Somogyi Vid

[Kim]

There's a few things I would like to mention while this topic still floats.

No one here doubts Ervin Somogyi's skills as a craftsman. Coupled with his skills as an orator and, it would seem writer, this makes him a formidable presents in the guitar building world. But how many of you have played one of his instruments, I don't mean heard someone else playing or having a quick strum in a crowded noisy symposium cause that does not count, I am talking about sitting down with one of his instruments in a quite surround and putting it through its paces??

That is what it will take for me to form an 'honest' opinion of his ability to build a 'great' guitar. Ignore the matrix of inlay adorning the back, cover up the immaculate rosette, just close my eyes and listen. Has anyone here done that before buying the books or is it just what you have heard from others, including Ervin himself backed up by the visual impact of his sensational craftsmanship and presentations which has you sold? I know some very fine players own and endorse Somogyi guitars, but then 'any' hand-built guitar put together with skill and a reasonable understanding of the workings of an instrument should impress the pants off most players or something is wrong. Add to that a measure of outstanding craftsmanship and attention to detail and you have a formula that will be very difficult to fault even for the builder because we eat with our eyes and hear with our heart.

Sometimes it is easy to get caught up in the emperor's new cloths syndrome. I don't know how many times I have seen a new must have tool, finish idea (remember HS?) a tap tuning vid etc etc that offers the grand solution. At first everybody raves about it with some even offering a big thumbs up well before the mail man has been. Quite often, once the dust has settled and you've had time to properly assess things you again realise that it isn't the tool, the finish, or the video, it's the skill and experience that is the true grand solution and nothing is going to give you that except for tired hands.

I do agree that books can be very helpful, but what qualifies a philosophy? On one hand we have Ervin Somogyi telling us that the guitar body is an air pump working as one like a billows with the back and top moving in unison. On the other we have Greg Smallman, a luthier so respected in classical circles that even Ervin Somogyi would envy such recognition, telling us that the top alone is responsible for projection and should be braces light and thin with the back and sides made as rigid as possible so as not to rob the top of valuable energy. Yes one is steel string and the other nylon but "responsive" is the goal is it not.

So who do you believe? We have two completely opposite poles at work here, which one are you leaning on? I have not met Ervin Somogyi in person but I have met Greg Smallman all be it during a very brief conversation at Playmakers09 and I can tell you this, he is a very quietly spoken, intelligent and humble individual with a deep understanding of his craft, and if it makes any difference, he pulls more money than most for his instruments as well. So in this regard we have at least Ervin Somogyi's equal in this craft, but once again, who is right?

I read all the time that Ervin "gets you to think how things work" (not just quoting you Waddy my friend, I really do read that all the time) but if Smallman is right, then maybe Ervin has you thinking in the wrong direction. But if that is the case, how then can his guitars be considered to sound so good, to sound so "responsive"? Well, quite frankly I think it is pretty difficult to make a 'bad' sounding guitar just as long as you don't over brace, and should you 'under' brace, how the guitar sounds will be the very least of your worries. More to the point, the truth is that it's even more difficult to build an 'exceptional' guitar, and to cross that line and build something which really does stand out in the crowd takes more than good inlay, but good inlay can always be used to dress an emperor.

I don't know if I am making my point very well here, I am not trying to trash Ervin Somogyi and perhaps it's just my cynical side, but it has been mentioned that he gets what the market will pay and from the price of the books, it would appear that philosophy is not restricted to only guitars. It has also been mentioned that he is a very good marketer and if that is the case he would fully understand the benefit of maintaining 'exclusiveness' in order to extract maximum profit from your target market...think about that word, exclusive..... exclude.

Overly protective = To Excluded.

Non-disclosure = To Excluded.

Give a little and take away again = 'Powerful' Exclusion.

As for charging people for intellectual information you obtained from others who provided it to you freely, acknowledging them in the book which you charge like a wounded bull for does not seem to sit right with my scene of fairness. I would think it a two way street and on top of the acknowledgement, some form or royalties would be in order less one be perceived a leech.

Cheers

Kim

[jeffhigh]

Kim, having looked at the sample chapters and being less than blown away, I thinks the secrecy is neccesary to avoid exposure of deficiencies.
I am still PO about wasting money on Siminoff's book, I won't be buying this one

[Kim]

I just wrote a few hundred words trying not to say that Jeff

[Rick Turner]

Greg Smallman's guitars are designed to hit the back wall of a 3,500 seat concert venue with little or no amplification, and Greg's clients tend to be pretty serious concert players. Ervin's guitars are designed to blow you away in your living room, and his clients tend to be collectors and living room players.

I think we're at a point where we can design guitars to either extreme. Neither extreme is perfectly right or perfectly wrong.

Just know who you're building for. Both Greg and Ervin do...

Just my opinion...

[Kim]

Very valid points Rick and you are of course correct. Through science we now have a much better understanding of what is really going on within the instrument, so these days we do have the ability to better build for the purpose at hand. But the focus presented by Ervin Somogyi is "The Responsive Guitar" and you can't get much more responsive than hitting the back wall of a 3,500 seat concert venue with little or no amplification.

If you will please excuse my analogy: Irrespective of engine capacity, the wheels of a car must be round to obtain the best performance regardless of whether you seek power or economy or a bit of both. Just my novice ramblings here, but I feel it is similar with guitars. The foundation must be there in the rest of the instrument to efficiently extract the most from the available string energy and in this, just like the round wheel, there can only be one 'best' method. How one then chooses to tailor the top and it's bracing after providing that basic foundation is what focuses the build toward either the lounge room or the concert hall.

Regardless of that point I do not doubt that Ervin Somogyi builds wonderful sounding guitars. I just question the accuracy of his 'air pump' theory. You would be well aware of this phenomenon Rick, but for others who may not, please grab a guitar and stick your ear over the soundhole and play a string, now move your ear back to the area of the top behind the bridge and play the same string with equal energy. You will quickly realise that sound does not appear to show a preference toward that exit labelled "sound" hole. My point here is that a thin, lightly braced, 'responsive back' that "pumps", will only encourage sound to be projected into the players body which to my mind is energy wasted.

With this in mind I feel that regardless of the intended venue, or whether the instrument has steel string or nylon, in a "responsive guitar" it would be better to have the back rigid and working as a reflector 'for' the top (also much better in a bar room brawl) in every circumstance, as doing so allows the builder greater flexibility, and more potential to successfully focus the instrument toward the intended use when thinning and bracing the top.

With that I remain firmly in the Greg Smallman camp........... for now.

Cheers

Kim

[Ricardo]

I dissagree with the notion that someone who purchases a somogyi guitar is a living room guitar player and a collector, Listen to some cd's of whindam hill, great music, great artists and great instruments, some of which are somogyi guitars, I understand your comments about projection, but his philosophy on design incorporates projection into the equation.
Speaking of good classical guitars I ecourage you all to check out Lance Litchfeild guitars, brisbane maker who is really making a name for himself world wide, he has a website www.litchfieldguitars.com

[jeffhigh]

Kim, the responsive back vs rigid back seems to be a contentious issue extending well behond Somogyi.

Where I take exception is his claim that " the Guitar is basically an Air pump"
I think it is basically not an air pump
Moving air rapidly in and out of a soundhole is not the action of a pump.
The soundhole is more of a vent, alowing relatively free motion of the top(and Back) which would be hindered in a closed box.
And the bit of steel on a bungy cord bears no relationship to the action of a top and back, but is a demonstration of the actions of gravity and momentum.

[Kim]

Listen to some cd's of whindam hill, great music, great artists and great instruments, some of which are somogyi guitars,

Speaking of good classical guitars I ecourage you all to check out Lance Litchfeild guitars, brisbane maker who is really making a name for himself world wide, he has a website www.litchfieldguitars.com

Hey Ricardo,

I checked out Lance Litchfeild's site and whilst I have not seen or heard one of his instruments, I must say that the presentation of his web site is nothing short of beautifully polished. If that is a reflection of the quality of his instruments then WOW.

As for listening to a CD to assess an instrument I don't think it can provide a fair representation. The very best mics will alter the sound of a guitar and then the sound engineer at the mixing desk will tweak things to obtain the best he can from that signal. The raw fact of the matter is that despite the attraction for players toward BRW, most sound engineers prefer a mahogany instrument in the studio for the more manageable sound levels they provide as this allows 'them' to decide what the listener will hear on the finished recording.

Kim, the responsive back vs rigid back seems to be a contentious issue extending well behond Somogyi.

I agree entirely Jeff but you would be hard pushed to find two more diametrical opposed examples.

The soundhole is more of a vent, alowing relatively free motion of the top(and Back) which would be hindered in a closed box.

I agree entirely again, that is the point of my suggestion that one places their ear to the soundhole and then the area behind the bridge, it clearly demonstrates that fact.

And the bit of steel on a bungy cord bears no relationship to the action of a top and back, but is a demonstration of the actions of gravity and momentum.

I do not follow you here Jeff but that is not unusual for me because sometimes I am a little slow on the up take. If you are talking about the strings potential to vibrate for a sustained period, I have not commented on that aspect of the instrument, rather my comments were restricted to what is happening inside the box as a result of that vibration, could you please elaborate and clarify exactly what you are getting at here, I would really appreciate it.

Cheers

Kim

[Rick Turner]

Ervin's guitars are often lacquered here in my spray booth by Addam Stark, an independent finisher who does work for a lot of well known luthiers here in the US. Ervin's guitars have backs that are unbelievably thin; he's really getting a lot of back radiation of sound from the guitars. I think that's where a lot of the appeal to buyers comes from. He "tunes" the resonances of his tops and backs very low, and a player will really feel that.

I don't know of any performers regularly using Ervin's guitars in concert venues; that doesn't mean that there aren't any; I just don't ever see them. Most acoustic performers use pickups and/or close mics these days, so really responsive acoustic steel string guitars are really not the best choice for most "acoustic" performances; they feed back too easily, and strong resonances become liabilities.

So my observations with regard to Ervin's instruments are that they are exquisitely built, the have very stiff sides, very flexible backs, and tops that are braced to be relatively flexible in the center to promote the monopole vibration mode. His braces are skinny and tall to get the best stiffness to weight ratio. We all know that the Brazilian rosewood that he likes has very low damping, and that helps the highs with guitars tuned low in the main top and back modes. His guitars are slightly deeper than most, so he's got pretty good air volume for the size of the plates.

And as a craftsman, he has few equals.

Secrets? I don't know...

[Kim]

Thanks for that Rick, much more than we've had from Ervin in the last five years

Cheers

Kim

[Hesh1956]

When I attended the HGF in 2007 I had the pleasure of meeting Ervin in person and he permitted me to take a few photos of him as well. I also had the opportunity to play a couple of his guitars.

It was very early in the day and even though I was near Ervin's table in the hall the crowds had not yet shown up and the place was fairly quiet.

I have posted my impressions before but for the sake of this thread I'll share my impressions again.

My first impression was that both guitars definitely showed their pedigree in how they sounded. They both had the very same characteristics in the broader sense with of course some individuality between the two too. What I am trying to say here is that it was clear to me from the sound of both guitars that they were produced by the same maker AND that the outcome was not left to chance - there is a method here.

The guitars were ultra responsive responding to the very lightest touch. The tone was very balanced but the spectrum of tone was also extremely broad with very deep bass and sparkling highs. I could also tell, or thought that I could tell, that some thought and effort went into building the guitars in a manner that would not favor specific pitches over others - again very balanced.

The single biggest thing that I noticed was the bass. If you have ever owned a car with a turbo before you will understand my analogy here. When a bass note was played there was the very slightest delay, not unlike turbo-lag, where you immediately heard a bass response that was fine in and of itself but very shortly there after the bass would kick in to a greater degree rumbling away and rising clear and loud to a degree that I have not heard from any other guitars. The first time I noticed it, and you could not help but notice it, I was tipping the sound hole toward me and immediately thinking that this was what a successful implementation of an "active" back must sound like.

As I said prior these two guitars were certainly two of the very best sounding guitars that I have ever had the pleasure to check out and play.

As Rick said the craftsmanship is indeed exquisite and the overall style of Ervin's guitars combine craftsmanship, artistry, and a tone that I found to be very pleasing and worthy of the accolades that his guitars bring and the demonstrated market acceptance and success.

Here are some pics that I took AND a pic of Rick too. Rick's table was filled with very cool instruments so much so that I don't know how he was able to get them all on the table. I want to add that it was a sincere pleasure meeting Rick too and of all the exhibits at HGF in 2007 Rick's exhibit offered a level of diversity of instrument types that no one else could top.

[kiwigeo]

Sounds like Ervins books arrived today..along with a bunch of wood. Pity Im not at home to rip the parcels open and head off straight to the dunny for a long read

[Rick Turner]

Thanks, Hesh.

RT

[kiwigeo]

I like the hot shirt Rick

[Rick Turner]

I'll remember to bring it to the Cairns Ukulele Festival next year! I'll try to remember to bring the person in the shirt, too...

[jeffhigh]

Kim, What I said about the piece of steel on a bungee cord relates to the second Somogyi video (If it is still acailable to view)
Sure seem like pseudo-science to me.

[Rick Turner]

If you really want to learn more of the science end of how guitars work, pay attention to both David Hurd (Kawika) and Alan Carruth on the guitar scene and David Cohen for mandolins. Both will tell you that the air modes are not a pump unless you think of a pump in the alternating pressure mode. The Helmholz mode assumes a rigid box, and in fact with guitars, etc. what we have is a lot of coupling between the quasi-Helmholz resonance and the main top and back resonances.

It will be interesting to hear some Somogyi guitars in 25 years or so to see what happens to some of those lower frequency resonances. One would hope that they don't turn into wolf notes as the guitars get looser with playing in.

[Dennis Leahy]

... the focus presented by Ervin Somogyi is "The Responsive Guitar" and you can't get much more responsive than hitting the back wall of a 3,500 seat concert venue with little or no amplification. ...

Kim

My take on the phrase "responsive guitar" is a "near-field" guitar, ultralight construction to allow a very light touch to produce a vibrational response - and yes, some "wasted" energy that the player physically feels in close proximity to the vibrating guitar.

This thread is about the videos that Somogyi allowed to be taped, then (apparently) changed his mind and decided he wanted to sell rather than just share. I call "foul" on that move.

Now, on the bigger picture of intellectual rights, and selling knowledge, and where the knowledge actually came from: other than a researcher that is performing research experiments on something that truly has never been studied before (which has to be very rare), everyone who possesses knowledge has it because of those who have come before. Almost all "new" information is derivative or based on the initial set of knowledge, acknowledged as acquired from the "shoulders of giants" (who were for the most part standing on some other giant's shoulders.)

I have not seen Somogyi's books, and only caught a glimpse of one of the videos. I probably have read all he has written and published (up to the very pricey books.) My take on that part of his knowledge that he is trying to market is to use some intuition rather than attempt to quantify specific numbers (thicknesses, deflection amounts, etc.) To me personally (someone who is very comfortable outside the box, tinkering, using intuition), he has nothing to sell. I already bought into the notion. For someone who has built pretty much 300 copies of a Martin guitar and finds it "maddening" to not have a clue when one of his guitars under construction will sound OK and one will sound great (such as Cumpiano - I'm quoting him), well then I suspect Somogyi's "information" would be mind blowing.

I write computer software. I can make software do "novel" things, but all of the building blocks of the code existed when I started. Same thing for musical composers - the 12 notes of the Western scale were there before they were born. And English language writers all use the same 80,000 words and quote back idioms, phrases, and speech patterns that they have heard others speak. I'm OK with admitting that all this creative stuff is derivative, and, in the context of today's modern capitalistic society, I guess I'm OK with people charging money to allow me to hear a song, read a book, or play a computer game. (The older I get, the more socialist I'm becoming, and altruistically, I would prefer that we all just share everything, but I digress.) So, if Somogyi has a couple of books he wants to sell for hundreds of dollars, or a video of a cornflake that looks like the face of Jesus, I'll take a pass on opening my wallet. But, I guess I'm OK with him marketing the derivative work. Quite frankly, if there is anything in those books that changes the face of lutherie, then in short order, that information will trickle down to those of us that didn't buy the books or the DVDs but are interactive participants of luthier forums. I'm not holding my breath, because it seems that Somogyi either cannot articulate or else has decided not to divulge the real lessons he has won in his shop - that which he builds into his instruments that garner praise from folks like Hesh.

Finally, there's no way to say this without sounding arrogant, so I'll just blurt it out. I believe that Somogyi might push the envelope of X-braced construction near the limit, but that variations on the Martin X-braced engineering and strings that are anchored to bridges poses an artificial limit to what a soundboard on a guitar box can do. I believe the next "great leap" involves neckblock to tailblock suspended bracing, pinless bridges with typical steelstring break angles over the saddle and strings that continue out the rear of the bridge to a tailpiece. I believe this new engineering paradigm will allow beginners to routinely achieve responsiveness in guitars that rival the work of luthiers that have honed and honed the X-paradigm to the brink of implosion. And, I believe this new engineering paradigm will allow experienced luthiers bubbling with intuition to achieve results impossible with the old paradigm. In a few years, or maybe a decade, I predict you'll be watching a Somogyi DVD extolling the virtues of the new engineering paradigm. You're welcome, Ervin.

Dennis

[Joe Sustaire]

I enjoyed that Dennis, but such blasphemy, to suggest that there are viable alternatives to x-bracing and pinned bridges!

I just have to shake my head,
Joe

[Nick]

Well articulated Mr Leahy

& Joe all my acoustics (except one) I have built havent yet crossed two pieces of spruce to form an X , mind you they probably sound like crap because of it

[Rick Turner]

In the end, it is not we who decide whether our designs and creations are the best thing since sliced bread, it is the musicians (not collectors) who buy and use our guitars.

I'd be cautious about letting ego rule over musicianship.

[John Steele]

In the end, it is not we who decide whether our designs and creations are the best thing since sliced bread, it is the musicians (not collectors) who buy and use our guitars.

Who was it that said A good guitar player can make even the worst instrument sound good... Leo Kotke?
Rick; if I recall right, you have some pretty prominent musicians that have been playing your instruments for a quite a long time. Sounds like success to me. Thanks for posting your thoughts here.

[Rick Turner]

Just don't check my bank account if you're looking for success! The past few years have been brutal...

[Ricardo]

My commenst below relate to comments by Rick Turner

Its dead right about the misicians deciding on what is best, it is also the misicians who drive the market and pricing for instruments, Supply and demand.
John willliams plays a smallman, but only since Smallman listened to what it was that john williams wanted, and hence he changed how he made his guitars to suit the musician.
It is the Luthier who listens to the musicians who becomes in demand as he is not ego driven but he is striving to provide the best iinstrument he can, and only the true musicians will determine what it is they want.

[Dennis Leahy]

In the end, it is not we who decide whether our designs and creations are the best thing since sliced bread, it is the musicians (not collectors) who buy and use our guitars.

I'd be cautious about letting ego rule over musicianship.

Well, note that I said, "I believe..." and "I predict...", not "Follow me and I'll set you free..."

These ideas were explored to some degree by(among others) Tilton in the 1850's, Larson Brothers in the 30's (I think), and Steinberger and Grimes recently. I'm not claiming to be the inventor. My comments pertain to the perceived notion that Somogyi is performing magic behind the curtain, and I for one just think of him as a very good luthier that has tweaked a variant of X-braced bracing and strings anchored to a bridge about as close to the edge of implosion as it can go, and comparing and contrasting what I envision as a much larger technological leap than lattices, X-brace geometry, or scalloping. I knew it would sound arrogant, simply because, well, who the f*&% am I to make any observations about Somogyi or comparisons of his engineering features and what I believe to be engineering breakthroughs (that were either not really fully implemented or properly fleshed out in the past.) But, insignificant as I am in the world of lutherie, those are my observations, beliefs, and predictions.

(My comment "You're welcome, Ervin. " is just a smartassed tongue-in-cheek comment about Somogyi not acknowledging where "his" ideas came from.)

I note that you are possibly suspicious of future failure as Somogyi may be crossing the line beyond barely adequate structural engineering for longevity. The "new engineering paradigm" I'm underscoring allows much stronger structural integrity while freeing the soundboard and braces to be pushed further toward responsiveness, timbre, sustain, and wider dynamic range. As Spock would say, it seems like a logical evolutionary leap in engineering.

Dennis