Coring For Tone
- Thread starter KJ Cues
- Start date
Well, to be honest, I'm not inventing or re-inventing anything.
The concept and practice have been known to Luthiers for a long time.
Your suggestion of PH is but one option. I'm suggesting that there may be more options.
While we're on the topic of PH, have you ever seen it used in a guitar as a tone wood?
I think we can agree that it has notable strength but what are it's tone qualities?
See, this is the purpose of this thread, to discuss experiences and possibilities.
Thank you for your contribution. Let's keep them coming because I want to learn more.
KJ
The concept and practice have been known to Luthiers for a long time.
Your suggestion of PH is but one option. I'm suggesting that there may be more options.
While we're on the topic of PH, have you ever seen it used in a guitar as a tone wood?
I think we can agree that it has notable strength but what are it's tone qualities?
See, this is the purpose of this thread, to discuss experiences and possibilities.
Thank you for your contribution. Let's keep them coming because I want to learn more.
KJ
Coring for tone
There are some similarities in regard to materials used in guitars and cues.
However, the top or sound board, the part that sound is mainly derived from cannot be use in a cue as they are primarily made from spruce with Sitka being the most common. Part of the wood in a guitar is in compression and part is in suspension and the particular wood must be able to accomondate the effects of that. Some woods derive their tonal qualities when suspended and some derive their strength when compressed. The woods we use in a cue that are compatable with "tone" wood are those woods used in the structural parts of the guitar with the exception of the "tone bars' or braces which are almost universally made from cedar with Port Orford being the most sought after.
PH could never be used as a sound board because its properties are the direct opposite of what I want in a cue wood. A sound "board" moves
when the strings are plucked thereby causing the board to move, like a wave, that transmits sound thru the box. I want a core wood that does not move. Also PH cannot be used for sides or back because you cannot bend it.
It does have nice tonal qualities, it is stable, strong, resonates and is
plentiful and cheap. There are other core woods but it is hard to beat PH for that task. A second best is red oak which is lighter than PH. I salute your endeavors to find a core wood that works with the various wood combinations as the core will probably be the dominate factor as far as hit goes depending on the diameter of the core and the construction techniques.
When I build my cues I want the PH core to be in suspension and the handle/butt sleeve to in compression. I further like the forearm sleeve to be in compression also. I enjoy the discussion as that is how progress in the
art of cue making evolves.
There are some similarities in regard to materials used in guitars and cues.
However, the top or sound board, the part that sound is mainly derived from cannot be use in a cue as they are primarily made from spruce with Sitka being the most common. Part of the wood in a guitar is in compression and part is in suspension and the particular wood must be able to accomondate the effects of that. Some woods derive their tonal qualities when suspended and some derive their strength when compressed. The woods we use in a cue that are compatable with "tone" wood are those woods used in the structural parts of the guitar with the exception of the "tone bars' or braces which are almost universally made from cedar with Port Orford being the most sought after.
PH could never be used as a sound board because its properties are the direct opposite of what I want in a cue wood. A sound "board" moves
when the strings are plucked thereby causing the board to move, like a wave, that transmits sound thru the box. I want a core wood that does not move. Also PH cannot be used for sides or back because you cannot bend it.
It does have nice tonal qualities, it is stable, strong, resonates and is
plentiful and cheap. There are other core woods but it is hard to beat PH for that task. A second best is red oak which is lighter than PH. I salute your endeavors to find a core wood that works with the various wood combinations as the core will probably be the dominate factor as far as hit goes depending on the diameter of the core and the construction techniques.
When I build my cues I want the PH core to be in suspension and the handle/butt sleeve to in compression. I further like the forearm sleeve to be in compression also. I enjoy the discussion as that is how progress in the
art of cue making evolves.
Okay, here I go heading into trouble. To me(and just Me) coring Ebony with Maple makes some of the worse hitting cues(including my own). thus I will not do it anymore. Maybe coring BRW with Maple comes a close second.
Mario
I knew those bowling alley planks had some use besides tomato stakes. :grin-square:
I'd quit qmaking if I couldn't core.
Believe me, I've seen my late mentor cry when a well-seasoned assembly decides one day it wants to wiggle right in the middle.
Last edited:
I'd say you're on the right track KJ. While I am not a cue maker, I have been around it long enough to have picked up a few things. I have studied various plastics, and used to research wood quite a bit. My only advice would be to try a few combinations, and then make your own solid determinations as far as "tuning" goes. You already understand weight and stability, now it is only a matter of combining the ingredients, so to speak.
I had a friend of mine make an African Blackwood cue that he cored with straight grain maple. he swore it was the best hitting cue, he'd ever created. I know many aren't huge fans of East Indian Rosewood, but many guitar builders like it's tonal qualities, so it might make for a really decent core, IF you were to use it with a denser wood outer "skin." Also look into Cocus wood, Pau Ferro, and Goncalo Alves. I think you're about to begin an interesting journey.Best regards.
Joe P
As a guy that builds acoustic guitars, I don't think the proper analogy is outer wood to core wood. The traditional theory is that the strings excite the soundboard, which is almost always a "softwood" (spruce, cedar, fir) because of their high strength-to-weight ratio. This is because only a finite amount of the strings' energy becomes sound; the rest is lost to friction and heat, maybe the (hopefully slight) imperfections of joints, and of the woods themselves. The main contributor of sound is the top. The back and sides serve more as the "effects processor" so to speak. Generally woods like maple (and sycamore), walnut, cherry, some softer mahoganies, will have a slighty to heavily muted tone when tapped. This would generally make a sound that is brighter, cleaner, more fundamental in tone (or lacking in overtones), but quick decaying. On the other end of the spectrum would be African blackwood, cocobolo, Honduras rosewood. These woods ring like a bell, and that ringing tone sustains. Generally, this would make a darker sound, slightly less focused, with many overtones, and great sustain. Believe it or not, despite its density, guitarmakers consider ebony as closer to the maple side in terms of tonality and sustain.
The bracing of the backs can also contribute to the overall "effect" of the sound. Heavily bracing the back can "lock up" the back plate, making it act more as a "reflector" of sound; and generally the guitar is said to "project" its sound, great for larger venues and flatpicking. On the other hand, bracing to allow movement generally gives the guitar a more "disperse" sound, better suited for smaller gatherings and fingerpicking. Guitar size can do the same thing; a jumbo can have great bass but have a more disperse sound, while a parlor can have great clarity and brightness and project more.
How do I think this relates to cues? I believe the shaft is analogous to the guitar top, and the butt is analogous to the back plate. Thus I feel the predominant "feel" or "vibration" comes from the shaft, adjustable by making the shaft more stiff or flexible, and using denser or lighter wood; with the butt of the cue amplifying or attenuating certain parts of that vibration. Thus the core maybe could be thought of as the "bracing" of the back of the guitar. Also the size of the core can determine whether it is the predominant or secondary contributor to the "tone"...
The bracing of the backs can also contribute to the overall "effect" of the sound. Heavily bracing the back can "lock up" the back plate, making it act more as a "reflector" of sound; and generally the guitar is said to "project" its sound, great for larger venues and flatpicking. On the other hand, bracing to allow movement generally gives the guitar a more "disperse" sound, better suited for smaller gatherings and fingerpicking. Guitar size can do the same thing; a jumbo can have great bass but have a more disperse sound, while a parlor can have great clarity and brightness and project more.
How do I think this relates to cues? I believe the shaft is analogous to the guitar top, and the butt is analogous to the back plate. Thus I feel the predominant "feel" or "vibration" comes from the shaft, adjustable by making the shaft more stiff or flexible, and using denser or lighter wood; with the butt of the cue amplifying or attenuating certain parts of that vibration. Thus the core maybe could be thought of as the "bracing" of the back of the guitar. Also the size of the core can determine whether it is the predominant or secondary contributor to the "tone"...
Last edited:
Any update in this journey of yours?
You went to the vault for this one didn't you ?
That may have been one of the most illuminating posts that I've ever written.
The overall intent was to stimulate thought and discussion, which it did.
So my question is, did anyone else learn anything ? What have you learned since then ?
I've participated in several discussions regarding coring since then (2013 ?...Dude?!?)
and about all I can say is that the discussion continues. That's as it should be.
In one of those threads I stated that CMs don't have a clue and for the most part they don't.
Not like Luthiers anyway and I really don't either. That's way we must continue to discuss.
We're fortunate to have at least one crossover Luthier/CM but I wouldn't build a case on just 1 voice.
The key is to do independent research, testing and experimentation, particularly if your goal is 'tone'.
Using the same coring dowel mtrl in an attempt at consistency is fine if you never change the sleeve wood.
Will the sleeve be sliced and diced with points or will it be PJ/Widow ? It all comes into play.
What wood combinations produce what results ? This is what we haven't answered yet.
It's safe to say that it can take a lifetime. However, we have the benefit of the Luthiers who have
traveled the path already. That's why I've brought them up in the conversations so far; they've been there.
I can't and won't argue that coring doesn't improve the strength of a cue; it most certainly does.
But coring can and does complicate the equation. For one, there's a layer of glue involved.
A layer of glue that runs the entire length of the core. We've discussed dowel/sleeve tolerance.
That tolerance is occupied by the layer or wall of glue. Combine that with the fact that different glues
are used by different builders. It's still pretty much a guessing game at best.
I'm still not into coring as a matter of course. There are times it should be considered but not always.
I don't build with the intent of withstanding lateral loading particularly if it compromises tone.
A cue is not intended to be laterally loaded. That in my opinion is abuse, whether intentional or not.
My current goal is to produce cues that yield sweetness and purity of hit/tone and to hold-up
under their intended circumstances of function; straight ahead contact with a cue-ball.
Falling to the floor, whacking the table, sword fights, etc. are not in my thought/build process.
Gentlemen, I've had a long day and it begins again early in the morning. I'm tired and going to bed.
I'd really like to see this discussion continue. For the time being, please talk amongst yourselves. Lol
Goodnight.
KJ
It was an accident and I kid you not.
I was searching for something and this thread came up.
I didn't even remember this thread.
What I can tell you about this whole thing is to make some mock ups.
Some of your thoughts are about the same as mine before I started making mock-ups and assemblies.
I'm not saying what were right or wrong from my pre-conceived notions about the different methods and materials.
Same goes for Louie.
Make some mock-ups.
Drop them , tone them and hit with them .
Hell, leave them in the trunk of your car and check what happens after a while.
See which one starts buzzing or rattling .
Last edited:
I was reading guitar forums, too, and posted this a while back.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=439539
I know nothing about building guitars, nor cues, but believe that the various combinations of woods, when put together, will create a wide variety of "hits" or "tones". Some may be music to your ears and others may not be to your liking.
I'm going to experiment this week by having a cue made with a full-splice butt, solid purple heart into a solid ebony forearm...no coring.
I guess I'll find out how that matches up when I get it.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=439539
I know nothing about building guitars, nor cues, but believe that the various combinations of woods, when put together, will create a wide variety of "hits" or "tones". Some may be music to your ears and others may not be to your liking.
I'm going to experiment this week by having a cue made with a full-splice butt, solid purple heart into a solid ebony forearm...no coring.
I guess I'll find out how that matches up when I get it.
It's gonna be heavy and not have much resonance in the handle unless it's really skinny, imho.
Last edited:
IMO, coring isn't done to improve resonance or to define it. There's just too much glue involved for that.
Part of my approach to building is to allow the F/A to 'talk' to the handle wood which in turn speaks to the grip-hand.
The shaft initiates the vibration and the F/A wood defines it. This can be enhanced or muted by the 'A'jnt construction.
The absolute purest transition is done in the 4pt F/S, there's no metal nor tenon involved. The mating is solid.
'A'jnt construction allows some tweaking to be done with resonance and some better wght. distribution.
A well constructed cue allows all of the components to talk to one another in the same language, managed resonance.
From tip to bumper, every component has a part in the conversation. When in harmony, it becomes a song.
KJ
Part of my approach to building is to allow the F/A to 'talk' to the handle wood which in turn speaks to the grip-hand.
The shaft initiates the vibration and the F/A wood defines it. This can be enhanced or muted by the 'A'jnt construction.
The absolute purest transition is done in the 4pt F/S, there's no metal nor tenon involved. The mating is solid.
'A'jnt construction allows some tweaking to be done with resonance and some better wght. distribution.
A well constructed cue allows all of the components to talk to one another in the same language, managed resonance.
From tip to bumper, every component has a part in the conversation. When in harmony, it becomes a song.
KJ
Speak for your own cues. In my cues, tonal characteristics is one of the paramount purposes for coring.
If you ever see a slo-mo video of a player striking the cue ball, the entire cue flexes to some degree, as a unit. The sensation we interpret as "feel" is the vibrations produced by the cue returning to original shape. In my cues, according to the sound they make, I'd guess they resonate in the 1000hz-1200hz range. That means that vibration goes back & forth along the entire length of the cue 1000+ times per second until the cue is still. IMO, so long as the "A" joint is secured solid, it will not inhibit nor amplify the vibration.
I agree 100% that the "A" joint allows adjustment of weight & balance, but only partially believe a full splice is superior in that it allows more pure transfer of vibration. IMO the reason people notice that is because of the woods used. FSs' are almost always done with straight grain strong woods like rosewood, purple, goncalo, etc. into a straight or lightly figured maple. Make a simple P/J with the same woods & you get the same effect. Make a FS out of burl or heavy figured birds eye & see how well it resonates. It has been my experience that construction method takes a far second behind wood characteristics.
Couldn't agree more. I have always said & always believed every single component of a cue, no matter how seemingly insignificant, plays equal role. Components are links in a chain. I tone check everything, even ferrule material & phenolics that I use in collars. There's a particular resonance window that seems to produce the best feeling, best performing cues, no matter who made it or which construction method was used. I have that window in mind every single step along the way, as it dictates my decisions, even the species & size of core I use. The end goal is to put that finished cue in that window. Sometimes I nail it, most times I am at least close. I'm getting better at it as I progress in experience. The result is that a full splice, P/J, solid wood butt, multiple pointer, etc. from me all hit, feel, and perform quite similarly.
Overall I agree with your post a lot more than I disagree. There are a couple things I see differently, which I offer my perspective on. This particular topic of harmonics is the "heartbeat" of a cue, so to say, and by far the most interesting to me. IMO, this is the stuff that determines whether a cue maker is known for good playing cues, or just known to make cues.
You say there is too much glue involved when it comes to improving resonance and coring. Then you say the purest transition of resonance is done with 4 pt F/S. Well, there is a layer of glue between the entire surfaces of the forearm and butt wood with full splice. Personally, I don't see how you can have it both ways when it comes to blaming the glue. I have not done any calculations, but I'm pretty sure there is more glued surface area in a FS cue than there is in a cored forearm cue.
I will go a step further when it comes to F/S. What happens when you add veneers to FS? Now you have a full layer of laminated veneers that were literally soaked in glue fully separating the forearm and the butt wood. What happens to that pure resonance then? If someone chooses a forearm and then choses a handle wood for a FS construction because they are trying to achieve a certain tone...and then add veneers...
Boom!
Plane janes without metal in the A-joint has more resonance then.
Hmmmmm....
Again, KJ. Make some mock-ups and bounce them.
I bet you can't tell the difference between a cored forearm and a non cored one.
If done right , of course.
In fact, I'd challenge peeps on a blind test .
Last edited:
I'd go another step further yet & say the tone can be, and IS engineered. Case in point, a heavy figured birds eye front will not resonate as vividly or brightly as a heavy figured birds eye front that's been cored with a 3/4" piece of granadillo. Doing so allows the builder to use woods that are aesthetically attractive, yet still hit pingy & strong.
Agreed.
One of the best hitting cues I ever made was Koa front cored in granadillo.
My late mentor did not like coring all the way through .
But, he used to thread 3" long granadillo and olivewood on some cues.
He even liked using granadillo as A-joint tenon and anchor.
He would thread one at the bottom of the forearm and let some 2.5" stick out. He would then use that to anchor to the handle.
One famous maker in Alaska appears to like doing that as well.
It shows on the X-ray in one of his cues.
He is well-known to make great playing cues.