Me latest creation...

[nkforster]

The new owner seems quite happy....



Nigel
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...rish-bouzouki/

[Nick Gellie]

Same here Robbie. maybe all luthiers as good as Nigel should be protected species!! ( Sorry Nick, only kiddin!!)..

Small luthier businesses generally highly ethical businesses and think about the woods they are using in their instruments. Being an amateur luthier, we as musicians should endorse home-grown products which use ecologically sustainable music instrument manufacturing.

We are fast losing a lot of rainforests with fantastic tonewood tree species because of the rampant demand for acoustic musical instruments. i hate to think how many guitars are made world-wide each year. Globally we need to make fewer better quality musical instruments.

I realise that everyone has benefitted from Chinese and Korean made musical instruments. However, there comes a time when we need to be far more discerning about how the materials are sourced, how the instruments are made, and what we customers want from these mass-assembled products. I realise also that parents are mindful of cost of musical instruments. However there are plenty of good quality second-hand instruments on Gumtree (Australia) or your equivalent in the USA or European countries.

I have a fellow musician in Wangaratta who makes fantastic sounding instruments from recycled materials and they are used in his local blues band which has Australia-wide reputation and has played at Womadelaide. Check the Recycled String Band and Luke Davies the maker of these instruments. The band sounds no different from a blues band playing top notch professional instruments.

[Lord of the Badgers]

The new owner seems quite happy....



Nigel
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...rish-bouzouki/

he's nowt but a tardy amateur ;-)

just kidding Adam...

sounds immense Nigel

[Reinhardt]

Hi Nigel, looks a sounds fantastic. I'm sure Adam cant wait to gig with it (and play sessions as well of course!!). I'm just about to order one of his many bands ( IMAR) new CD!!
Is the body much smaller than your regular arch top bouzoukis?? Do you see yourself using maple more often in the backs/sides of your instruments in the future. You dont see too many bouzoukis over here with maple backs and sides, mainly Rosewood, Mahogany or Walnut. Just curious as to how you think Maple/Sycamore compares to the "traditional" Irish Bouzouki back/sides materials.

Its weird the way music spreads sometimes. I discovered Adam's other band Barrule on your website Nigel and now some of their tunes have become staples of the session I regularly play at in a local cultural centre. You're kinda spreading the Gospel of Isle of Man music in your own way and Adam is a great advertisement for your fantastic work so yiz kinda compliment each other nicely!!

I've had 2 fixed bridge bouzoukis in the past ( wont mention names) but they just dont compare sound, volume and tone wise to your latest creation. They kinda put me off fixed bridges ( on regular bouzoukis) for life but this could change me mind!!

John

[nkforster]

Is the body much smaller than your regular arch top bouzoukis?? Do you see yourself using maple more often in the backs/sides of your instruments in the future. You dont see too many bouzoukis over here with maple backs and sides, mainly Rosewood, Mahogany or Walnut. Just curious as to how you think Maple/Sycamore compares to the "traditional" Irish Bouzouki back/sides materials.

I've had 2 fixed bridge bouzoukis in the past ( wont mention names) but they just dont compare sound, volume and tone wise to your latest creation. They kinda put me off fixed bridges ( on regular bouzoukis) for life but this could change me mind!!

John

The body is about 1" narrower than my old Sobell bouzouki shape. So it fits in a case.

Materials - the way I make these days the back and sides materials are almost irrelevant. They are decoration. I laminate the sides and "kill" the back. So yes, it would make sense for anyone who wants to avoid the CITES situation to avoid rosewood. If you're making traditionally - with normal thickness sides, then yes, I would prefer the "sound" of rosewood. But with very thick sides that way of looking at things becomes irrelevant.

Fixed bridge bouzoukis - well, I'm going to be rather harsh here - most bouzouki's I've played fixed or floating bridge were dissapointing. I had to edit that sentance a few times! The bouzouki world is a tiny market and the gap in quality between the common stuff and the top of the range is vast. As is the price. Any conclusions you draw about fixed bridge bouzouis won't really apply.

Nigel

http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/blog...rish-bouzouki/

[Reinhardt]

Agree re quality of bouzoukis Nigel. Theres just no comparison between the factory made ones and those made by quality luthiers. I think one of the greatest attributes of a great luthier is consistency. Some luthiers for whatever reason just dont have that in my opinion. You certainly have to pay for quality but its worth it. I kind of envy guitarists who can just go into a shop and with a little luck pick up a beauty by one of the "big" or sometimes little makers.

John

[nkforster]

I kind of envy guitarists who can just go into a shop and with a little luck pick up a beauty by one of the "big" or sometimes little makers.

John

That's the thing, you can get a very good guitar for very little money now. And guitar buyers are spoilt for choice at every price point. The bouzouki market is still tiny in comparison so doesn't attract so many makers. There isn't the competition and a lot of folks are happy to have something to play in the pub that isn't too valuable. But there are enough folk who want quality work to keep a handful of us going full time. But that's about the size of the market. No one will get rich making bouzoukis for the "Celtic" market, but there is enough work to keep makers going.

n

[Nick Gellie]

Nigel, I would have thought that making the back and sides really stiff that you are taking out of some of the tone you get from the back interacting with the soundboard. To me it sounds a bit dry but maybe the new owner wants lots of projection.

[nkforster]

Nigel, I would have thought that making the back and sides really stiff that you are taking out of some of the tone you get from the back interacting with the soundboard. To me it sounds a bit dry but maybe the new owner wants lots of projection.

Well, when you order one you can have it however you like it Nick.

n
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...rish-bouzouki/

[Nick Gellie]

Well, when you order one you can have it however you like it Nick.

n
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...rish-bouzouki/

I was not intending ordering a bouzouki. I was asking for your opinion.

[Lord of the Badgers]

I confess Nic that I didn't read it as if you were asking for an opinion either. You didn't make it terribly obvious! Sounded more like a critical point.
However I have to say my experience of this method far from yields a dry sound.

[fox]

There are quite a few builders making rigid back and side instruments, including guitars, it appears to be a controversial subject for some folk!
Many heavy debates on certain forums and Facebook!
I am by no means a professional luthier but I have used this method for my last few builds and I have been amazed with the results!
I simply don't have the experience or knowledge to offer any facts but the increase in volume and sustain from my last build easily out performs anything I have ever built before.

[Nick Gellie]

I confess Nic that I didn't read it as if you were asking for an opinion either. You didn't make it terribly obvious! Sounded more like a critical point.
However I have to say my experience of this method far from yields a dry sound.

Well I was providing honest feedback and expecting Nigel to reply to my comment. All I said that it sounded a bit dry and left it that.

[Lord of the Badgers]

Besides - normally Nigel's stuff is recorded with good mics etc....

[Nick Gellie]

That is true. Maybe that goes for all of us.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Nigel Forster bouzouki in this video, which I presume was professionally done:

[nkforster]

Oh Lord, forums... Nick, when I first started making under my own name I used to finish an instrument and get my pals around one by one to try it out and give me their opinion. Pretty soon I realised that every instrument would gain every possible variation between "It's the best thing I've ever played" to "not for me really, it's a bit this or that..." People hear different things just like how humans (apparently) see colours differently. Not only that, the language they use to describe sound/feelings is inadequate. What I realised was it was my opinion about an instrument that mattered, not anyone else. If I went off the opinions of others, I lost my direction.

So I don't expect everyone to like every instrument. That simply isn't possible. So there is no point in responding to comments from people who express their displeasure at a video. The main motivation behind me posting here is to entertain, inform and in the process market my wares. What I'm looking for with customers is "like minded" people - players who have the same tastes as me. If someone doesn't like the sound, that's fine, it weeds 'em out.

You're perfectly entitled to express an opinion, but you can't always expect a response. What we hear is very individual. What might be "dry" to you might be the opposite to someone else. Arguing the toss about what someone hears is a pointless exercise. Never seems to stop some folk though....

n

http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...itar-bouzouki/

[Nick Gellie]

You are right as a maker to express the view that you can't go on everyone's opinions about the tone of each instrument you build. That wasn't my intent in expressing my comment. I was asking the question - well does it sound different to other western red cedar topped bouzoukis you made because of the thicker sides and deadening the back. What was the customer after in going down that pathway? That helps with future customers' choices.

For a buyer it is a big leap of faith to buy sound unheard. And there must have been occasions when you have built a instrument for a customer who upon playing it finds it is not quite to their taste. And that is tough for a luthier to swallow.

[nkforster]

Does it sound different to other western red cedar topped bouzoukis you made because of the thicker sides and deadening the back. What was the customer after in going down that pathway? That helps with future customers' choices.

For a buyer it is a big leap of faith to buy sound unheard. And there must have been occasions when you have built a instrument for a customer who upon playing it finds it is not quite to their taste. And that is tough for a luthier to swallow.

I can't compare it to anything other than my own own work Nick. And it sounds exactly like one of mine! Loud, clear with a lot of seperation. Mind at the speed Adam plays the seperation isn't so relevant. As I said in the original video at the start of this thread - he wanted something for using on stage that he could take to the session aftwards and be heard. That's what I made him. I specifiaclly used cedar 'cos it tends to deform more quickly and gives you that "open" sound sooner than spruce.

Look, a lot of folk love arguing over the laminated body thing. It's just talk. It's results I'm interested in. They've been doing it ever since Smallman made his first guitars. But other makers have been "killing" backs for decades without even realising it. Every single reoswood Sobell guitar, mandolin or bouzouki has a dead back. No one complains about that, 'cos no one knows (well, you do now!) But the curve is so heavy, it's deadened. Even with just 4 braces. I didn't know until I had a conversation with Gerard Gilet about it during a trip to Oz a few years ago.

Yes, buying unseen work is a leap of faith. There isn't much of a way around that. Some folk are suited to it, some aren't. Most years around 1/3 of my work is repeat work - folk who already have one of my instruments, of the rest, at least 50% have never played one. That's how this business works.

Yes, if a person doen't like an instrument it's difficult. Luckily it's a very rare occasion. Any luthier who says it's never happened either hasn't been making long enough or they're being "econimical with the truth." And yes, some humans are "economical with the truth." But that's what warranties are for - they spell out what the rights and responosibilitis are of both parties. Seems to work well enough. If I get the impression that someone is a P.I.T.A. or just incapable of seeing any point of view other than their own, (and it can be very obvious sometimes), I don't work with them.

Life's too short.

[Nick Gellie]

Well I have learnt a lot in our brief internet conversation about backs being deadened. You have made some really interesting observations about Sobell instruments having a dead back what with the curve you mentioned. I wonder if a flat back would enhance his instruments. It also suggests for the most part one could use just about anything for a back, it seems if what you are saying that the woods really there don't make any difference except for cosmetics.

As for custom instrument making it makes for some difficult choices about getting things right. Pete Brown and I have been having this very conversation this morning in Stanley about standard versus custom building. I think he means things like shape of the instrument, the sound hole, the bracing, etc rather than scale length (to a degree), nut width or woods used.

Also I agree about avoiding difficult people to make an instrument for. One has to look after oneself.

[nkforster]

Well I have learnt a lot in our brief internet conversation about backs being deadened. You have made some really interesting observations about Sobell instruments having a dead back what with the curve you mentioned. I wonder if a flat back would enhance his instruments. It also suggests for the most part one could use just about anything for a back, it seems if what you are saying that the woods really there don't make any difference except for cosmetics.

As for custom instrument making it makes for some difficult choices about getting things right. Pete Brown and I have been having this very conversation this morning in Stanley about standard versus custom building. I think he means things like shape of the instrument, the sound hole, the bracing, etc rather than scale length (to a degree), nut width or woods used.

Also I agree about avoiding difficult people to make an instrument for. One has to look after oneself.

Once a back is dead, it's dead. And yes, within reason if you're building this way the materials serve a cosmetic role as much as anything else - they take nothing away from the soundboard. A live back that isn't calibrated correctly will. Many "regular" backs are actually detrimental to what comes out the front.

Would a flat back improve a Sobell? NO!

This all became very clear when I visited Oz a few years back. I saw a number of guitars made using Trevor Gore's ideas. And using woods I would never have considered any good. Yet the guitars were often very good. I wouldn't say it was a sound I was searching for but they were great instruments and loud. Some had tuned "live" backs, some had "dead" backs.

If you're making conventional instruments from conventional materials (which I'm not and most luthiers are), then yes, the back and side materials matter very much. They will coulour the output. They will allow energy to "leak" out the top in ways variable according to the qualities of the back and side material.

That said, as a maker I still have to be able to converse in "rosewood souds like this and maple sounds like that" as this is the language players understand. And most makers too. But I don't find it as convicing as I used to. It only applies under certain circumstances. And when dealing with a serious client, we go into this in more detail if it seems appropriate. But most understand by the time I'm done that what they are hearng is the sound of that soundboard. Nothing else. Some can't get beyond their preconceptions so I either build them a conventional instrument or they look elsewhere.

So, back to the zouk in this thread. What is on the outside is decoration. If it was rosewood, it would have sounded exactly the same. If it was paisly pattern wallpaper, it too would have sounded the same. It would sound of that Western red cedar top. The benefits are, it sounds great, it's loud and robust and doesn't fall foul of CITES, LACEY or what ever else they come up with soon. Perfect for a working musician. But, if I'd made this like a conventional instrument, yes, a maple one would sound different from a rosewood one, and wallpaper back and sides might not be robust enough...and for what this musician needs, none would sound as good as this one.



nigel
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...rish-bouzouki/

[fox]

Another talented luthier, Daniel Brauchi writes about his speaker box design....

Speaker box design
I make every part of the body, except for the moving sound board, as solid as possible to reduce any phase cancellation. I use the thickest wood I can bend (about 3mm) and I make the back braces full depth for the whole width and join them to the sides. The heavy darker wood around the soundboard acts as a tone ring does on a banjo. It isolates the the vibration in the sound board and helps to project the sound out of the instrument. The heavy side braces lock the back into the tone ring also increasing the projection. Designing the body to not vibrate is a principal of speaker box construction. Graham Caldersmith gives a good explanation of this.
He has a face book page and a web page if anyone want to read more but, his ideas seem similar to Nigel's ?

[Nick Gellie]

I am familiar with Graham Calder-Smith. He used to live in Canberra and moved up to the north coast of NSW. It seems he and Greg Smallman have had a major influence on building non-conventional as well as great sounding instruments.

Nigel is out there with his innovative approaches. I wonder if there are any bouzouki luthiers out there who want to offer up an alternative opinion or add to the discussion. Now where is Graham McDonald who knows a thing or two about bouzoukis?

[ukrobbiej]

This is a fascinating discussion. May I ask you a question Nigel? What do you think about "tuning" tops? Is this something you do? Can you even do it with carved top instruments, or is it just flat tops?

The reason I ask is that I had a fascinating discussion with a well know guitar maker who I really rate, who basically said thatntuning tops is all bollocks! His reasoning? Well, you can tune a top to a certain note or frequency, but then when you attach it to the sides to form the box, then route out the binding, then add the bridge and the neck, then gloss it......well, you get the idea, it all changes.

I think Fox has a good point above as well, that of phase cancellation. The idea of having a dead back makes absolute scientific sense to me, and it would seem to me that a maker could make a far more consistent sounding instrument by eliminating the effects of possible phase cancellation as much as possible.

Robbie

[nkforster]

This is a fascinating discussion. May I ask you a question Nigel? What do you think about "tuning" tops? Is this something you do? Can you even do it with carved top instruments, or is it just flat tops?

The reason I ask is that I had a fascinating discussion with a well know guitar maker who I really rate, who basically said thatntuning tops is all bollocks! His reasoning? Well, you can tune a top to a certain note or frequency, but then when you attach it to the sides to form the box, then route out the binding, then add the bridge and the neck, then gloss it......well, you get the idea, it all changes.

I think Fox has a good point above as well, that of phase cancellation. The idea of having a dead back makes absolute scientific sense to me, and it would seem to me that a maker could make a far more consistent sounding instrument by eliminating the effects of possible phase cancellation as much as possible.

Robbie

"Tuning" to a specific note may well be bollocks Robbie. I've never done it. Neither did Stefan during the time I worked for him. None of the current ways of talking about how instruments work were used when I worked for Stefan. We talked about resiting deformation and getting the thing to sing. The language was a lot more poetic than scientific. Obviously, anything said with my accent can only be....! But it was hands on guitar making. Not theorising. It's a very valid approach.

I think what you're referring to is a slightly different approach called "modal tuning." Trevor Gore is the man to look up on that subject. He wrote a book on it. Trevor has a PHD in Physics from Durham. And you need a PHD from Durham in physics to understand the book. Trevor also makes fine guitars. But I wouldn't say Trevor and I have the same taste in sound. But then neither do Stefan and I.

So aye, the maker you are quoting may be right. theoretical talk is just that. Talk. It has no relation to execution of design. One thing you can say about Trevor is he can make a guitar as well as he can describe how it works. Some of the folk you find arguing the toss about this stuff can't.

So what it comes down to for the player is "do they actually like the sound?" or "how does playing it actually make them feel?" Asking these questions is far more valuable than arguing the toss about theories. Or even thinking about theories. All theories will do in the end is get in the way of your experience. But in liu of getting your hands on an instrument, this is what many folk resort to. And to be honest, fascinating it may be, but it's a diversion. You can end up painting yourself into a theoretical corner. What if you try something that contradicts your theories? Then what are they worth?

That's why I make so many videos - it's as close as I can get folk to the real thing if they can't get their hands on one.

n

http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/instruments/mandolin/