tangimango
Well-known member
Aloha, if sound is mostly generated by the front soundboard and the back is to reflect the sound will a back being 3mm thick instead of a 2mm thick make any diffrrence?
does back thickness matter?
- Thread starter tangimango
- Start date
Michael Smith
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,061
- Reaction score
- 72
Short answer is very little. It matters much more how dense the wood itself is. Rosewood very loud and bright, Redwood very soft and warm, other woods somewhere in-between.
Timbuck
Well-known member
I restored an old island uke earlier this year and I removed the back, and measured it at about 1/8" .. it was a pretty loud sounding uke as well.
Michael N.
Well-known member
I think that may well be another myth that gets banded about all the time. The only real way to tell is to position yourself in front of the Uke and compare instruments side by side, blindfold. I've done this kind of test many times and the results are frightening! Many of those pre conceived notions are done for. Of course the more that folk state that Rosewood sounds loud and bright the more that people will 'hear' loud and bright whenever they see a Rosewood instrument! We hear so much with our eyes.
tangimango
Well-known member
Thanks, basically just adds a little more weight to the uke.
coolkayaker1
Well-known member
would a uke require less back bracing, esp. cross bracing, if the backwood were thicker? if less stout bracing would be necessary, and if backwood thickness matters little for sound, why not make it thick enough to not require bracing, a cost savings (despite weight gain) esp on mass produced ukes. this is a question, i don't know
IamNoMan
Well-known member
Around Galax VA they make deep bodied mountain dulcimers and frequently add a bottom sounding board spaced ~.25" from main body. These instruments are LOUD. Typically used for dances. The same principle might be considered for ukes and would keep the sound chamber away from the chest.
southcoastukes
Well-known member
The question might be better phrased in terms of flexibility.
We've built both solid and the old style cypress lined backs. The latter, when using the same outer species as the solid backs, were stiffer. The more flexible backs produced a deeper resonance. For that matter, the same is true for flexibility throughout the entire soundbox.
In other words, tangi, you should get a bit deeper resonance if your thinner back is also braced in a way that allows it to be more flexible. That may or may not be good, depending on what you want to do with the design as a whole.
We've built both solid and the old style cypress lined backs. The latter, when using the same outer species as the solid backs, were stiffer. The more flexible backs produced a deeper resonance. For that matter, the same is true for flexibility throughout the entire soundbox.
In other words, tangi, you should get a bit deeper resonance if your thinner back is also braced in a way that allows it to be more flexible. That may or may not be good, depending on what you want to do with the design as a whole.
Yeah, that would be a good design for ukes. I've seen it done for guitars, but those are easy enough to play without damping out the actual back so I haven't tried it yet. I've only built one ukulele so far, but I do prefer the tone with the back undamped (concert size, ziricote back, about 1.7mm thick, 3 cross braces). More reverby.
It would still be easier to crack from pressure/impacts than a back with cross bracing, but otherwise should be fine. Indeed kind of surprising it's not done more often.
Moore Bettah Ukuleles
Well-known member
David Hurd used to tune his backs to comply with his tops to eliminate any dead notes or areas on the fret board. I've learned to tune my backs in much the same way so to me, yes, back thickness does matter.
Similar threads
