Why aren't Ukes made with thin milled wood anymore?

It seems that Ukuleles used to be made with significantly thinner wood,
(for example, on episode #6 of Uke' N' Talk - Vintage, with Jay and Ryan, Ryan shows his first vintage Uke, a Royal Hawaiian, which weighs 7.5 oz!)
so it got me wondering, is there a reason it's not done any more?
I realize there is some variation between companies, some are known to be thinner, especially ones made catering to professional musicians, while ones made for general consumption tend to be thicker to hold up better, but I'm pretty sure 7.5 oz is unheard of these days.

There's the obvious durability factor, but surely they made them thin for a good reason, which was more important to them than the fragility tradeoff.

I also realize some wood is hard to mill very thin, but that doesn't rule it out for other woods. And some wood might sound better a little thicker (light wood for example) or thinner (hard, heavy wood).

Is it simply durability, at the sacrifice of sound? Is it a change in audio tastes? Or is it because strings have evolved, allowing the wood to be milled thicker?

Warbulele said:

It seems that Ukuleles used to be made with significantly thinner wood,
(for example, on episode #6 of Uke' N' Talk - Vintage, with Jay and Ryan, Ryan shows his first vintage Uke, a Royal Hawaiian, which weighs 7.5 oz!)
so it got me wondering, is there a reason it's not done any more?
I realize there is some variation between companies, some are known to be thinner, especially ones made catering to professional musicians, while ones made for general consumption tend to be thicker to hold up better, but I'm pretty sure 7.5 oz is unheard of these days.

There's the obvious durability factor, but surely they made them thin for a good reason, which was more important to them than the fragility tradeoff.

I also realize some wood is hard to mill very thin, but that doesn't rule it out for other woods. And some wood might sound better a little thicker (light wood for example) or thinner (hard, heavy wood).

Is it simply durability, at the sacrifice of sound? Is it a change in audio tastes? Or is it because strings have evolved, allowing the wood to be milled thicker?

Click to expand...

First of all, weight is only one factor to consider when building a uke. The uke you mentioned is very old, hence it is very dry because of its age and therefore is lite in weight. That does not make it a better instrument. The modern luthiers today are building much better instruments then the ukes of the past. Why, because we pay more attention to details and have learned from the past.

With woods, you can only go so thin before your run into all sorts of problems. I'm not going to go into all the details of construction, you can research that for yourself. With your statement, you seem to imply thinner is somehow better, it isn't. The sound with suffer, the top will buckle and a host of other problems.

Some do make Ukuleles with more traditional dimensions, among them myself. Yesterday I sold my new concert to a fellow who brought a few of his other Ukes by to show off. His pre-war Martin was very light, and worked very well, I thought, but his more contemporary tenor probably weighed twice what my concert weighs. The tenor was unbound, so I could make a fair estimate of the plate thickness, which appeared to be about .070". I just made the concert, and know it is under .050". My 20's soprano measures .035". Violin sides are and always have been about .040".

It is absurd to say they will not last when built this light. There are too many examples from the 20's and 30's still playing today for this to be true. They are more fragile, of course, and require conscious consideration.

Speaking more of classical guitars than Ukes, since I don't have much to go on with the later, I put the side thing down to a few factors:

1) If you have ever seen an old (or new) pro bend very thin sides with an iron type bender, it just takes seconds, and looks very fluid. This is a lot easier to do with thinner sides. I naturally shy away from "easier" type explanations because pros will find anything easy, once the skill is learned, but it just works so well with light material, and all else being equal, no downside, so why not bend light materials. Today, though, the highly evolved side benders even small shops use, can easily bend stout materials, so long as they are on the proper settings. Keeping in mind it isn't really about whether materials can be bent, but rather about whether they will break every once in a blue moon, and there goes a grand in Brazilian or whatever. So side benders pretty much eliminate the risk of handling valuable materials in thicker sections.

2) I still read about how great it is that necks and stuff are vibrating when a string is plucked. Don't really know what the current thinking is, but I see little reason to waste energy exiting anything more than the air in the body, or the sound board. This kind of thinking has led to all kinds of constructions where the body is super stiff. Use of plywoods (both cheap and hand made); cores, ring frames struts... So acoustically I don't know that there is much advantage any longer in having light sides. Whether true or not, this is at least what some believe.

3) Amplification may have something to do with it. Again, not much point allowing vibration to occur throughout the whole instrument, when the main transmission will be direct to the pick-up.

One thing that folks forget is that the original Hawaiian style soprano ukes had small dimensions, 13-13.5 inches scale and very narrow waists! This meant that the overall surface area for the top was very small and they needed thin thickness and light bracing to sound good. It's almost like the pinched waist stabilized the top by pinching off the top architecture.

From experience, I can tell you that if you try this thin of a top on a martin style soprano, it will most likely fail.

I just fixed up three ukes of this sort from this era and was reminded of the same issue. They were paper thin but with a little help were solid and stable.

For us, a really lightweight tenor with port orford cedar top and neck and peghed tuners is about a pound.
A

Another reason, that is a maybe, is that while I have all the tools to make my own side stock, most of the wood I can get for guitars is already cut, and in about 1/8" thickness. I remember when I started wood turning back in the early 80s super thin bowls were in style. I remember the day I got tired of those. You start out with 50 pounds of wood, and you end up with something than weighs about the same as a newsweek. Where did all the wood go? I like wood. So if you start with this piece that is a given dimension, there isn't really any point to reducing it to nothing. It is already paid for. I know that when sawing wood for any project there is a tendency to push it to get the maximum yield, and it can end up on the skimpy side. But here, there isn't any upside to reducing the wood to nothing, and it came fat in the first place.

Thanks everybody for your thoughtful input, a lot of interesting information there. I'll respond in order of reply:

Black Bear Ukes - I get what you're saying. I can see how you read me as implying thinner is better, although I didn't intend to assert that, you're right, it sort of came out that way. I think different thicknesses work for different purposes, so what is better/worse is relative. I see you are of the opinion that making them that thin was due to worse techniques, and that luthiers know better now. I think it's a bit more complex than merely poor craftsmanship. As I said, high end Ukes are often thinner, so why is that, if craftmanship evolved away from thin wood?
As for the wood being lighter because it's dryer, I heard it explained by a veteran I trust, that wood "drying" is widely misunderstood. Wood does lose moisture for the first few months and years after harvest, but there is a common myth that instruments continue to dry over the decades. What in fact happens, (assuming the instrument is properly humidifed) is volatile oils evaporate, leaving the resins harder, and stable oils polymerize and cure. So the instrument may sound "dryer", but it will not lose any significant mass due to water loss, unless it isn't stored properly. That is, after the first decade or so of it's life, when it had done most of it's drying. Obviously some woods are faster and some are slower. If that guy is right about this, then Ryan's Uke was light mainly because of construction, not dryness, since we know Ryan is keeping his Ukes humidified. Also, it's widely known that they used to construct them with much thinner wood.
Bruce - Thanks so much, that is really helpful to know. So some people do still build em that thin, I had no idea violins were so thin! Wow.
It does stand to reason though, that something thinner will vibrate more easily, with less energy being absorbed by the wood's intertia, thus producing more sound.
Thom D - Interesting points. It makes sense that breaking the wood would have been less of a concern back when wood was more plentiful, so thanks for sharing that insight about bending and construction.
I have noticed my Uke vibrates in the neck sometimes, so I know the phenomenon you're taking about, but I'm not clear whether you think the thin walls would increase or decrease this vibration?
I had noticed myself that precutwood tends to come thick, makes sense that would influence many builders, but surely not all. I thought about sanding/grinding it down myself, not worrying about "losing" wood I'd paid for, more concerned about getting the optimum thickness to get the wood to resonate in a pleasing tone, which I would assume is thinner than most available precut wood.
AaronCKeim (did i get that right?) - Thanks for that information, that makes a lot of sense. So it's relative to the overall construction, and with such a small instrument, it needs to be thin to produce the right volume/sound. Perhaps the narrow waist was abandoned for the same reason the small size was - people's tastes changed, and wanted a bigger sound. The waist is important IMO, although I've heard it argued that it's merely tradition, but to me there is a significant difference in sound between a pineapple and an hourglass body. The hourglass seems to compress the sound, making it punchier, which makes sense, since the same design is used in Djembe drums, to compress and then re-expand the sound. I wonder why less compression is needed, even though the instrument grew? Maybe it goes back to taste again, that the punchiness went down as people wanted a mellower sound?

Actually, violins don't belong in this conversation about thin woods. The only thin wood in a violin are the sides, but their grain runs from top to bottom and are about 1 3/8" high, plenty of strength to do the job required. The sides are also curved giving them strength the entire way around the instrument. Uke and guitar sides are not built like that. Plus, the top and back plates of a violin are carved in various thicknesses, generally from 2mm aroung the edges to 5mm in the centers, depending on the luthiers needs.

I make my soprano back and sides at .075". And tops at .062" If I make them any thinner they start to sound like banjos.

Timbuck said:

I make my soprano back and sides at .075". And tops at .062" If I make them any thinner they start to sound like banjos.

Click to expand...

I agree. While very thin tops can be loud they can also have a thin, one dimensional sound.

If the weight of a uke concerns you, I suggest going to the gym.

Overall weight BALANCE of a uke is an important factor though.

As for thinness, don't immediately look to tradition for what is best

Beau Hannam Ukuleles said:

If the weight of a uke concerns you, I suggest going to the gym.

Overall weight BALANCE of a uke is an important factor though.

As for thinness, don't immediately look to tradition for what is best

Click to expand...

I agree that overall weight balance is very important. On uke talk, you always read 2 things that equate to being a good uke: How loud it is and how light it is.

I've played some ukes that were very light and loud but sounded hollow to me or the biggest fault I see with a lot of ukes is the head is too heavy in my opinion.

Thanks to all that contributed to this, I have learned a lot, and I have a better understanding of it thanks to you folks.

Thanks Black Bear Ukes, that's some very interesting stuff to know, difference thickness in the middle of the top was an aha moment for me.
Timbuck, thanks for that, it's great to know from people's personal experience.
Thanks Chuck Moore /Moore Bettah, the same is true of Djembe drums, so I really appreciate your sharing that, it clicked for me. I imagine each wood has it's own optimum thickness range for a given sized body, and a given desired result, since some are denser, or harder, etc.
Beau Hannam, I wasn't really thinking about the weight, aside from as an indicator of the wall thickness. This was an inquiry into the reasons behind a shift toward thicker walls in most modern (though not all) ukes. It's helpful that you pointed out balance, since that could come become a motivating factor in shifting designs if the body was much lighter than the neck.
Nongdam, it's helpful to hear about your experience of a light uke sounding loud and hollow. That's somewhat consistent with what Timbuck and Chuck were saying, and my experience with lighter vs heavier Djembe drums. On the flip side, I'm sure you know, ukes with walls that are very thick, sound dead and muted. Of course there are multiple factors, some wood is denser or stiffer for example, so a thin layer can be twice as heavy and hard as an equally thin layer of a much lighter wood.

Light/heavy, thick/thin aren't clear markers of quality. It depends how you build them. My Timms weighs nearly twice my Kumalae, but both are fine instruments. Neither would work if built to the weight of the other if nothing else were changed.

But go much further in either direction and you probably lose a lot. The Timms is lighter than many mass produced ukes, and no mass producer would build as light as Kumalae did.

IMHO as a player it seems each successful builder has refined his design to produce the best desired sound. Thickness, bracing,size,materials,.... all those go into the design and sound.

While some general design parameters may be a common reference, there is no one exact design that works best for everyone. Isn't is about making your design work its best?

If by "walls" you mean sides, i would recommend making them as thick/stiff as possible- at least .080". Doing so gives better resonance transfer, or rather, less loss of it. Think or your Djembe- how would it sound with floppy sides....

As a long time builder of stringed instruments, I have always built on the lighter side as compared to many of the peers. In the guitar world, there are two distinct schools of thought in the current market, and it appears that it is much the same in the Ukulele marketplace. One of the schools is usually called "Vintage", and the other school is called "Modern". In guitars, "vintage" is lighter weight, usually having plates as little as 2/3rds as thick as the "modern" equivalent. It is possible to build great or abysmal guitars in either style. There is no question, however, about the fact that both styles work, and the results of either are capable of the long haul, making instrument that can out live their custodians.

In this thread I see folks saying some pretty surprising things to defend their own style of building, suggesting that longevity and performance are necessarily compromised by a lighter build. This is simply not my experience, and history is on my side. Many of those early vintage builds are very quick and dirty, and indeed, today's builders have the luxury of being able to take a great deal more care and make a relatively exquisite product, but there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

A super light build has a kind of response and tonal envelope that a more modern build cannot match as the mass of it's wood cannot be overcome by the limitations of the string, it is physics! While this kind of tone may not be for everybody, to dismiss it entirely is quite naive, there are too many wonderful examples happily marching through the years. I am not the only one building such instruments, and I am sure there are sub-standard examples out there, but if you get a chance to try one of mine, I think you should do so before you dismiss them.

Excuse me for sticking my nose in here where it doesn't belong …

Speaking strictly as a consumer, there are a handful of things that come immediately to mind when I think of an ukulele I'd like to have in my hands: Sound, playability, looks, and durability. All of these seem important to me.

Looks good, sounds like crap? Sounds great, is going to come apart in a year? Action so high my fingers bleed past the third fret? I don't see these as desirable.

Weight never crossed my mind. Never thought about it at all.

You eat with your eyes first, so certainly looks are important. How heavy per se hasn't been on the radar. Maybe that's because I came from classical guitars, which are heavier than any uke not made of concrete. I can sit with a nylon-stringed guitar in my lap for a couple hours, no problem. The tenor is small enough I can lose it in my lap.

Hey! Where'd my uke go? I just had -- oh, wait. There it is …

Maybe if you came from soprano ukes to tenors that might be a factor.

That said, I have talked to luthiers who have averred that many production ukuleles are overbuilt, for the durability factor, and this does adversely affect the sound. Somebody pointed out here recently that the line between fragile and bulletproof is like Baby Bear's porridge, that getting it just right is something of a skill. (Well, not using that metaphor exactly, but I think that's what they meant.)

Maybe I've just been lucky, in that all the ukes I have sound, look, and feel good. They don't all weigh the same, but neither are they all the same exact size and shape, either. That surprised me, though with a handmade instrument, it shouldn't have done.

I find this back-and-forth among folks who actually create these instruments to be most educational. Thanks, folks. Always fun to listen in to those who know stuff.

Steveperrywriter said:

Excuse me for sticking my nose in here where it doesn't belong …

Speaking strictly as a consumer, there are a handful of things that come immediately to mind when I think of an ukulele I'd like to have in my hands: Sound, playability, looks, and durability. All of these seem important to me.

Looks good, sounds like crap? Sounds great, is going to come apart in a year? Action so high my fingers bleed past the third fret? I don't see these as desirable.

Weight never crossed my mind. Never thought about it at all.

You eat with your eyes first, so certainly looks are important. How heavy per se hasn't been on the radar. Maybe that's because I came from classical guitars, which are heavier than any uke not made of concrete. I can sit with a nylon-stringed guitar in my lap for a couple hours, no problem. The tenor is small enough I can lose it in my lap.

Hey! Where'd my uke go? I just had -- oh, wait. There it is …

Maybe if you came from soprano ukes to tenors that might be a factor.

That said, I have talked to luthiers who have averred that many production ukuleles are overbuilt, for the durability factor, and this does adversely affect the sound. Somebody pointed out here recently that the line between fragile and bulletproof is like Baby Bear's porridge, that getting it just right is something of a skill. (Well, not using that metaphor exactly, but I think that's what they meant.)

Maybe I've just been lucky, in that all the ukes I have sound, look, and feel good. They don't all weigh the same, but neither are they all the same exact size and shape, either. That surprised me, though with a handmade instrument, it shouldn't have done.

I find this back-and-forth among folks who actually create these instruments to be most educational. Thanks, folks. Always fun to listen in to those who know stuff.

Click to expand...

I agree Steve. I grin to myself when I hear these builders or players boast "My uke weighs 14.739 ounces". Who cares? I care more about how it feels, how balanced it is, how it plays and sounds. I've never had one of my ukes on a scale. I have have no idea how many grams or kilo tons it weighs, I just know the feel "right" to me. The weight in particular areas and certain components(sound board, back, braces, bridge, neck, tuners,etc) however are very important to me and are considered in the overall balance of the instrument. But the overall weight of the uke? As long as it feels right then it is right.
BTW, I've been told that my ukes are relatively light. I don't think they are super light though. I have heard some players state that they prefer a little more heft to their ukuleles. So there ya go.

Well..... Some of you might not shop at Guitar Center, where certain ukes weigh a ton! I'm mainly a classical guitarist, but do play flamenco as well. My finest flamenco guitar was built by Andres Dominguez, and was very light. Many flamenco guitarists demand a light guitar. It really felt like a feather compared to my classical guitars. A Martin D-28 feels heavy and awkward, and I'm 6'2". My tenor ukes feel like nothing in my hands. They weren't bought a Guitar Center.

Speaking of Guitar Center, Cordoba is making classical guitars in China, and they have VERY thin tops. Thin like you can push the top down considerably with an index finger. I think I know the reason why. It produces booming bass notes, and customers go goofy for that. If they only produced equally strong trebles, it might work. As it is, the treble response is overwhelmed by the bass strings. I do have a very nice Made in Spain Cordoba classical, and that guitar is very well balanced across all six strings.

Doesn't Donna LoPrinzi make relatively light ukeleles? I've read on these forums that some people consider them fragile.

P.S. Hi Chuck,
You might not have weighed any of your fine instruments, but I'd bet a buck that more than one person has.