Acoustic Guitar Construction

I am sure you've surf the net and found that the factories and shops use a full perimeter clamping caul -- actually not that difficult to make if more the a few are planned. Simple bindings get my vote.

kencierp wrote:I am sure you've surf the net and found that the factories and shops use a full perimeter clamping caul -- actually not that difficult to make if more the a few are planned. Simple bindings get my vote.

I tried that and failed miserably so I went back to all the clamps. Some things I just can't get so I do what works for me (which is usually a LOT more work)>

I've used rubber bands with good success, and spool clamps with not quite as good a result; the odd couple guitar was clamped in the MM just using the MDF tabs tightened down and worked great. I would really like to try the 'bed-spring' clamping done by one of the great Spanish luthiers and also James Oberg, but can't find the right type of wire. Haven't tried a caul yet.

I just had an interesting phone conversation with Brian Burns; he had noticed my questions about building without binding and wanted to chime in.
He has over the years some anecdotal evidence that bindings have a very positive affect on response and sound, and he also has talked with Jeffery Elliott and a couple of other luthiers about that anecdotal evidence and they all agreed on the good effects of binding on sound.
Brian's most recent experienced with this was with two students who built guitars in his shop; both of them ran out of time after the back was glued on, and wanted to take the guitars home and string them up and play them awhile and then come back in a year or so for binding.
Both students were disappointed with their instruments once they got home, both were experienced players and knew what to look for as far as 'opening up' the instrument and both said it just was not happening. Both came back to visit Brian and he played the guitars and agreed they were - in his words - 'clunkers'. Since both had been built to his very exacting specs he was of course concerned and puzzled.
Until the binding was glued on - suddenly both students and Brian were very happy - they got the sound and responsiveness they were aiming for from the beginning.
No one seems to have an explanation for this, but the experience of those luthiers and students does point to a benefit of bindings over non-binding. These were all classical guitar builders, by the way, and I don't know if we can generalize to ss instruments.

Dave, I don't know enough concerning the finer points of construction as relating to sound refinement.
Different woods of different thicknesses, various bracing schemes, even different finishes! No doubt binding can be said to have some contribution.

I can only speculate, but many find the current trend of stiff (overbuilt?) sides appealing.
Sides that are laminated, additional reinforcement bars, reverse kerfing, etc.
So if one were to follow that line of thinking, then the presence of binding could theoretically have an impact.
No binding means one gluing surface for the top, whereas the installation of binding creates two gluing surfaces for the top.
Does this more solidly couple the edge of the soundboard to the sides?

No doubt binding can be said to have some contribution.

I don't know the reasons why it would work, Robert, but the luthiers Brian talked to were pretty adamant about the contribution - a very noticeable one - of adding the binding. Your theory might be the correct one.

If I was cranking out guitars I would run an experiment on one - at least that would be 'one in a row' :-)

And maybe ss instruments would not react the same?

Re: BB students. Purely speculation -- but I suspect it was not the binding that invoked the better sound quality but rather the binding and purfling channels. Relieving the perimeter of the sound board (less glued on surface) I believe allows that plate to move more freely. The butt joint against the purfling is more of a hinge and is not nearly as rigid overall as the solid top.