| Official Luthiers Forum! http://luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Bracing critique http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=22647 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JSDenvir [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Bracing critique |
Hi everyone, I'm enclosing some pictures of the bracing on my parlor-in-progress. It's my first, so any thoughts, critiques, or insights would be much appreciated. X= 1/2" with another 1/16" for the cap. Thanks in advance Steve |
|
| Author: | JRessler [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
First off - very nice clean work - I like to see that Upper transverse brace (the one above the soundhole) looks too thin. I use a 1/2" thick brace here - even on a parlor guitar I would scallop the lower part of the X brace more (almost to 1/4" high at the lowest point) Is that narrow thin strip below the x supposed to be the bridge plate? If so, it seems way too narrow. Mine is about 1 3/4" wide The back braces look fine to me. I don't use the wide braces in the lower bout - I use 1/4" wide bracing there as well. If this is your first - great start! |
|
| Author: | Andy Zimmerman [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Bracing is so subjective. So many variables such as the stiffness of the top etc etc etc. Looking at your top, I would taper the height of the X braces more as it progresses towards the outside of the body. Again that is what I would do. You may be just fine. The thing about parlors is that they tend to be WAY over built. It goes back to the drum head principle. The smaller drum head makes the same top relatively stiffer. So I build my parlors very light. Also, for me your bridge plate appears a bit small. Again. only my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. |
|
| Author: | Terence Kennedy [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Always hard to know from a picture but assuming an average sitka top at around .095 it appears over braced. Looks like the lower face brace is off the wrong side of the X too. That's easy to do if you are using the Antes plans as unlike other plans the projection is looking down from the top. I made that mistake on my first and they do sound better with it coming off the treble side. Here's what my size 2 bracing looks like. I've built several and really like them. Terry 
|
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Great looking work... I'll go with the others. You may want to scallop the braces along the lines of Terrances. And yes. It appears it is a left handed top. Was that the plan? |
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
The 1st thing I notice is that your UTB looks quite small -- the same size as your X brace stock.... Usually the UTB ends up being quite large -- as it is one of the major key structural braces in your guitar.... Especially if you drill a hole in it for internal trussrod adjustment. That being said, many old Gibsons and Martins had small UTB's and lived long, full lives. 2nd... Where are your soundhole braces? Guitars want to cave in across the soundhole... so some bracing here is a good idea. 3rd, I noticed that all of your bracing looks like it will inlet into the linings and into other nearby braces. It is critical that your UTB and upper X legs do inlet into the linings. The rest are not so critical (Some folks do inlet them, others don't).... Now, you can choose to inlet all of your bracing into your linings and eachother if you want.... just be aware that it will add quite a bit more stiffness.... The more the braces are jointed and lapped together, the more they act like a lattice -- and that adds far more strength than you would think it will. It will work fine... just understand that it is significantly stiffer than you think it is... Your braces can be significantly smaller than non-jointed/inletted units... Now... on a Parlor guitar... the small size ends up sounding like a Ukelele unless you do work to loosen it up. The small body and stiff sides end up making it much stiffer than a similarly braced Dread or OOO. On bridge plates... I think the Cumpiano book gave bridge plate instructions that it should overlap past the bridge ~1/8" in front and ~ 1/4" behind... so for a 1" wide pyramid bridge, your bridge plate ends up being almost 1 1/2" wide.... This narrow plate does depend on accurate design, layout, and accurate gluing.... you really want your bridge to be inside your bridge plate. Good luck John |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Steve, One other point. Your x braces are set quite far back (away from soundhole) That may have been on the plan. It will make your top stiffer and quieter. Try the tap tone. It should have a bell like sound when held between a thumb and finger high near the top. If it is dull sounding it may be time to remove some weight. |
|
| Author: | JSDenvir [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Thanks everyone. The bracing is pretty much per the plans(LMI/Antes). The X braces are shifted(closed up) a bit to provide more support to the bridge. All bracing is appreciably lighter than the plans, I think. 5/16" has become 1/4". I'm curious though, about the response to the bridge plate. It's as described in the plan, which is consistently described as over-braced. Is a larger bridge plate a good thing? Does it prevent bellying? Is it largely reinforcement to keep the ball ends of the strings from pulling through? Is lighter better? Again, thanks in advance for all the help. Steve |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Nothing wrong with your back braces. Nothing wrong with the UTB. As long as the bridge plate is as wide as your bridge or a little bit wider, it's good for size, but don't use curly wood for a bridge plate. I think you can scallop the X a little more, but it's tricky on this design, because the bridge sits so far below it. I'd take a little more off the fingers, too. I think the lower face diagonal is too low down, but that's probably also in the plan. And you do need soundhole braces. Aren't those in the plan? All in all very clean work for a newbie. Congratulations! I'm still waiting to hear that anyone has ever seen or heard a guitar built by Scott Antes. |
|
| Author: | Ken Franklin [ Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
The UTB is fine. I'd lower and minimize the finger braces. I wouldn't let in the tone bar and I'd scallop it some. The lower legs of the x-brace look good. I'd scallop them a little. I agree with Howard that the tone bar looks a little low. Are you left handed? It doesn't really matter that the tone bar is going the other way since a lot of guitars are switched around for lefties and they sound just fine. But I would probably take it off , turn it around and move it close to the bridge. |
|
| Author: | Darryl Young [ Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
I don't have the experience to give advise......but would like to ask a question and maybe both of us will learn. The pics are small but it appears the bridge plate grain is running parallel to the grain of the soundboard. Most bridge plates I've seen have the grain running perpendicular to the grain orientation of the top (grain running sideways from one leg of the X-brace to the other). If true, will this hold up ok or cause a problem? |
|
| Author: | Mike_P [ Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Darryl...what you are seeing is the flame pattern in that piece of maple...I for one have never seen a piece of flamed wood where the flames weren't perpendicular to the grain...i.e. in the picture above the grain of the bridge plate is @ 90° to the top... as Howard noted its probably not best to use curly wood for a bridge plate as it will tend to be unstable as compared to an unfigured piece... |
|
| Author: | JSDenvir [ Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Yes, you're right, it was an offcut of quilted maple that I had hanging around-I didn't have any straight maple or rosewood and didn't think it would make a difference. But to everyone else, thanks again for the feedback. I lightly scalloped the lower X-braces, and it made a huge difference to both the depth of the tap tone and the sustain. I only did about 1/8", but it sounds great and I'm very hesitant to mess with it any further. FYI, I'm using John Mayes' dvd as a reference, and if anything, the tap tone on this sounds better than what he had on his voicing dvd. Who knows, maybe I've gone too far, but isn't that kinda the point of a first guitar? If you're not making interesting mistakes, you're not trying hard enough  Thanks again for all the help. Steve |
|
| Author: | John Shannon [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
I'm getting ready to brace a parlor using the Antes plans. I realize that there is clearly a consensus that the top is overbraced, and this has been addressed in this and other threads. What about the back braces? Are they overdone as well? If so, what dimensions might be more suitable? Any advice is appreciated. John |
|
| Author: | Bill Hodge [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Howard Klepper wrote: I'm still waiting to hear that anyone has ever seen or heard a guitar built by Scott Antes. Howard, He sure has gained a lot of fame from drawings to build instruments. Like you however, I've been unable to find any evidence at all of his ever having built any instrument. Go figure, the wonders of marketing! |
|
| Author: | Jimmy Caldwell [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Steve, Your workmanship is very clean and your bracing layout looks fine. It's probably a little on the heavy side, but most early instruments are. It may just be the photos, but your back braces (particularly the back two) appear to be flatsawn. It's really important to use quartersawn stock for all your braces. Overall, a very nice job. |
|
| Author: | Jimmy Caldwell [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bracing critique |
Steve, Your workmanship is very clean and your bracing layout looks fine. It's probably a little on the heavy side, but most early instruments are. It may just be the photos, but your back braces (particularly the back two) appear to be flatsawn. It's really important to use quartersawn stock for all your braces. Overall, a very nice job. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|