Rafael Onyett

ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

The Smallman vs Traditional Guitar

The design of the modern classical guitar is constantly evolving.

Thanks to the innovations of the instrument makers, the
developments of technology and the deepened understanding of
acoustics, improvements are continuously being made to the guitar.
An often-quoted guitar manufacturer that has received great
commercial success from his innovative methods to guitar
construction is the Australian luthier Greg Smallman. Through the
endorsement of well-respected players using Smallman guitars, from
the likes of John Williams and Craig Ogden, their names have
attributed towards the luthiers popularity.

Despite such success however, not all advances are considered as

steps forward, and Smallman’s innovations have been met with much
criticism. The debate of ‘traditional’ build guitars vs new concept
builds, like the Smallman guitar, is common among the classical
guitar world, a debate that usually corresponds to a “play-off
between loudness and tone” (Gerken 2001). While some guitarists
benefit greatly from the notorious loudness that a Smallman can
offer, many others hold strong reservations about the instrument,
with criticisms mostly about its tonal quality. In this essay I will
discuss some of the key differences between the ‘traditional’ and
Smallman guitars, highlighting some of their major strengths and
weaknesses. I will also consider some of the real-world applications
of these instruments that make best use of their strengths.

But first, I will need to specify what is meant by the largely

encompassing term -‘traditional’ guitar. In its most basic principles,
the guitar can be considered as a system of coupled vibrators. The
plucked string stores energy, exerting a force with both transverse
and longitudinal components. They transmit vibrational energy to
the top plate (soundboard) via the bridge, which in turn, shares this
energy with the ribs, back plate and air cavity. This sound energy is
radiated by the vibrating plates and through the sound hole (Rossing,
2010, p.20). Spain was paramount in the development of the classical
guitar (Campbell and Greated, 1994, p.221), with the Spanish luthier
Antonio de Torres (1817-1892) being often accredited as the “father
of the modern classical guitar” (Marcus Dominelli 2015). Torres’
most revolutionary redesign was with the bracing pattern
implemented on the soundboard of his guitars, allowing a reduction
of mass to the soundboard. Referred to as ‘fan bracing,’ Torres’
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

bracing ran more in the direction of the soundboard grain, as

opposed to the more simplistic ‘ladder bracing’ (struts glued
perpendicular to the grain of soundboard) that was implemented in
guitars prior to this (Marcus Dominelli 2015). Combined with an
enlarged body and thinner soundboard, the result of the fan bracing
created a much warmer, earthier sounding instrument with a much
greater dynamic range of tonal possibilities (Marcus Dominelli 2015).
I will later discuss in greater depth as to how the changes to the
soundboard and bracing influence the sound of the instrument. The
fan bracing pattern, or slight variations of it, is the most widely used
pattern in the classical guitar since the time of Torres, with little
change to it since its conception (Campbell and Greated, 1994,
p.221). It is guitars that follow this typical fan-bracing pattern of
construction that are referred to as traditional guitars.

Image of traditional fan-brace (Marcus Dominelli 2015)

“For those not familiar with this relatively new type of classical
guitar, I will explain the underlying concept of construction. The aim
is, simply put, to make a louder guitar.” (Sebastien Stenzel 2019).

The above statement neatly sums up the direction in which the

modern classical guitar is heading – towards becoming a louder
instrument. It makes sense as well, considering the growing
popularity of the relatively modern instrument, and the mounting
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

pool of versatile repertoire being composed for it. There is a greater

demand now than before for a versatile instrument that can hold its
own in an ensemble environment and not be entirely drowned out by
other instruments, as well as reach the back of a concert hall in a solo
concert. The modest dynamic range of many traditional guitars has
always been a strongly limiting factor for the instrument in
chamber/orchestral settings. It is this need for a louder instrument
where modern luthiers like Smallman have enjoyed considerable
success with their innovative methods.

It is generally accepted that the resonant response of a guitar to the

vibrations induced by the strings is largely governed by the
vibrational modes of the soundboard and braces (Campbell and
Greated, 1994, p.223), and it is with the construction of these
particular elements of the guitar where Smallman has made is his
most drastic adjustments. To increase the efficiency of the
instrument and its output of sound, one method employed by
modern luthiers is to maximise the ratio of sound velocity to the
mass of soundboard, which correlates more or less directly with the
stiffness to mass. The maximisation of the stiffness-to-mass ratio is
achieved by constructing a lighter but stiffer soundboard (Sebastien
Stenzel 2019), improving the efficiency of the coupling between the
vibrating systems (strings to soundboard) meaning that the
vibrational energy of the strings can be transferred more
efficiently/quickly to the soundboard. The increased stiffness-to-
mass ratio reduces the internal damping of the soundboard,
improving its output of energy. The overall result is a more
responsive, and louder instrument (Sebastien Stenzel 2019). Similar
to Torres’ revolutionary innovations 150 years ago, Smallman
innovates this further with an even lighter, more fragile soundboard.
To support such a lightweight soundboard, and maximise its
stiffness-to-mass ratio Smallman employs a lattice pattern of bracing,
generally using struts of carbon-fibre-expoxy expoxied to balsa wood
(the lightest wood there is), typically 3mm wide and 8mm high at
their tallest point, the heights of which are tapered away from the
bridge in all directions (Rossing, 2010, p.34).
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

Image of typical lattice-brace (Marcus Dominelli 2015)

Compared to the more simplistic design of the fan-braced traditional

guitar, typically with struts radiating from the sound-hole with a
thicker soundboard, the differences between the complexities of
their anatomy is abundant, as is with the differences of their sound.
There has been research conducted in support of the effectiveness of
soundboard reduction on sound radiation. Using finite-element
modelling to study the influence of the top plate, Richardson (1998)
concluded that reducing the effective mass has a great effect on
radiation of high frequencies (Rossing, 2010, p.34).

However, as a consequence of greater sound radiation, the tonal

quality of the Smallman differs considerably from the typical sound
of a traditional – a tonal quality that has met much criticism. As a
result of the high-resonance frequencies from a high stiffness-to-
mass ratio, there is a ‘lightness’ to the timbre of the Smallman guitar
(Rossing, 2010, p.34). Often, this sound is criticised as too bright,
nasal or ‘banjoey’ by guitarists and luthiers (Marcus Dominelli 2015).
In review of a recital given on a Smallman guitar, luthier Sebastien
Stenzel (2019) wrote, “I just heard one of these guitars in a concert
the other day. It was really loud… I really suffered from the sound of
the guitar…”

The ‘banjoey/drum guitar’ terms often used to describe the sound of

a Smallman are a result of an almost unavoidable increase of
admittance when increasing the efficiency of the soundboard -
increased admittance meaning that the energy of the string is
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

transferred faster to the soundboard (Sebastien Stenzel 2019). A high

average admittance, referred to by players as a fast attack on the
guitar, is the explosive/percussive sound of the plucking of the string.
Due to the very low impedance of the air, the result of a high
admittance is a strongly increased radiation damping (loss of energy
through the radiation of sound), i.e. the energy is fired off quickly and
the additional power of the Smallman is mainly showing in the first
milliseconds of a note, amplifying all the side noises of the initial
contact of finger to string. So although there is more energy available
from the Smallman soundboards, the sustain is typically no longer
than that of a traditional guitar, meaning that the relatively faster
decrease of the sound level is more audible/noticeable. The overall
result is a highly percussive sound with a high peak level at the
beginning of the note and a faster decay rate compared to that of a
high quality traditional guitar (Sebastien Stenzel 2019).

The big difference in sound intensity between the initial peak and its
steep decrease holds further negative effects to the tonal quality of
the Smallman, reducing its range of sound colours, variation of
timbre, and lack of modulation capacity (the ease of which sound
properties can be varied by a player) (Sebastien Stenzel 2019). The
harmonic composition of a note can be altered by changing the
position of plucking on the string. Plucking near to an antinode for a
particular mode will it excite it, but not other modes which have a
node at that point. For example, plucking towards the centre of the
string will accentuate the all the odd harmonics including the
fundamental (Campbell and Greated, 1994, p.224). Plucking different
positions of the string, accentuating different harmonic overtones, is
one of the methods a guitarist will use to vary their sound colour
(bright to warm etc). However as most of the energy of a Smallman is
fired into the initial percussive section of a note, the higher overtones
don’t have enough energy/sustain to really be varied/crafted by the
player (Sebastien Stenzel 2019). The result is a poverty of sound
colours, and increased difficulty for a player to vary their timbre.

In a comparison of recordings (the opening 40 seconds of Isaac

Albeniz’s ‘Granada’) - Craig Ogden on a Smallman guitar
(Summertime Deluxe, 2017) and Julian Bream on a traditional guitar
(The art of Spanish guitar, 1970), obvious differences in their sounds
can be observed. Most obviously, Bream’s sound is far warmer and
earthier than the sound of a Smallman. The timbre of each tone
sounds more rich and full, the sounds of a stronger fundamental note
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

with greater presence of lower overtones. The Smallman, in

comparison, sounds much thinner and brighter. On loud chord
strums the percussive sound of the attack overpowers the clarity of
the actual notes. Furthermore, the range of sound colours appears
somewhat limited in comparison to the Bream recording, which
holds a much wider, more expressive variety of tone. Although, we
must accept that these recordings do not provide a clear
representation of the different instruments. We must acknowledge
also the different musical decisions of each performers
interpretation, and the time difference between the recordings. The
sound recording technology will inevitably be different for the more
recent recording, which will of course affect the quality of sound that
we hear.

Not only can the player alter the tone of their sound with the position
they pluck the string, but also by adjusting the angle through which
the string is plucked. Forces parallel and perpendicular to the bridge
excite different sets of resonances, as well as tones that have
different decay rates (Rossing, 2010, p.29). When the string is
plucked perpendicular to the soundboard, a strong but rapidly
decaying tone is obtained, but when the string is plucked parallel to
the soundboard, a weaker but longer tone results (Jansson, 1983,
pp.7-26). Perhaps players, particularly for a Smallman guitar,
considering the instruments faster rate of decay and explosive initial
peak of sound for a note, should take extra consideration into the
angle of plucking. This is not to suggest that a new unique technique
should be developed specifically for the Smallman, but more so that a
player could keep in mind that creating a more horizontal string
motion (parallel to the sounboard), could possibly counteract some
of the issues of decay rate and over-amplified percussive sound with
the Smallman. Players can change the balance between horizontal
and vertical string motion by varying the angle of the fingertip
(Taylor 1978).

Some of the issues I have discussed of the Smallman guitars are of

course not applicable to all Smallmans. With the complexity of
instrument making, to make generalisations about how all lattice
guitars sound is virtually meaningless. This is more so a discussion of
some of the possible deficiencies that Smallman’s approaches to
construction are prone to, and how the results of these differing
constructions vary from the traditional guitar. Skilful luthiers like
Smallman of course take precautions to combat some of these
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

possible negative effects, however no matter how many precautions

taken, a guitar with a higher efficiency in sound radiation will
inevitably have a very different sound characteristic (Sebastien
Stenzel 2019). Perhaps we should consider the possibility that one
‘complete’ instrument, perfectly adaptable to all performance
scenarios, cannot exist. Instead, we should better understand how
and why certain types of guitar are perhaps greater suited for
particular purposes/repertoire. For example, despite criticisms to its
tone, the Smallman is widely accepted as the louder instrument,
making it better suited to chamber/orchestral settings. Furthermore,
more rhythmically orientated, percussive repertoire, such as the
compositions of Leo Brouwer, would perhaps be better suited to the
explosive/percussive timbre of the Smallman. Whereas for the more
melodic, harmonious repertoire, such as Bach for example, it could be
better suited for the traditional guitar.
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175

Bibliography

Campbell, Murray and Greated, Clive (1994). The Musicians Guide To

Acoustics. Sound Production In Musial Instruments. Bowed And
Plucked Instruments. Oxford University Press. New York.

Dominelli, Marcus (2015). Bracing Styles For Classical Guitars. This Is

Classical Guitars. URL -
https://www.thisisclassicalguitar.com/bracing-styles-for-classical-
guitars/#prettyPhoto (online article accessed 25th April, 2019)

Gerken, Teja (2001). To infinity and beyond. Acoustic Guitar

Magazine

Jansson, V (1983). Acoustics For The Guitar Player. In Function,

Construction, And Quality Of The Guitar (E.V. Jansson ed.) Royal
Swedish Academy of Music. Stockholm.

Richardson, E (1998). The Classical Guitar: Tone By Design.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Musical Acoustics
1998 (D. Keefe, T. Rossing, C. Schmid eds.) Acoustical Society of
America, Woodbury.

Rossing, Thomas D (2010) The Science of String Instruments. Plucked

Strings, Guitars and Lutes (Thomas D. Rossing and Graham
Caldersmith). Springer, Stanford University,

Stenzel, Sebastien (2019). A Plea For Traditional Construction. Guitar

Salon International. URL -
https://www.guitarsalon.com/blog/?p=1467 (Online article
accessed 25th April, 2019)

Taylor, J (1978). Tone Production On The Classical Guitar. Musical

New Services. Ltd. London.

Discography
Bream, Julian (1970). The Art Of Spanish Guitar. Granada (0-40
second). RCA Red Seal.

Ogden, Craig (2017). Summertime Deluxe. Granada (0-40 second).

Decca.
Rafael Onyett
ONY15015673
Word count: 2175