Michael McBroom

There is a story behind this guitar, of course. I was researching cutaway classical designs, which appeal greatly to jazz fingerstylists, and was somewhat concerned about volume and tone loss due to the cutaway.  Then I came across some well-documented data which indicated that a traditionally braced classical's lower bout is the only one that's acoustically active.  This is due to the two transverse braces, called "tone bars" or "harmonic bars," which serve to reinforce the soundboard above and below the sound hole.  But they also isolate the upper bout from the rest of the soundboard, preventing it from vibrating to a significant degree.  The upper bout participates only in terms of the additional volume it offers (of the cubic sort, that is), which does add somewhat to the overall resonance of the instrument.  So I immediately began to wonder, what would a guitar sound like with essentially no upper bout at all?  Well, the only way I knew to answer that question was to build one. When my wife saw the first one, she laughed and said it looked like it had a Buddha belly.  Trying not to be offended (because I tend to resemble that remark), I thought, hmmm . . . Buddha Belly.  Naw, too crude -- Buddha Body?  Better.  Aha!  ZEN!  And so it was. The first Zen prototype was an "out there" design.  In retrospect, I realize I included too many non-standared elements in the guitar's construction to give it a decent evaluation.  The guitar had twin sound holes to allow enough room for a two-octave fingerboard, a bridge with adjustable saddles, lattice bracing of my own design, and used redwood and padauk as the tone woods.  I also built it to be quite a bit deeper than one usually sees with classicals, in an effort to get back some of the lost volume (of the cubic sort).  The results were mixed.  It sounded surprisingly good, and had good volume to boot.  But it didn't sound like a traditional classical at all.  I didn't know if this was due to the wood selection or the bracing design, or the twin soundholes, or the greater body depth -- or, especially -- whether the design concept itself was flawed.

Zen with Canadian Lutz spruce soundboard and padauk "katana style" bridge Zen with optional cocobolo back and sides

So I built another.  For this one, however, I stuck to as many accepted principles as I could.  The body depth fell within the range that most classicals have.  I used a traditional bracing pattern for the soundboard, and installed a single sound hole.  The woods also were more traditional: a Canadian Lutz spruce top and cocobolo back and sides.  The only significant departure from a traditional classical, apart from the body design, of course, was the inclusion of a fingerboard extension to the 22nd fret. The difference in sound between the two guitars was stunning.  The Zen built to more tradtional guidelines had a remarkable Spanish sound to it.  The basses were not as boomy as one would expect on a regular classical, but they had a satisfying growl to them, which I associate with well built spruce-topped Spanish guitars.  The highs were strong and clear.   Overall, when compared with a regular classical, the sound lacks some of the depth, but not nearly as much as one might think.  It more than makes up for it with its tone, clarity, and separation. The primary difference between the Zen I offer now and the second one I built, which proved the concept, is the soundboard bracing pattern.  The traditional 7-fan pattern which I used on the second prototype can result in an excellent sounding instrument, but enhancements to that basic pattern, which many classical builders have adopted, work even better, in my opinion.  Thus, I have adapted a modified version of my radial bracing pattern for this guitar.  The result is a more even balance across the strings and the fingerboard, with a noticeable improvement in the trebles and volume. So, who will this guitar appeal to?  I see it as appealing to crossover players who wish to have a totally unencumbered access to the 17th fret.  That's up there in cutaway electric territory, folks.  And because of the truncated upper bout, access to higher frets is relatively easy.  Also, I've known a few hotrod flamenco players in my day, and I suspect this design may appeal to some amongst the flamenco community as well. I felt it was important to keep some vestiges of the upper bout in this design so that a player could still rest it on a leg and play it in a traditional manner.  Even with most of the upper bout missing, it rests on the leg comfortably.   Out of necessity, I feel, this is the only classical I build in which I offer side fret markers as standard.  Any guitarist who is used to orienting his or herself to the 12th fret body joint will most likely feel somewhat disoriented when playing a guitar like this without fret markers.  Of course, if you prefer, the fret markers can be ommitted -- at no additional charge :) Specifications: Soundboard wood: choice of Canadian Lutz spruce, cedar or redwood Back and Side wood: choice of Indian rosewood, padauk, palo escrito, or either Peruvian or Mayan walnut Neck wood: Spanish cedar (mahogany on request) Ebony fingerboard with 20 frets (22 fret extension available for an additional charge) Indian rosewood "Katana-style" bridge (padauk on request) Binding is usually the same wood used for the back and sides, except padauk; it's too brittle for binding.  Bloodwood (a good substitute for padauk) or curly maple available on request Purfling: curly maple on the back and sides, alternating black/white lines on the top Bone nut and saddle 650mm scale (660mm scale available on request) Nut width: 54mm with 9mm string spacing or 52mm with 8.5mm string spacing Tuners: Hauser-style Schallers French polish finish Compensation: modified Gilbert method Hard shell case Price: $1500 (add $50 for 22 fret extension) Please inquire for price with optional woods or features.  Prices for optional items, especially tone woods, vary depending upon exchange rate and availability.

Copyright © 2006 Michael McBroom, all rights reserved