. How about a digital siginal guitar.
Click to expand...

Much of what you suggest has been done or can be done easily with existing technology. For the most part, guitarists are extremely conservative and have rejected such changes.

I published a simple essay and schematic on rewiring guitars for balanced output, and addressed a few other improvements to the typical passive circuit (while still remaining passive). There has been very, very little interest. I also suggested creative use of Gibson's robot system far beyond the simple tunings they have described. I was verbally attacked for that one . . .

So it's not surprising that many designers choose to work on other areas of audio electronics. Guitar amps, for example, are far more wide open than the guitars themselves in terms of consumer acceptance of new designs.
 
plus there's a certain timelessness to certain things such as instruments.
For instance, violins have been made the same basic way for what, a couple hundred years?
You could do the same thing with them, ..... make some modern digital version and they have. But essentially it's not a violin ....... it's a new instrument.
They have electronic wind controllers too but they'll never be a saxophone ...... they'll be an electronic windcontroller no matter how they try.
Simply being new and modern isn't the same thing as better. ....... just different.
 
That's why I stuck with a fully passive, backwards compatible circuit design for guitar. Past and future proof, whereas digital electronics will always need upgrades.

Still, I would like a MIDI pickup on my gat . . . :o

I have seen ergonomic violin designs, but practically nobody is brave enough to use them. Electric guitarists are better about that, acoustic guitarists slightly so.
 
mshilarious said:
Still, I would like a MIDI pickup on my gat . . . :o
Click to expand...
I would too. A friend back in Baton Rouge who's REALLY good used one of those Roland things .... maybe the VG88 or something. I'm too lazy to look.
Anyway ..... it was freakin' amazing! .... but he had it down. He could actually do all the things it promises to do. He could make his git sound like a strat or paul ..... distortions .... choruses ..... be a string section or an organ. It made me want one.
Only thing is .... it truly is a new instrument and you have to spend a lotta time to get it to sound like he did.
For instance, if you use an organ patch .... you've GOT to phrase things like an organ player would or it doesn't sound like an organ really.
But that was 7-8 years ago so I imagine the latest MIDI stuff has to be way better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top