So I have decided to try and learn a drawing program to draw some custom guitar plans. I am using Inkscape. I have made it all to scale and measured everything to ensure everthing works. This is to be an acoustic bass. Any input, suggestions etc. are welcome.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Acoustic Bass Guitar Custom Drawing
- Thread starter Steve Burke
- Start date
It's a nice design. I like it a lot and it's a very unique shape.
However, as a constructive critique...the upper horn is adding a lot of build complexity. It's not going to need bracing, it'll just need a slightly bigger block in there. The over all sound chamber / sound box is a little small for any serious acoustic bass representation, which is often the issue with ABG's. Double basses are the size because of the physics of acoustic bass reproduction. Mexican ABG's have a really oversized sound box and a massively deep depth too.
I don't see any piezo pickup or electronics on there...I would seriously consider one as this will not have a very loud voice acoustically and it's likely going to be overwhelmed by a mid range voice. I tend to find AGB's need a lot of EQ to get them to present in the bass registers correctly and to tame the wild mids.
If this is a short scale bass, I would advise some form of stringing through the body (through the back) as the string pull at the bridge can be massive on a bass. Simply gluing down the bridge may not be enough.
The last observation is the wall thickness of the headstock around the tuners. These look quite fragile and undersized. I would make the headstock a bit deeper and the walls a bit thicker too. Maybe a centre bar though the headstock would reinforce it?
However, as a constructive critique...the upper horn is adding a lot of build complexity. It's not going to need bracing, it'll just need a slightly bigger block in there. The over all sound chamber / sound box is a little small for any serious acoustic bass representation, which is often the issue with ABG's. Double basses are the size because of the physics of acoustic bass reproduction. Mexican ABG's have a really oversized sound box and a massively deep depth too.
I don't see any piezo pickup or electronics on there...I would seriously consider one as this will not have a very loud voice acoustically and it's likely going to be overwhelmed by a mid range voice. I tend to find AGB's need a lot of EQ to get them to present in the bass registers correctly and to tame the wild mids.
If this is a short scale bass, I would advise some form of stringing through the body (through the back) as the string pull at the bridge can be massive on a bass. Simply gluing down the bridge may not be enough.
The last observation is the wall thickness of the headstock around the tuners. These look quite fragile and undersized. I would make the headstock a bit deeper and the walls a bit thicker too. Maybe a centre bar though the headstock would reinforce it?
Nice design! I have no expertise on acoustic instruments, so not much to offer except to agree on the headstock, that looks a little too fragile. I dont think a center "spine" would detract from the design, but thats going to need reinforcement somehow. Maybe metal or carbon fiber worked into it? From the little i know about acoustic construction, the size and placement of the braces is pretty critical. Other than avoiding the sound holes in the top, have you found any sources for how/why to arrange bracing? Cool project, please post a build thread if you go through with this!
. Both need attention. Looks somewhat familiar
?
It has a bit of a Rickenbacker vibe to it also, but lets face it, there's nothing new under the sun, only Variations, and I like this one. I have yet to play an ABG that could compete in volume with the average Guitar, the physics of sound seems to require a lot more body volume for a bass. That said, i have played ABG's that were louder than others, and it wasnt always a matter of size. Short of a Mexican style body, maybe its impossible, but not really necessary. If its loud enough to hear for unplugged practice, you won. There's a fair amount of science and artistry to how any acoustic is built and braced, and i only dimly understand it. I may try my hand at an ABG someday, but only after doing a whole lot of research, and with a lot more skills under my belt. To the OP, im curious, have you built any acoustics prior to this? If not, in your shoes I'd get a cheap acoustic guitar kit and make all my mistakes on that. If nothing else, you'd get a crash course in the tools and techniques required and then move into this build with a lot of confidence. This is good.advice that i have not followed of course, i tend to blunder in blind and roll the dice, with some occasional.spectacular failures! 
Last edited:
Good advice so far.
If you're new to CAD and technical drawing you might make sure your efforts can be easily printed as full size accurately dimensioned templates. That's half the value of technical drawings for musical instruments.
Specifically to your design, the through holes needed to house your tuner bushings will seriously compromise the wall strength of your headstock design. At the very least, downsize them to small string post tuners.
Design it for amplification from the start if you are sold on the body form. There's a serious lack of cavity volume and soundboard area to produce low frequencies. A good electric design is what makes basses such as the U-bass work so well.
While drawing programs make it relatively simple to come up with eye-appealing designs they do make it easy to produce instruments in the "All show and no go" category. Be cognizant of that.
There has been some progress in making acoustic basses that work in the last several years. You might benefit from reviewing those designs before you seriously commit.
Tom Ribbecke recently sat down with Jason Verlinde at Fretboard Journal and did a nice podcast that included his work in designing the Diana bass for Jack Cassidy. That's a good listen.
Take a close look at the new GS Mini Bass from Taylor, specifically the bridge and string attachment. Your design will need some re-thinking to effectively couple string energy to the top while preventing the strings from ripping the bridge off.
If you're new to CAD and technical drawing you might make sure your efforts can be easily printed as full size accurately dimensioned templates. That's half the value of technical drawings for musical instruments.
Specifically to your design, the through holes needed to house your tuner bushings will seriously compromise the wall strength of your headstock design. At the very least, downsize them to small string post tuners.
Design it for amplification from the start if you are sold on the body form. There's a serious lack of cavity volume and soundboard area to produce low frequencies. A good electric design is what makes basses such as the U-bass work so well.
While drawing programs make it relatively simple to come up with eye-appealing designs they do make it easy to produce instruments in the "All show and no go" category. Be cognizant of that.
There has been some progress in making acoustic basses that work in the last several years. You might benefit from reviewing those designs before you seriously commit.
Tom Ribbecke recently sat down with Jason Verlinde at Fretboard Journal and did a nice podcast that included his work in designing the Diana bass for Jack Cassidy. That's a good listen.
Take a close look at the new GS Mini Bass from Taylor, specifically the bridge and string attachment. Your design will need some re-thinking to effectively couple string energy to the top while preventing the strings from ripping the bridge off.
Last edited:
It is amazing the great feedback I am getting from this group. I have built quite a few guitars and ABGs and learn more every time, even after 8 years building instruments.
I have been looking at that upper horn (which the client really wants) and plan to put a post at the top of it (not drawn yet, just a purple block from above. I did add a small brace on top.
I am aware of the need for electronics in an ABG. While this is bigger than a regular guitar, it is not the size of a guitarron. I plan to put in under saddle piezos or K&K Pure bass electronics. Other things planned to enhance the sound include thin top (client is gentle with his guitars and only uses them at home), active back, nice spruce top, tested bracing, and other items.
For the bridge, My plan was to put screws into ferrules going through an 1/4 inch ebony modified (smaller) bridge plate from the inside into the bridge. They screws will not be visible
For the peghead, I made the walls the maximum depth that the tuners would go. Maybe there are some tuners I will like that have a longer post that would allow these to be deeper. I will also make it a bit deeper. I am also going to do some studying of how and where to put carbon reinforcement rods in the headstock itself.
Thanks again for the input
I used a version of V bracing like in a Taylor while keeping in mind areas where strength is needed. As it is built, the braces will be adjusted and shaped in an effort to enhance the top tone. For the back, I used pretty much standard bracing but may adjust it to a type of "live" bracing to get some help with sound from the back.
As we build it, I will post a thread.
- Apr 18, 2008
- 14,661
- 28,698
- 6,221
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
Nice design!
Those Gotoh tuners are nice, but they're overkill for this application, and you could benefit from a smaller hole.
Sperzel bass tuners and Schaller M4 bass tuners both use a smaller hole.
But even they are overkill. I have successfully used Grover Sta-Tite tuners on a violin style bass. Just make sure that the string ball-to-taper length is correct, so that only the thin part of the string hits the tuner shaft.
Those Gotoh tuners are nice, but they're overkill for this application, and you could benefit from a smaller hole.
Sperzel bass tuners and Schaller M4 bass tuners both use a smaller hole.
But even they are overkill. I have successfully used Grover Sta-Tite tuners on a violin style bass. Just make sure that the string ball-to-taper length is correct, so that only the thin part of the string hits the tuner shaft.
I have built over 25 instruments in the last 8 years including some acoustic basses. With the basses, I am aware of the volume issues and, like you say, some that I have tested are louder than others in spite of size differences. I believe this is a combination of many aspects of the instrument including design, wood, construction and many other things, even strings! BTW, I have had lots of spectacular failures. Someone made a comment that building a great guitar include being able to survive and overcome these failures.It has a bit of a Rickenbacker vibe to it also, but lets face it, there's nothing new under the sun, only Variations, and I like this one. I have yet to play an ABG that could compete in volume with the average Guitar, the physics of sound seems to require a lot more body volume for a bass. That said, i have played ABG's that were louder than others, and it wasnt always a matter of size. Short of a Mexican style body, maybe its impossible, but not really necessary. If its loud enough to hear for unplugged practice, you won. There's a fair amount of science and artistry to how any acoustic is built and braced, and i only dimly understand it. I may try my hand at an ABG someday, but only after doing a whole lot of research, and with a lot more skills under my belt. To the OP, im curious, have you built any acoustics prior to this? If not, in your shoes I'd get a cheap acoustic guitar kit and make all my mistakes on that. If nothing else, you'd get a crash course in the tools and techniques required and then move into this build with a lot of confidence. This is good.advice that i have not followed of course, i tend to blunder in blind and roll the dice, with some occasional.spectacular failures!
I am new to CAD and technical drawing. All of my other builds were from existing plans or plans that I drew by hand. I have found the process to be good not only for design but in finding areas that could be potential problems. For instance, on this instrument the head block had to be refined since the sound hole could be in the way with a traditional headstock. Didn't see that till I drew the plans!
I have built in on a 65" by 36" page so I can print it out with blue prints. I also put colors, measurements, and parts in different "layers" in the program so I could see one layer and hide others.
Volume and sound have been in the forefront of the design process and you can see some of this thinking in other replies to this post.
For bridge, there is no tension on the actual bridge other than downwards. All the tension is on the piece below the actual bridge which I plan to have bolted from the back through a 1/4 deep ebony bridge plate (see the purple square with rounded corners. All concept, needs experimentation and testing.
Thanks so much for you input
Excellent input and an easy add to strength with the smaller tuner holes.
Thanks
Sonoma Bass
(was "Ukiah Bass")
Yeah, the internal bracing on a Taylor AB series is pretty hefty, and makes the instrument a bit "stiff" in acoustic response. A Tacoma Thunderchief I used to own used a lighter body bracing technique, which increased response but made the instrument more fragile. It's a tradeoff. You might look into adapting a "Manzer wedge" shape to the body, which allows use of more airspace but without sacrificing playability. These pics are an AB-1 I used to own, which show how the Manzer keeps the body thin where you play it, and fat where it's away from your own torso.
Last edited:
I really like the look of the headstock. But also agree you might want to shore that up a little.
Do you know any mechanical or structural engineers? There is a great feature in some 3D programs like Solidworks that allow you to define the material, joint type, and loads to identify potential points of failure. If your program has an option for a standard IGES format or other common graphics file you could send them the design and buy them a six pack for a favor? That way you would know how thin you could make the members.
Do you know any mechanical or structural engineers? There is a great feature in some 3D programs like Solidworks that allow you to define the material, joint type, and loads to identify potential points of failure. If your program has an option for a standard IGES format or other common graphics file you could send them the design and buy them a six pack for a favor? That way you would know how thin you could make the members.
Hmm. Good thought. This could tie it all together.
Part of my goal with this project was to learn some type of drawing program. I started with Inkscape. It's relatively simple but only 2d and measurements are cumbersome. Next I plan to go to some sort of 3D program like Solidworks, Aspire, Fusion 360. Part of the fun
The headstock comment is right on the spot, string tension will probably collapse the ring and due to the angle, you will need bracing at the joint with the neck. Other observation is that lower contour will make you play when sitting down in classical position, the leg cutout is right below the end of the fretboard.
- Apr 18, 2008
- 14,661
- 28,698
- 6,221
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
I've built a few slotted headstocks and one with a large ring like in the OP design. I too was worried about breakage and I addressed it with a few design techniques:
1. capped/veneered front and back for lamination strength
2. maximized depth and width of the sides that mount the tuners. IIRC on my last one, they were 16mm thick (side to side, max the tuners could accommodate safely) and 19mm deep (just enough to give the tuner enough to mount to)
3. scarf joint construction with full headstock piece to eliminate all grain runout on the main board
4. chose a board with perpendicular straight-ish grain to also help strengthen the sides when done
My goal was actually not to prevent the strings alone from caving in the headstock as I think that's not as much of a risk as I think some estimate. My goal was to ensure that if it fell over and was hit from the side, that the sidewall would not break/cave in from the force of the hit in conjunction with the string tension. In the OP design, it may be worth considering adding a little fillet in the 90 degree corners where the sides meet the headstock portion closer to the nut.
1. capped/veneered front and back for lamination strength
2. maximized depth and width of the sides that mount the tuners. IIRC on my last one, they were 16mm thick (side to side, max the tuners could accommodate safely) and 19mm deep (just enough to give the tuner enough to mount to)
3. scarf joint construction with full headstock piece to eliminate all grain runout on the main board
4. chose a board with perpendicular straight-ish grain to also help strengthen the sides when done
My goal was actually not to prevent the strings alone from caving in the headstock as I think that's not as much of a risk as I think some estimate. My goal was to ensure that if it fell over and was hit from the side, that the sidewall would not break/cave in from the force of the hit in conjunction with the string tension. In the OP design, it may be worth considering adding a little fillet in the 90 degree corners where the sides meet the headstock portion closer to the nut.