MIMF

I've been looking at the designs of Nigel Forster, a very accomplished English luthier who is very interesting and innovative.

He has an intriguing archtop design: he basically makes the guitar like a neck-thru--one long neck that includes the saddle. Then he bolts the neck to a resonating box with an arched top. The end of the neck bears on a floating bridge, which bears on the top




There are other pictures at his website: http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/instrum ... s-charlie/ . It sounds terrific in sound clips

It's very interesting but I'm not sure I see the advantage. He seems to give up a lot of top real estate to make the neck to body join. There must be a pretty big block in there. There's no tailpiece, and no pulling force on the body, so that might be an advantage? I suppose one advantage would be that using machine screws to mount the neck, you could use the machine screws to subtly adjust the downward force on the top. That might be very useful: sort of like what happens when you change string gauge

I'm thinking of trying to make an "economy" version of something like this. It seems like it would have real production advantages for a commercial shop, but I have never run a commercial shop and don't know.

Looks interesting. How does it sound acoustically?

I've stumbled on this design also a while ago and I liked the idea.
I would love to see an experimental / economy version being build.
Go for it!

Michael Lewis wrote:Looks interesting. How does it sound acoustically?

I've never heard one in person, but sound clips on his site sound fantastic. They are mostly amplified clips, and it does seem to have the attack envelope of an archtop. But I'm suspicious of soundclips as evidence.

Mr. Forster seems like a very thoughtful guy and he's got a lot of experience and skill. Bravo for trying something new and executing it so beautifully! he says on his site that it started as an idea for flat tops, but did not work well.

The main advantage seems to me to be the simplified neck joint and the ability to control the amount of pressure on the bridge. Although I don't have any idea how his neck joint works. Maybe there would be advantages to having less stress, or less complicated stress, on the body? An ordinary archtop is always trying to pull itself into a V shape. That wouldn't be the case here. Presumably, you could have the top really lightly braced? The top doesn't have to support the tension of the strings, it only has to be effectively coupled to the vibrating neck.

Here's clip of the forster archtop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C09kwljy1Y

That video clip tells you nothing about how the instrument will sound unamplified. Apples and oranges.

Barry Daniels wrote:That video clip tells you nothing about how the instrument will sound unamplified. Apples and oranges.

yes this is why I wrote: "They are mostly amplified clips, and it does seem to have the attack envelope of an archtop. But I'm suspicious of soundclips as evidence."

I don't understand how vibrations are transferred to the bridge.

Looks like the neck could be attached any way you want, as it's just a neck with a body beneath it. I also wonder how the body is receiving sufficient vibration to create much acoustic sound: sort of like touching a headstock to hollow core door and playing. If it's basically a neck-through with a pickup, the body could be a detachable empty frame for a breakdown travel instrument.

Jamie Unden wrote:I don't understand how vibrations are transferred to the bridge.

neck vibrates, vibrates the bridge. I assume it would work, as mentioned like if you play a solid body an touch the headstock to a hollow door. I'm guessing that the ability to reduce the pressure on the top lets it vibrate more responsively?

Jason Rodgers wrote:Looks like the neck could be attached any way you want, as it's just a neck with a body beneath it. I also wonder how the body is receiving sufficient vibration to create much acoustic sound: sort of like touching a headstock to hollow core door and playing. If it's basically a neck-through with a pickup, the body could be a detachable empty frame for a breakdown travel instrument.

Yes that seems true as well--just a neck with a resonating chamber. He says that seeing indian instruments with a resonating gourd attached at the headstock end gave him the idea.

Take the neck off, slide it into a tube the body is separate. I have a travel guitar like that--the neck screws off. It sounds good. It looks like this would work even better, because the strings would stay at tension. if the pickup jack was mounted on the neck, you'd be all set.

I suspect it sounds very good acoustically--Forster is a very experienced luthier who spent years with Stefan Sobell

Forster describes the development of the idea here:

http://www.destroyallguitars.com/pdf/AnIdeasJourney.pdf

michael o'malley wrote:

Barry Daniels wrote:That video clip tells you nothing about how the instrument will sound unamplified. Apples and oranges.

yes this is why I wrote: "They are mostly amplified clips, and it does seem to have the attack envelope of an archtop. But I'm suspicious of soundclips as evidence."

I don't like to argue semantics but will make an exception. You used the word "suspicious" which means you have some doubts, but are not sure, relating to weather the video clip represented a good acoustic tone. And you posted the video clip which suggested to me that you thought this would be useful to the discussion.

Based on my 40 years of guitar building (including acoustic archtops and electric archtops) I thought I would offer my opinion. When I see video clips of acoustic guitars where the sound is obviously amplified, I ask "what are they trying to hide". Depending on the nature of presentation, I might even think that they are trying to make a sow's ear sound like a silk purse.

You could call be cynical, but this is my nature. Since I thought that we differed in the degree of our suspicions I made my original comment to represent this side of the argument.

It is an interesting guitar but until we get a true acoustic video clip or a non-biased first person report, all discussion of acoustic tone is complete conjecture.

I suspect it sounds very good acoustically

So now your suspicions have flipped 180 degrees? This is what I felt you originally thought and that is why I made my original post.

I don't wish to go any further down this road. Lets talk about the guitar.

Even though the pressure on the bridge might be adjustable, the maximum pressure could never be as much as what a traditional archtop produces since the strings on the Foster are not anchored by a tailpiece. This could be compensated for by making the top very thin, light, and responsive. But, I don't see how this neck design could do anything but detract from the acoustic tone. The bridge would only have some of the vertically produced vibrations transferred to it, and it would receive none of the horizontally oriented vibrations that a tailpiece anchored string gives to a bridge.

All traditional designs for all stringed instruments are centered around having the strings anchored on a sensitive plate of wood or other thin material that is basically hanging out there in thin air. Any design (and there have been a lot) that deviates from this by supporting the anchor with something more rigid will suffer acoustically. Foster's design looks like a neck though solid body guitar sitting on an acoustic box. I think there is a reason that humbucker is placed there.

Barry Daniels wrote:

I suspect it sounds very good acoustically

So now your suspicions have flipped 180 degrees? This is what I felt you originally thought and that is why I made my original post.

I don't wish to go any further down this road. Lets talk about the guitar.

Even though the pressure on the bridge might be adjustable, the maximum pressure could never be as much as what a traditional archtop produces since the strings on the Foster are not anchored by a tailpiece. This could be compensated for by making the top very thin, light, and responsive. But, I don't see how this neck design could do anything but detract from the acoustic tone. The bridge would only have some of the vertically produced vibrations transferred to it, and it would receive none of the horizontally oriented vibrations that a tailpiece anchored string gives to a bridge.

All traditional designs for all stringed instruments are centered around having the strings anchored on a sensitive plate of wood or other thin material that is basically hanging out there in thin air. Any design (and there have been a lot) that deviates from this by supporting the anchor with something more rigid will suffer acoustically. Foster's design looks like a neck though solid body guitar sitting on an acoustic box. I think there is a reason that humbucker is placed there.

It's Forster--Nigel Forster. Thanks for sharing. That's why I posted it.

But why are you jumping on me? I'm skeptical about the whole thing, but also interested. I posted the video clip--after saying I was suspicious of it as evidence--for the sake on information./ He has extensive experience making guitars--perhaps even as extensive as yourself? And they seem to be well regarded. This is why I suspect it has a nice acoustic sound. I mean, you'd like me to suspect that your guitars sound good, right? Is it the same as a traditional archtop? Well no: that's the point, that's what he says about it. He also says--which is true--that virtually all archtops played at gigs are amplified, making the amplified tone relevant.

I'm sorry. Not trying to jump on you.

After reading the PDF it would appear that he consciously traded some acoustic volume for extra sustain knowing full well that the instrument was going to be amplified. I'd suggest that eliminating feedback potential was a secondary motivation. I'm a little surprised that the price of this instrument isn't part of this discussion. The original video stumbled over it incoherently but I think I understood the price as being north of $30k. That's Parker territory...

David King wrote:After reading the PDF it would appear that he consciously traded some acoustic volume for extra sustain knowing full well that the instrument was going to be amplified. I'd suggest that eliminating feedback potential was a secondary motivation. I'm a little surprised that the price of this instrument isn't part of this discussion. The original video stumbled over it incoherently but I think I understood the price as being north of $30k. That's Parker territory...

I've seen them for $8500 or so. That seems be the per-order price. For examples:

http://www.destroyallguitars.com/sales- ... ter-carlos

There are videos at that site but they are all amp'ed and drenched in delay and verb.


But still this looks like a much simpler instrument to make than a traditional archtop

I have a very nice old Guild Artist Award--it has a really excellent acoustic tone. But it's still not loud enough to play jazz acoustically, at least not if you want a more or less conventional jazz sound, and a lot of the size and design of the thing is built has to do with getting that good acoustic tone, which in a performance becomes as much a problem as an advantage. I love the guild and will never sell it: I've recorded thing with it using just a mic and no pickup and it sounds good. but it's not practical to use it without an amp in a live setting, so I can sort of see where he's coming from

David King wrote:After reading the PDF it would appear that he consciously traded some acoustic volume for extra sustain knowing full well that the instrument was going to be amplified. I'd suggest that eliminating feedback potential was a secondary motivation. I'm a little surprised that the price of this instrument isn't part of this discussion. The original video stumbled over it incoherently but I think I understood the price as being north of $30k. That's Parker territory...

Those things are $30k?!?! I'm sorry but that's as ridiculously overpriced as anything I've seen.

Michael, An $8500 store price would put them at the low end of custom archtops. The folks I know seem to get in the $12-20k range.

Just to be clear: no, they are not $35, 000, they are $8500. There is one use dealer for the Forster archtops: they sell them for $8500

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for starting a false rumor.