Pete Howlett
Well-known member
Did you know that there is more to Dr Kasha's research than the configuration of the front braces... look it up. It all makes sense when put together as a whole. And for a while, some believed it 
Kasha theory
- Thread starter Pete Howlett
- Start date
Pegasus Guitars
Well-known member
Pete, is this a riddle? Could you elaborate on what you mean? Just curious. Hope you are doing well.-Bob
OP
OP
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
And so it starts - read my title and brief and look for Dr Kasha's research - go to the source information. When you do, you will find that it involves more than just changing the bracing!
Timbuck
Well-known member
I notice he says the bracing is heavier on the bass side...but most ukuleles are re-entrant tuning with no particuler bass side..I believe he must have been thinking Guitar wise when he designed it.
OP
OP
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
That's why I am not convinced it is a valid system for ukulele though some seem to have success using it. As for Kasha info Bob - just one of many ideas he put forward apart from the bracing...putting lead weight into the headstock to kill string energy at the nut. Could you imagine a 'neck heavy' instrument flying with the classical guitar tribe?
Poor Richard Schneider was pretty much isolated by the guitar building frat lodge and he just couldn't get the idea accepted. Fair play - Gibson had a crack at it but then, they try anything once don't they?
If you want to read something really interesting go to Paul Fischer's website and read what a fellow Fellow of the WCMT was saying in 1983 about the Brazilian lumber industry and supply of alternative to BR sources. 38 years ago and we are still behaving like the timber apocalypse is just about to happen... Wake up folks, the source for tonewoods has been in serious decline for at least 40 years In my brief time building I've seen koa gradually come off the menu. Perhaps Emerald Guitars have the right idea.
Poor Richard Schneider was pretty much isolated by the guitar building frat lodge and he just couldn't get the idea accepted. Fair play - Gibson had a crack at it but then, they try anything once don't they?
If you want to read something really interesting go to Paul Fischer's website and read what a fellow Fellow of the WCMT was saying in 1983 about the Brazilian lumber industry and supply of alternative to BR sources. 38 years ago and we are still behaving like the timber apocalypse is just about to happen... Wake up folks, the source for tonewoods has been in serious decline for at least 40 years In my brief time building I've seen koa gradually come off the menu. Perhaps Emerald Guitars have the right idea.
Last edited:
Jim Hanks
Well-known member
FWIW, I'm pretty sure Devine and Griffin advocate Kasha only for linear tuning.
OP
OP
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
Thanks for erudite reply Bill1.
However I'm not interested in a discussion about the bracing - it is fully described by Charles Tauber who published this at the end of his very academic anaylsis:
Have you looked at this other stuff Bill1? I guess not because it is hard to find and you need a phd in acoustic engineering to analyse it.
However I'm not interested in a discussion about the bracing - it is fully described by Charles Tauber who published this at the end of his very academic anaylsis:
Charles Tauber October 1995...
Have you looked at this other stuff Bill1? I guess not because it is hard to find and you need a phd in acoustic engineering to analyse it.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
In the 1970s there were a number of coffee table books which detailed flying braces and all sorts os f other stuff... then cam Bill Collings and we all stopped that sort of nonsense and start looking backwards again, retreating behind the castle walls of tradition. The outside world was enough after about 20 years.
Pegasus Guitars
Well-known member
I have not done anything with Kasha designs, but I believe most builds that are called Kasha have little to do with Dr. Kasha's or Richard Schneider's work. I think the design is steeped way too deeply in physics for most of us to genuinely attempt it. I'm not ready to say that it is a bad theory, but in the guitar world, I've not seen it have much success. Here in the Hawaiian uke world, a Kasha uke usually means little more than that it has braces going in all kinds of directions, a funny shaped bridge, and off center soundhole and that's about all the Kasha traits it exhibits. We do have a few builders that attended Richard's workshops that he taught in Washington State while he was alive. They may adhere more closely to some of the Kasha concepts. I had actually wanted to attend 1 of his workshops, not to become a Kasha advocate, but rather to expose myself to new ideas. Richard passed before I could do that.I don't think much of what is called Kasha is actually thought out in the way Kasha intended. Well tested experimentation is a good thing though. I admire folks who persue that. The name Kasha does make for a catchy sales pitch! Happy building!-Bob/Pegasus Guitars & Ukuleles
Eric DeVine uses a modified Kasha bracing and i believe his ukes are world class he has gone away from the bridges and has a traditional style bridge now. Mike Chock from Ukulele Guild of Hawaii took the class from R. Schneider and maybe touched base with Eric some where along the way many years ago...
custom builders like to debate Kasha bracing on guitars/ukes but as a customer/buyer it does not matter i go by tone/sound and believe the builder the most important
i have one lattice uke that i have which is great and another that was not great and let it go...i am pretty sure the builder made all the difference
my 2 cents
custom builders like to debate Kasha bracing on guitars/ukes but as a customer/buyer it does not matter i go by tone/sound and believe the builder the most important
i have one lattice uke that i have which is great and another that was not great and let it go...i am pretty sure the builder made all the difference
my 2 cents
Last edited:
Respectfully, there are plenty of tonewoods available still and they've been sitting on our doorsteps.
OP
OP
Pete Howlett
Well-known member
The reason for my post was to poke the 'trope bear' regarding what information we chose to look at when arguing our point. Since I have an issue with 'telling the truth' becoming 'what lies can I get away with' in the public arena I thought I'd see here if all communities are tainted with this current way of public discourse. Result - sensible discourse with no name-calling. Bliss.
resoman
Well-known member
I have really enjoyed this thread and subject matter. I was pretty much already convinced that I would never try the Kasha idea but the V bracing has has me interested. The problem for me is that I just don't have the time to experiment. Like most of you I have been tweaking my builds and am very happy with where I am now. I do believe I will try a double back instrument. I have a build coming up for a friend and I will experiment on hers. My only concern is the added weight. Hers is also going to get an upper bout side port, something I have been nervous about doing. I worry about the relationship between the side port and the sound hole diameters and the effect that could have on the the tone. Do you leave the sound hole the same diameter when you add as side port? That is my worry.
For the V bracing, I am almost doing the reverse of everyone else by cutting the center brace off over the bridge batch. I've been doing that for the last 20+ builds or so. It's almost like what Brad was saying in the "Remember The Old Chestnut" thread except I still have the the partial brace in the center.
Excellent thread. This is why I hang out here.
For the V bracing, I am almost doing the reverse of everyone else by cutting the center brace off over the bridge batch. I've been doing that for the last 20+ builds or so. It's almost like what Brad was saying in the "Remember The Old Chestnut" thread except I still have the the partial brace in the center.
Excellent thread. This is why I hang out here.
Last edited:
BlackBearUkes
Well-known member
For those who might be interested in a short history of how the Kasha design came
into being, here is a short history. Much more can be learned by going to the Guild
of America Luthiers, or reading "Gibson's, Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars" - a book by
Whitford, Vinopal and Erlewine.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's the guitar world changed, the imports were
becoming more abundant and the major US guitars makers had to make some changes.
Guitar companies like the new Ovation company were now on the scene, plus the
addition of many smaller companies and luthiers were cutting into the guitar market
of the big boys like Gibson, Guild and Martin. Gibson's answer to this was to
introduce a new MARK series of guitars. These guitars were the brain child of
designer Richard Schneider, Dr. Adrian Houtsma a professor of acoustic physics at
M.I.T.. Dr. Eugene Watson and Dr, Michael Kasha a well know chemical physicist at
Florida State
University. With lots of research Kasha and Schneider put together a new bracing
system, under Gibson's employ, that was suppose to be THE great sounding guitar of
the future. This new system used many small braces or tone bars that were a radical
departure from the X-braced guitars of the day. This new system was suppose to offer
top plate stability while yielding more vibration transmission to the four octave
range than the x-bracing system. So after time, more people joined the team and the
guitars were built and would be soon put onto the open market.
So far so good, there were four models of the new MARK series being built. There
were problems along the way with production, things got rushed but the guitars were
finally introduced to the market in late 1975. The problem was that the sound the
MARK series produced was not the sound the guitar buying public wanted. Even though
there were four models ranging in price from $439 to $2000, and many different woods
were used, they didn't appeal to the guitar market and were discontinued in 1979.
Richard Schneider then ventured out on his own with his designs, but concentration
mostly on the classical guitar. He also had a luthier's school in Washington state
were he lectured and taught other aspiring luthiers his theories, ideas and designs.
He worked on his designs until his death but never realized his dreams.
Unfortunately, the guitar never won great approval from his peers although some
luthiers still are trying to pick up the pieces and continue the work.
One of the problems that I and others have found with this design is that it never
fulfilled the promises, its just mostly hype. You just can't tell someone they are
hearing something that isn't there. To my ear the guitars always sounded a bit muddy
with too much bass. Once, a fine classical guitar player told me he didn't like the
Kasha design because "the damn thing got in the way of the music, it just wouldn't
shut up".
I have worked on a couple of the Gibson MARK series guitars in the past and my
impression is that they were over-built and the sound was flat without much
character. They were about 30 years old at the time so you think they would have
developed a bit.
into being, here is a short history. Much more can be learned by going to the Guild
of America Luthiers, or reading "Gibson's, Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars" - a book by
Whitford, Vinopal and Erlewine.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's the guitar world changed, the imports were
becoming more abundant and the major US guitars makers had to make some changes.
Guitar companies like the new Ovation company were now on the scene, plus the
addition of many smaller companies and luthiers were cutting into the guitar market
of the big boys like Gibson, Guild and Martin. Gibson's answer to this was to
introduce a new MARK series of guitars. These guitars were the brain child of
designer Richard Schneider, Dr. Adrian Houtsma a professor of acoustic physics at
M.I.T.. Dr. Eugene Watson and Dr, Michael Kasha a well know chemical physicist at
Florida State
University. With lots of research Kasha and Schneider put together a new bracing
system, under Gibson's employ, that was suppose to be THE great sounding guitar of
the future. This new system used many small braces or tone bars that were a radical
departure from the X-braced guitars of the day. This new system was suppose to offer
top plate stability while yielding more vibration transmission to the four octave
range than the x-bracing system. So after time, more people joined the team and the
guitars were built and would be soon put onto the open market.
So far so good, there were four models of the new MARK series being built. There
were problems along the way with production, things got rushed but the guitars were
finally introduced to the market in late 1975. The problem was that the sound the
MARK series produced was not the sound the guitar buying public wanted. Even though
there were four models ranging in price from $439 to $2000, and many different woods
were used, they didn't appeal to the guitar market and were discontinued in 1979.
Richard Schneider then ventured out on his own with his designs, but concentration
mostly on the classical guitar. He also had a luthier's school in Washington state
were he lectured and taught other aspiring luthiers his theories, ideas and designs.
He worked on his designs until his death but never realized his dreams.
Unfortunately, the guitar never won great approval from his peers although some
luthiers still are trying to pick up the pieces and continue the work.
One of the problems that I and others have found with this design is that it never
fulfilled the promises, its just mostly hype. You just can't tell someone they are
hearing something that isn't there. To my ear the guitars always sounded a bit muddy
with too much bass. Once, a fine classical guitar player told me he didn't like the
Kasha design because "the damn thing got in the way of the music, it just wouldn't
shut up".
I have worked on a couple of the Gibson MARK series guitars in the past and my
impression is that they were over-built and the sound was flat without much
character. They were about 30 years old at the time so you think they would have
developed a bit.
