Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Ports

(U.S. Patent #5, 952,951)

send email to:
 rogluthier@aol.com

Specifications and Photos of the LoPrinzi Nova
Futura Classic Guitar

(New!  At
the bottom of  this page read recent Internet Discussions of the Nova
Futura and other ported guitar
designs.) SIZE=3>

Find out about:

Artists Who Play the LoPrinzi
Nova Futura

Scale: 650 mm. or 664 mm.

Soundboard: Spruce or Cedar

Back and Sides: East Indian Rosewood

Fingerboard: Ebony with a bone nut.

Finish: Traditional Oil varnish polished to gloss.

Tuners: Gotoh

Binding: Marquetry purflings on front. Straight "Hauser style" multi-strip
body binding and back joint.

Bridge: Rosewood with a bone saddle.

Special: "Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Ports" for enhanced projection
and playability.

Price: $3500 including hard case.

Availability: Now! Call 888-803-8693 or 727-447-2276 for you nearest
dealer.

WIDTH="450" HEIGHT="888">



WIDTH="594" HEIGHT="852">

WIDTH="702" HEIGHT="558">

WIDTH="870" HEIGHT="588">

HEIGHT="576">

WIDTH="870" HEIGHT="576">

WIDTH="588" HEIGHT="870">

WIDTH="528" HEIGHT="870">

Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Ports

Notice how the upper sound ports cross over the edge of the instrument.
This angles the ports at almost 45 degrees, thereby aiming them directly
into the lower bout where sound is generated. At least four enhancements
occur:

1. - There is an increased projection and clarification of the tone
because sound trapped in the upper bout is liberated, and does not dampen
successive sound waves generated by the bridge in the lower bout. The increased
soundboard efficiency brightens and clarifies the tone; sustain and attack
are enhanced and intensified.

2. - The Multi-dimensional port toward the musician functions like a
monitor so the player can easliy hear the instrument in a way totally impossible
with the traditional design.

3. - Easier access (by at least two fret positions) for the notes over
the body. The hand is freer to reach for the higher notes and barred positions.

4. - The inhanced sound projection fills in a broader pattern and is
distributed more generously and efficiently than guitars equipped only with
the traditional sound hole. If you place your hand over an upper sound hole
and strum a full chord the pressure of the increased sound projection is
dramatic and easily detected. If you block the multi-dimensional ports the
instrument is immediately dampened.

This beautiful design principle does not interfere with the traditional
development of soundboard theories, bridge designs and bracing patterns.
It simply allows the guitar to become a more efficient acoustic device (air
pump) and thereby improves upon all the other work accomplished by traditional
luthiery to date. The LoPrinzi Nova Futura, in cedar or spruce soundboard,
is now available.  Please call for information about the nearest
dealer.

Visit the LoPrinzi Guitars
website.

GFA - Montreal (Oct. 18 - 24, 1998)

Displaying the LoPrinzi Nova Futura at the recent GFA in Montreal was
a wonderful experience. I had to demonstrate it to so many different people
and make note of their reactions. Accordingly, I got a lot better at explaining
it and also spent more time reflecting about this instrument which bears
my invention, the Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Port (TMSP). I hope you
don't mind if I indulge myself by recapping the goals, claims and theory
behind this effort. This is an exciting time, watching this new instrument
make its way in the classical guitar community. My sincere thanks to Augie
LoPrinzi, a great guitar maker at the top of his profession, whose willing
collaboration and sublime skill has made this dream into a reality.

Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Port (TMSP)

Goal:

Dramatically increase the acoustical and ergonomic efficiency of the
guitar while retaining as much traditional design, materials and construction
as possible.

Claims:

*Enhanced projection of trapped sound liberated from the upper bout.

*Improved access to higher fingerboard fret positions over the body
by at least two frets.

*Monitor effect to provide the player an accurate impression of
what the audience listener hears.

*Efficient distribution of a larger sound in a broader pattern in front
of the player.

Background and Theory

Luthiers have "hit the wall" in terms of increasing the acoustical
efficiency of the traditional guitar design. Soundboard dimension, bracing
patterns and finishing techniques have been intensively explored with but
modest and unpredictable success relative to the efforts. Older instruments
are still highly prized and, surprisingly, often outperform the best recent
work. This would not be the case if the elaborate "luthier science" theories
of the past 20 years had really borne fruit.

The problem with "luthier science" is the assumption that the traditional
design is near perfection and that very little else can, or should, be done
to improve it. As a repairman, guitar maker and player, I have been put on
this earth to improve things, not to replicate the mistakes of the past.
Although I adore the form and historic lore of the traditional design I must
acknowledge and confront its limitations, especially in view of our own age
which emphasizes science and technology. Our hearing is conditioned by our
sonic environment which, if not wholly alien, is vastly different from the
milieu of Torres, Tarrega and Andres Segovia. My responsibility is to blend
the old with the new in an inspired and logical way, which brings the beauty
of antiquity forward without destroying the past.

In terms of acoustical efficiency I regard the traditional design as
seriously flawed. This is a source of much frustration for both guitar makers
and players who strive to express themselves acoustically in world reverberant
with noise. I want to make a guitar with stronger, pure and more interesting
voice which will stand up to the psycho-acoustical interference (noise)
conditioning of our times.

The Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Port (patent applied for) as embodied
in the Augustino LoPrinzi Nova Futura demonstrates that there is excess
internal acoustical activity created by the player which does not reach the
audience. This trapped sound becomes destructive and effectively damps the
sound board, limits attack duration, sustain and induces a "dull" component
to the tone of the most finely wrought examples of the classical guitar.

As a consequence of the square-cornered rounded shape and tonewoods,
the guitar produces many natural resonances some of which are more responsive
and prominent than others. Most important of these is the body cavity resonance
which is the lowest natural frequency of the guitar and the most mechanically
active note. These natural resonances  -- easily triggered by normal
playing -- dampen and interfere with other notes that do not have a natural
support resonance. The TMSP liberates this excess activity, especially the
body cavity resonance, by efficiently clearing it from the body for conversion
into useable sound. Subsequently, the sound board itself is no longer damped
and responds more quickly to the player's touch in both greater detail and
amplitude. The result is a guitar which sounds better and feels easier to
play because it is naturally responding more efficiently to every aspect
of player input.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Why keep the traditional sound hole?

Many fine guitars have been made with the traditional sound hole placement.
It makes no sense to eliminate a vital component which is so integral with
the design and aesthetics of the guitar. Indeed, the LoPrinzi Nova Futura
design retains the traditional sound hole and confirms its validity. If the
traditional sound hole is blocked certain frequencies and overtones are muted.
This shows that the Thurman Multi-dimensional Sound Ports (TMSP) liberate
sound which the traditional hole does not, and vice versa. Indeed, the TMSP
and the traditional sound hole work together to produce a reinforced sound
with greater depth and clarity than before.

Why not place the TMSP elsewhere rather than the upper bout?

The TMSP, if placed in the lower bout, is minimally effective in comparison
with the major enhancements provided by the bilateral upper bout location
(improved fret access, monitor effect, etc.). Moreover, the goal is to preserve
as much as possible the traditional "look" of the guitar. Prior to the TMSP
it was thought that the upper bout of the guitar had little function other
than receiving the neck. After the TMSP it is clear that the upper bout can
be used meaningfully to enhance the sound and playability of the guitar.
By keeping the TMSP in the upper bout all the excellent characteristic work
done by various luthiers to develop the sound board bracing in the bridge
area is unaffected.

Why is the TMSP "multi-dimensional?" Isn't it just another sound
hole?

The traditional sound hole, or a hole placed anywhere on the sound board,
is aimed directly at the guitar's back. The TMSP, opening the sound board
and side simultaneously, is by design aimed diagonally into the lower bout
where sound is generated. It is therefore in a very strategic position to
not only liberate and project forward sonic activity moving up from the lower
bout, but to also provide the monitor effect and facilitate better access
to the higher positions. This is why it is termed "multi-dimensional," because
it spans more than one plane but also confronts and solves other sound production
and playability issues.

The Results:

The most important effect is the liberation of sound because it creates
a virtual cascade of secondary results: expanded dynamic range, clarity and
depth of tone across all registers, longer attack and sustain, easier access
to tone color variations, enhanced sensitivity and tonal saturation at the
lower volume levels. The sound of the LoPrinzi Nova Futura with the
TMSP is not only larger in scope and volume but it is also an interesting
sound with its own identity. This identity is more in the direction of the
piano in scope and depth. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to refer
to the LoPrinzi Nova Futura as the "grand piano" of the classical guitar.

After 25 years in luthiery this is my attempt to objectively assess
our instrument and to provide a solution and a direction. I realize this
may not satisfy or please some. I am committed to the future of the classical
guitar and this "fix" of mine to the traditional design is but an offering
toward the further development of our instrument.  

Recent Internet Discussion of the Nova Futura and other ported
guitar body designs.

<< So, as you've guessed by now, I took one of my old yard sale
practice guitars and drilled a one inch hole in the upper bout approximately
1-1/4" from the neck. The guitar is without doubt much louder to my playing
ear and my friend says it is actually louder out front.

So tell me, is there something to this and does it advantage the guitar?
Perhaps there is a downside to this such as loss of tone? Or maybe, just
maybe, I've just had a momentary lapse of reason? Such a thing almost seems
too simple. >>

Kevin:

I was next to Kenny Hill at the Charleston SC GFA. We are both believers
in ported guitars. You are going to see, and hear, much more of this idea
in the future. Very simply, the ports help the guitar become a more efficient
acoustical device. This especially helps guitars when they are new and the
tone is unformed. As the ported instruments age the effect is even greater.

The results shock people at first hearing and even offend sensibilities
that believe the guitar can go no further than what has already been done.
Yet, the instrument has developed so recently, compared with the violin,
that most of the designs we now accept contain elements which deviate
significantly from the past. Torres, Fleta, Hauser, Ramirez, Bouchet, Gilbert,
Humphrey, Smallman and Daumann have all innovated in their own times. What
is really different about the ports is the engagement of a problem beyond
the scope of all previous innovations which have sought to understand and
control the vibrations in the materials of the instrument, primarily the
soundboard and back.

In our times, Michael Kasha and Carleen Hutchins began to research the
instrument from a scientific viewpoint. Their important work has influenced
anyone who came in contact with it. Luthiers have taken this knowledge, mixed
it with tradition, and articulated valuable new ways of understanding how
to reduce the friction of the materials. These developments, however successful,
have been confined to the traditional form and have therefore overlooked
the necessity of also reducing the friction of air movement. Simply put:
what is the point of improving the soundboard function if the containment
and movement of air is not similarly addressed?

The Ruck/Hill holes are a step in the right direction and were conceived
and appeared after finding out about the multi-dimensional sound ports utilized
by Augustino LoPrinzi's Nova Futura. The multi-dimensional ports are more
radical but really deliver the goods, so to speak. Whether or not they will
be accepted is another question because there are many reasons, other than
pure sound efficiency, why people prefer one guitar over another. In the
long run I believe the ported designs will find success because the results,
as Kevin noticed, are really there and plainly evident.

Roger Thurman

In a message dated 1/27/00 3:17:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, Adam
writes:

<< Before we leave the thread of Mr. Thurman's sound ports (and
Mr. Ruck's holes), I have a question both for the inventor and anyone who
has played these guitars. What effect do these ports/holes have on the guitars
tonal palette and wolf tones? In other words do these things only affect
volume or do they impact the performance of the guitar as a
whole?>>

The diagonal orientation of the sound ports (relative to the axis of
instrument) helps produce not only more volume but also greater evenness,
clarity and immediacy to the guitar's response. By spanning the very strategic
internal corners of the upper bout, distorted and trapped sound waves, especially
the profound low body cavity resonance, are instantly liberated. This produces
a chain reaction throughout the entire instrument and a net improvement in
the mechanical efficiency. The attack is quicker and sustains longer. The
dynamic range expands which means that there not just more volume but the
instrument performs more efficiently at pianissimo levels. Volume is important
but this invention would be useless if that were the only result.

<< Of course I realize that they must have some effect on the
tone and overall characteristics of a guitar as guitars are organic and the
various tonal functions are interrelated in an indivisible manner. My question
is perhaps better phrased as asking what is the most noticeable impact of
this modification, everyone has been talking about volume, but what about
tonal variety and wolf tones, Does a guitar with these modification tend
to have fewer dead spots and a broader tonal palette than a guitar without
the ports, or assuming two relatively identical guitars will the ported guitar
simply be louder?>>

I believe that the wolf tones and uneven spots that have bedeviled luthiers
are largely caused by the inherent acoustical liabilities of the traditional
design. Some very talented guitar makers have tried their best, with valiant
but uneven results, to get around this problem but the efforts are undercut
by adhering dogmatically to the traditional design. You have asked some very
important questions especially when comparing two hypothetically equal guitars,
with and without ports. Yes, when side by side the improvements to tone and
function provided by the multi-dimensional sound ports are immediately evident.
To the player the guitar responds quicker, is easier to play and sounds richer
and deeper. For the listener, the bass is full, the mids stronger and the
higher frequencies leap out of the guitar as never before, especially those
notes over the body. The guitar is just easier to hear.

<< My second question is for Mr. Thurman, is this a potential
modification for existing guitars? Can we look forward to the development
of a porting system for existing guitars? Is this something I could consult
my luthier about? Well I am fascinated by new guitar developments and I could
go on and on with my questions, but I will stop here....>>

Of course it is a "potential" modification `([;}-) However, that would
be an infringement of the patent. I am not licensing or encouraging such
changes because to be fully realized the invention should built into the
guitar from the ground up. There need to be some structural reinforcement
and aesthetic refinements which are best accomplished to a new instrument.
The last thing I want to see happen is fine individual guitars abruptly and
poorly modified without the original maker's knowledge or approval. Older
guitars develop a wonderful sound which only comes with age and therefore
have a validity which shouldn't be modified since a point in time and history
is embodied and ennobled.

Ported designs do not replace all other guitars but represent another,
albeit new, type of guitar to fit alongside all the other instruments which
have been created. Despite all I've said about the improvements afforded
by my invention, it is entirely possible and rational for a player to prefer
the "character" of the traditional design over the "character" of the ported
design. There are many reasons for a given personality to like or dislike
the aesthetics of a given instrument and the presence of ports, in my opinion,
does not have to be the sole defining term. However, if you like what you
hear in a ported design then, by all means, go for it! (Kenny Hill and I
have.)

As to licensing, I will communicate with any qualified luthier sincerely
interested in using this invention. All I need is a signed letter expressing
such interest (not email) and I can refer the matter to my attorney for
consideration. The fee is strictly a private matter. It is structured to
encourage licensed makers to incorporate the invention into a regular model.
We are arriving at a point where we need more good guitar makers incorporating
this into their work. My intent has never been to selfishly keep this to
myself. The patent law is a means by which I receive credit and financial
benefits for developing and promoting the invention to ultimately share it
with others. BTW if you want to order one from another maker, Richard Brune
has acknowledged the effectiveness of this invention from the first time
he heard one. Richard has been behind me from day one on this and has told
others so. I thank him for such approval.

A word about "Ruck's" ports. These happened after I spoke with him a
couple of years ago about licensing this idea (my number was imminent on
his list). A prototype was sent for his inspection and he decided against
it, because of the difficulty and the patent fee. Previously, there was a
round of faxes and communications with Jerry Roberts who modified a ramped
guitar with drilled holes years ago. Mr. Roberts, who already has plenty
of intellectual property, was cattily objecting to anyone else patenting
an original idea. This didn't make too much sense to me so you can guess
where I told him to go. Roberts and Ruck have a long association so it's
easy to see why the drilled "Ruck" holes suddenly appeared: in reaction to
a patented invention, the Thurman multi-dimensional sound port. (Enter Kenny
Hill at this point.)

Do the Ruck holes work? They certainly do. I played one at the Charleston
SC GFA and approve of their efforts with the ported design. That type of
hole has been done many times by various guitar makers. The multi-dimensional
sound port goes much further in both tone production (especially frontal
projection) and ergonomics. I like and recommend the Roberts-Ruck-Hill ports
because they are not as radical as the multi-dimensional port and offer a
reasonable option to players who are put-off by the look of my invention.
However, if you really want to step up to the plate and hit a home run......need
I say more?

As we place more LoPrinzi Nova Futura users in the field I will gather
some of their comments for future publication on my web site. We're not
advertising and have received no press coverage, but the guitars are selling
thanks to the productivity and genius of Augustino LoPrinzi, one of the great
guitar makers, who has brought this invention to the guitar community at
an affordable price.  

On 1/28/00 Rick wrote:

<<I played the LoPrinzi Nova Futura at GFA and was quite impressed
with the sound feedback I received while playing. The LoPrinzi also projected
very well in the auditorium setting .... it was one of the loudest guitars
of the twenty or so that were demonstrated. As an aside, Augustino LoPrinzi
and Roger were both delightful to talk to about their guitars.>>
 

On 1/27/00 Clyde wrote:

<<...I would like to tell everybody that I tried out one of Roger's
instruments at the Charleston GFA vendor's fair and was delighted with the
instrument's sound. I dare say if I had the currency (or a way of procuring
it) I would have my order in with Roger for a new instrument right now. The
instruments are not only louder, but have great clarity in all registers
in the elevation of projection caused by the ports.

On a more controversial note, Roger had discussions with Ruck about
the use of his ports on Ruck instruments (see for yourself at Roger's website).
Ruck then sidestepped the licensing issues by coming out with an instrument
with small golf ball size sound ports on the side of the instrument (one
on either side of the neck/body juncture). The Ruck instrument does have
more projection than a standard instrument, but the increase in the mechanical
sound is not an increase in sound that would be desired. The treble was OK,
but the bass strings emitted almost wolf note characteristics.

Hope I didn't rub any nerves here, but I felt the truth should be
known.>>  

On 1/28/00 Larry wrote:

<<Hi Clyde & group,

Thank you for your information and opinion on these guitars. You seem
to be the only one other than the luthiers themselves who have tried both
types of guitars (or who have bothered to write in about it). So far, I have
only tried the Hill model, and that was only because one happened to turn
up in a store of a friend mine's here in Kansas City. I was favorably impressed,
but I am looking forward to trying one of Roger Thurman's guitars as soon
as possible.

As far as the bass strings, I didn't notice any "almost wolf note
characteristics" on the one I tried. In fact, I thought it was a very well
balanced instrument. The only problem for me was just getting used to the
monitoring effect. It is definitely louder for the player than a conventional
guitar, and was a shock to me at first, because it was so different from
what I was used to hearing from my own playing. But, I don't think this a
necessarily a bad thing, its just different. All in all, as far as my opinion
on either type of guitar, I very much like the potential of being more of
an equal in the ensemble playing I do.>>

Go
back to Page 1

Go to:
 Performers and Players Using
the LoPrinzi Nova Futura Classic
Guitar
 

Go to:  Augustino LoPrinzi
Guitars

© Roger G. Thurman 1998-2000

All material on this this website is protected under
international copyright law and as such is prevented from being used for
any other purpose without express written approval

Thurman Guitar & Violin Repair

900 Franklin Av.

Kent, OH 44240

330-673-4054

(888) 803-8693