Body shape and surface area measurements??

[Steve]

Not to a meaningful degree, especially when there are differences in waist proportion. I could make some assumptions but I'd rather deal with facts.

Seriously?

I'm looking at the latest issue of Wood & Steel. I'm on page 29. Looking at the bottom right corner, there are four representations of body shapes: GA, GS, GX and DN.

It's pretty easy to see the size differences.

Herb, you say you'd rather deal with facts. Okay, I can respect that. I like facts, too. With that in mind, when was the last time you purchased a guitar and, before forking over the cash, determined the surface area of the guitar top? Does that really factor into a purchasing decision? I've been selling guitars a long time, and can honestly say that I've never had the discussion.

Like I said, it's probably nice information to know, provided you want specific measurements. To simply know which guitar is bigger or smaller, though, all you have to do is look at them...

[michaelw]

I wondered about the early DN size compared to the redesigned DN as well, since I have one of each.  The redesigned DN appears to be a good bit smaller now than it was back in the day but it's probably minimal.  I'm guessing <10 sq. inches difference.

Can you imagine the equation(s) used to find the area of such a funky, rounded shape as the top of a guitar?

from what i can tell (& remember from high school) geometry seems to
work best with straight lines, specific angles & constant, fixed curves -
this 'trace, cut & weigh' method would be in the ballpark, depending on the
accuracy of the scale & the consistency in density of the tracing material used
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/measuring_irregular_areas.pdf

time for me to get something a bit more accurate than this
http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/taylor_7548.jpg

sometimes, the differences are not quite so obvious (see page 34)
http://taylorguitars.us/woodandsteel/issues/ws_winter_2011.pdf

the honeyburst model in the foreground is listed as being a 614ce, as is the red guitar that's behind it & to the
right & granted it probably was a typo, but if a proofreader failed to catch that the honeyburst was a 616ce ,
due to the subtle difference in body contour (not as easy to detect with a burst finish & no pickguard), then i
could see where there might  be some misidentification at times when viewing a pic at a glance - it can happen

[cjd-player]

Can you imagine the equation(s) used to find the area of such a funky, rounded shape as the top of a guitar?

I'm sure the equations would be complex for calculating by hand, but with CAD software, its pretty easy to get those numbers once the shape is defined in the computer.

[Herb Hunter]

Not to a meaningful degree, especially when there are differences in waist proportion. I could make some assumptions but I'd rather deal with facts.

Seriously? ...

Yes.

[cjd-player]

So what's wrong with numbers and data?  No, we don't buy guitars based upon the numerical area value of the soundboard.  We know a jumbo is bigger than a grand auditorium.  But I doubt that people buy guitars based upon commonly published dimensions such as lower bout width, body length and heel depth.   The numbers are there for comparisons with other guitars, not as purchase specifications.  O.K., so some of those dimensions are useful for buying an after-market case, but for the guitar purchase?  I doubt it.   Why all the fuss?   If someone want's to know a data point, what's the harm?

[Steve]

So what's wrong with numbers and data?

Who said there is?

I didn't. I know I said this, though: Like I said, it's probably nice information to know...

We know a jumbo is bigger than a grand auditorium.

Well, apparently, that determination isn't a simple exercise for some folks...

But I doubt that people buy guitars based upon commonly published dimensions such as lower bout width, body length and heel depth.   The numbers are there for comparisons with other guitars, not as purchase specifications.  O.K., so some of those dimensions are useful for buying an after-market case...

Agree with all of that...

...but for the guitar purchase?  I doubt it.

   

Agreed...

Why all the fuss?   If someone want's to know a data point, what's the harm?

Is asking the importance of such information a "fuss"?

I guess I still don't understand why it's important, aside from simply knowing the numbers and, I suppose, what one does with such knowledge.

Being able to tell which guitar is bigger or smaller is a pretty simple thing to do.

I'm not asking anyone to explain it, really, but anyone who doesn't shouldn't be surprised by my point of view.

My point of view is that only three things should come into play: whether or not a guitar plays well, whether or not the sound of a guitar is pleasing, and whether or not you can afford it. Any one of those three is infinitely more important in a purchasing decision than the determination of guitar top surface areas.

I've sold tens of thousands of guitars over the last several years. Not once did this topic arise. Ever. So, maybe I'm just a little surprised that there are people who are so concerned about such things.

But, hey, whatever blows your hair back...

[Herb Hunter]

We know a jumbo is bigger than a grand auditorium.

Well, apparently, that determination isn't a simple exercise for some folks...

No, it is an easy determination for anyone to make and though you know that, you still saw fit to pretend some can't. A more difficult determination is to ascertain the extent to which it is bigger and how that compares with the size difference between a jumbo and a dreadnought.

[Steve]

A more difficult determination is to ascertain the extent to which it is bigger and how that compares with the size difference between a jumbo and a dreadnought.

I guess the question to be asked is "Why does that determination need to be made?"

Again, I suppose it's nice, anecdotal information to have, but I simply don't see a scenario where someone would need that information to make what would be considered an "informed decision". And, I gotta' be honest, anyone who walks into a guitar store and starts discussing surface area measurements will quickly be labeled "that guy".

That's not opinion, that's fact.

Most people I know would look at a Jumbo and say "Hey, it's a lot bigger than a Dread." I just don't see how knowing the actual measurements of one guitar versus another has any real bearing on anything. You don't play a measurement. You don't hear a measurement. You play and hear a guitar, regardless what the measurements of it are.

But, hey, if I'm incorrect, I'd be happy to read an explanation to the contrary...

[Edward]

Wow, all I did was ask a simple question...

FWIW, for me this is more than just simple curiosity (though it is partially for the cerebral joy of info ), but I was comparing proportions of soundboard real estate.  Just as Herb already mentioned, there is a correlation between volume/tone and soundboard size ...a "correlation" not alone, mind you, but in sum with many other factors of the guitar that all contribute to the voice of a given body style.  And while the diffs between a jumbo and GA are readily apparent, the diff between a GS and a DN are not.  Look at them both (I own both) and one could easily surmise that the GS looks bigger when in fact the DNs "squarish" lower bout accounts for its larger surface area.  Just food for thought.

And yes, I appreciate the fact that Taylor offers this info ...which implies that even they find it a pertinent point.  We like this guitar over that one for the tone, to be sure; but objective points simply help explain why preferences even exist as there are design features which correlate with timbre we prefer, or tones which we choose not to own.  If no objective info were ever considered in ownership or preference, then there would never be a need to offer any spec of any type, be it wood species, bracing, depth of body, or whatever (could you "see" that 3/8" of extra depth because I sure can hear it).  After all, just look at the guitar and try it, right?  Without doubt, specs on the face of it don't make the tone, and no one is suggesting that.  But they sure do help understand how tone relates to various factors in build.  Just sayin 

Edward

[Steve]

If no objective info were ever considered in ownership or preference, then there would never be a need to offer any spec of any type, be it wood species, bracing, depth of body, or whatever (could you "see" that 3/8" of extra depth because I sure can hear it).

Well, I don't know about that.

I worked at Taylor almost eight years and, in that time, not a single instance arose where I needed to know the surface area measurements of anything. My bet would be that very few people there know surface area measurements.

Having the information is very different than that information being important...

After all, just look at the guitar and try it, right?

Well, yeah.

Because, at the end of the day, that's all that really matters...

[cigarfan]

Wow, all I did was ask a simple question...

FWIW, for me this is more than just simple curiosity (though it is partially for the cerebral joy of info ), but I was comparing proportions of soundboard real estate.  Just as Herb already mentioned, there is a correlation between volume/tone and soundboard size ...a "correlation" not alone, mind you, but in sum with many other factors of the guitar that all contribute to the voice of a given body style.  And while the diffs between a jumbo and GA are readily apparent, the diff between a GS and a DN are not.  Look at them both (I own both) and one could easily surmise that the GS looks bigger when in fact the DNs "squarish" lower bout accounts for its larger surface area.  Just food for thought.

And yes, I appreciate the fact that Taylor offers this info ...which implies that even they find it a pertinent point.  We like this guitar over that one for the tone, to be sure; but objective points simply help explain why preferences even exist as there are design features which correlate with timbre we prefer, or tones which we choose not to own.  If no objective info were ever considered in ownership or preference, then there would never be a need to offer any spec of any type, be it wood species, bracing, depth of body, or whatever (could you "see" that 3/8" of extra depth because I sure can hear it).  After all, just look at the guitar and try it, right?  Without doubt, specs on the face of it don't make the tone, and no one is suggesting that.  But they sure do help understand how tone relates to various factors in build.  Just sayin 

Edward

Edward, you are not alone in your thinking. I was reading an article by Dana Bourgeois talking about voicing a top on different body shapes.

Voicing the Steel String Guitar by Dana Bourgeois
American Lutherie #24
Transcribed from Dana's lecture, 1990 Guild of American Luthiers convention.

Here's an excerpt:

A comment I want to make here is that in building an OM guitar, my approach to voicing is almost diametrically opposite to the one I use in building a dreadnought. The OM has an inherent bright, sparkling, singing treble end. There's something about the relationship of the scale length, the surface area of the top, and the air cavity that makes all OMs seem to work this way, regardless of who builds them. This is an example of the significance of design selection. It is difficult to build an OM that has a nice, rich bass with as much presence as the treble, so when voicing an OM, you're usually trying to make sure the top is not too tight.

The whole article is here. Very interesting piece that has had a profound impact on the guitar making industry.

[Cindy]

My point of view is that only three things should come into play: whether or not a guitar plays well, whether or not the sound of a guitar is pleasing, and whether or not you can afford it. Any one of those three is infinitely more important in a purchasing decision than the determination of guitar top surface areas.

You are entitled to your opinion just as others are entitled to theirs, but let's please not drag this out the surface area discussion ad nauseum. You've made your point. Mathematically I can see how differences in the top surface area of guitars may very well yield volume differences. For me, whether or not a guitar is comfortable to hold is crucial in my buying determination. And since I need a smaller bodied guitar, I can see a benefit to knowing a guitar's top surface area especially in relation to loudness.

[Steve]

Mathematically I can see how differences in the top surface area of guitars may very well yield volume differences. For me, whether or not a guitar is comfortable to hold is crucial in my buying determination. And since I need a smaller bodied guitar, I can see a benefit to knowing a guitar's top surface area especially in relation to loudness.

Right.

And, again, spare few people will ever purchase a guitar using the surface area of the top as a criteria. It's just not going to happen. I've sold enough guitars to know it won't happen. And, yes, it'll tell you something about the loudness of a guitar, provided it's the only variable in the equation.

Compare anything to a Grand Concert, and that equation flies out the window...