Different F/holes

=CB= said:
Maybe they're all having the annual Drambuie jam!

Or maybe they're too busy programming all the new f/hole options into The Wayback Machine (or whatever they call it)

Or maybe their standing there looking at this thread, with drambuie in hand saying, " we gotta shut this damn forum down"
 
Maybe their doing the math longhand .....

Maybe their making SAMPLES to show

Maybe they'll give the person who suggested it ...nevermind, THAT aint gonna happen.
 
Cool idea guys, but I don't know you'd see anything soon.  Remember, there's more to it than cutting a hole.  Depending on the size and shape, the chambers might need to be redesigned.
 
Wyliee said:
Cool idea guys, but I don't know you'd see anything soon.  Remember, there's more to it than cutting a hole.  Depending on the size and shape, the chambers might need to be redesigned.

Probably leading to have just one generic chamber that fits all f-holes... a bit worky, but cool!
 
Wyliee said:
Remember, there's more to it than cutting a hole.  Depending on the size and shape, the chambers might need to be redesigned.

Yes, true on a chambered body, less so on a Thinline, which is what I was thinking of.

For an f/hole chambered body, instead of altering the chambers for every f/hole, just leave the chambers out, in that area, and use an undercutting tool to create the hole and cavity.  Lots of ways to skin a mule, no?
 
+ 40 or something

OR what about F type holes on the back? so you can preserve the front wood but still have the resonance of a hollow body?

 
alexmyla said:
+ 40 or something

OR what about F type holes on the back? so you can preserve the front wood but still have the resonance of a hollow body?
uh.... I'm not sure that a chambered body with an f-hole sounds that different from a chambered body without one, as long as we're strictly talking about electric guitars. I don't see much point of putting one in the back and not in the front.
 
no no not chambered . the hollowbody option. i mean isnt there a reason why people get holllowbody with f holes over chambered bodies without f holes? i just think the F holes are a bit unsightly on a guitar.
 
Unsightly, no.  It's just a different look and not for every guitar or everyone.  Having them on the back and not the front, now that's different.  On a Tele Thinline, they could probably already do that.  Just (for a right-handed body) turn the body over and tell the CNC machine it's a left-handed body.
 
alexmyla said:
no no not chambered . the hollowbody option. i mean isnt there a reason why people get holllowbody with f holes over chambered bodies without f holes? i just think the F holes are a bit unsightly on a guitar.

As the proud owner of a thinline with no f/hole, I can tell ya, it dont make much difference if the hole is there or not.  The hole may induce feedback.  This is not hollow body - with resonant top like a jazz guitar.  This is thinline - a carved out innard, with a solid core down the middle.  BBKing Lucilles got no f/holes, and are also thinlines
 
+1 to what CB said about the presence of the F-hole doing anything on a Thinline.

Besides that, if it had any functionality, wouldn't an F-hole on the back be nullified by having your body cover it?
 
the f-hole really originated with archtop acoustics where it really acted as a soundhole. on electrics i think its just a cool artsy way of showing the removal of some wood to add to chambered or hollow body guitars. on large hollowbodies it might act as a soundhole like an acoustic, but would be much quieter (obviously).

EDIT: just pointing out the obvious archtop connection because without that influence an f-hole could be anything, really. if not for the cool archtop soundhole-like looks i don't think there really would be f-holes on electrics. only a big hollowbody could really make full use out of it. how it seems to me anyway
 
Big thinlines to resonate a bit.  Fender Telecaster Thinline's don't (very much).  ES-33x bodies do, to some extent.  The ES-125, 135, 137, 139... series do to a greater extent.  The ES-175 is an archtop, but its a laminated/pressed top of the L-4, and pretty stiff.  Even so it does make some extra volume.  The L-5 or even the L-4 do very well on their own, being carved, thin tops, and 17 and 16 inch bout bodies respectively.  Those last two are true archtops.

There were flavors of the ES-137 and ES-135 that had no f/hole pretty recently.  Also Lucielle's have no f/hole.  When the body is still pretty thick on top and back and also pretty small, like a thinline tele... the hole is there for looks.
 
I would die for a F-hole like my PGM301 :D!!

Could do a hollow body version of it
 
lightning bolt f-holes like the jesse hughes maton sig would be pretty awwwwwwesome. i'm a big fan of f-holes.

wait, we're still talking guitars, right?
:glasses9:
 
JaySwear said:
the f-hole really originated with archtop acoustics where it really acted as a soundhole. on electrics i think its just a cool artsy way of showing the removal of some wood to add to chambered or hollow body guitars. on large hollowbodies it might act as a soundhole like an acoustic, but would be much quieter (obviously).

EDIT: just pointing out the obvious archtop connection because without that influence an f-hole could be anything, really. if not for the cool archtop soundhole-like looks i don't think there really would be f-holes on electrics. only a big hollowbody could really make full use out of it. how it seems to me anyway

Archtops didn't invent the F-hole look.  The archtops probably stole them from the orchestral stringed instruments.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
JaySwear said:
the f-hole really originated with archtop acoustics where it really acted as a soundhole. on electrics i think its just a cool artsy way of showing the removal of some wood to add to chambered or hollow body guitars. on large hollowbodies it might act as a soundhole like an acoustic, but would be much quieter (obviously).

EDIT: just pointing out the obvious archtop connection because without that influence an f-hole could be anything, really. if not for the cool archtop soundhole-like looks i don't think there really would be f-holes on electrics. only a big hollowbody could really make full use out of it. how it seems to me anyway

Archtops didn't invent the F-hole look.  The archtops probably stole them from the orchestral stringed instruments.

Blame Lloyd Loar @ Gibson in the 1920s!!!!

Projection of acoustic sound using an archtop design not unlike the design of violins, violas, cellos and double basses - hence the f-holes.

They were trying to get as much volume out of the guitar using acoustic means. The other big thing back then was the dobro resonator with a similar aim. Electromagnetic pickups and amplification came a little later.

Re: Different shapes. Would the ever zealous legal people at Rickenbacker have an issue if someone else started using scimitar shaped sound holes? :dontknow:
 
OzziePete said:
Re: Different shapes. Would the ever zealous legal people at Rickenbacker have an issue if someone else started using scimitar shaped sound holes? :dontknow:
Wouldn't be surprised. I understand where they're coming from, though. I wouldn't want my designs to enter the public domain.
 
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom said:
Archtops didn't invent the F-hole look.  The archtops probably stole them from the orchestral stringed instruments.

very true, i should have realized that  :doh:  but i think the archtops are the reason those f-hole styles are popular with guitarists. i guess in the way that violins and old orchestral instruments were inspirations with archtops.
 
OzziePete said:
Re: Different shapes. Would the ever zealous legal people at Rickenbacker have an issue if someone else started using scimitar shaped sound holes? :dontknow:

313rjy9eriL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
 
Back
Top