Official Luthiers Forum!

Taylor has adopted a new bracing pattern for a few of their models as in the photo below. Is this something new under the sun? It reminds me a little of tonebars, with the addition of some secondary braces.

Some interesting details:
- Big bridge plate
- Slot in the bridge plate. What for?
- The relief rout around the edge is now asymmetrical. It's further from the edge on the bass side than on the treble side.
- I wonder what goes on in the way of bracing between the sound hole and the neck.

I wonder what the repair folks think of the bridge plate extending under the v-braces.

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

One of the first 12 string patterns I tried was the reverse of that A bracing. As the two main braces are close to parallel to the grain of the top, they telegraphed right through the top and it was ugly.
But, they're a corporation and they can do anything they like. Lots of dumb Marvins and Gilsons out there too...

I don’t understand how this would work.
The bridge... ok fine.. but the A seems upside down.
Now, it does support the sound hole , do there’s less brace mass in there, but what about that big unsupported gap where the neck block corners will be pinching down on the top??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

My first question is how thick is the top prior to the thinning of the edges before they are hogged out and attached to the top? Just looking at it I'm thinking the top has to be super stiff and > 1.25" as a starting point for that to work. The relief on the cutout seems to end around the sound hole heading toward the upper bout, that kind of supports my thinking.

I highly doubt that more mass & less bracing = more responsive.

Not that I really care- looks more like a poor attempt at a gimmick than a good idea.

patented though so it must be good! https://patents.google.com/patent/US9520108B1/en I read the claims for the bracing; the routed edge is a seperate patent. Basically an upside down A with fan braces coming out of it on both sides. My favorite line Each of the longitudinal braces is positioned on an opposing side of the sound hole such that a distance between the longitudinal braces exceeds the diameter of the sound hole. Gee I am sure no one schooled in the state of the art would have ever though to place the braces on the sides of the sound hole rather than behind the sound hole.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com

There is something that picture isn’t telling us. I’m not going to read the patent, so maybe it’s there.

First, those braces seem to go to the very edge. Where is the tail block supposed to go? Second, I don’t believe there is no UTB above the sound hole. There must be something added later. Perhaps as part of their neck joint.

Of course, it is all to do with the sound. I’ve never been partial to Taylors. They are unbelievably consistent, especially compared to Martins. But consistently thin and sterile. Maybe this will change their sound for the better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of the verbiage about this bracing on their web site is pretty remarkable. Among other things, they claim it gives "better intonation".

This is where the new-agey marketingspeak comes in.

"V-Class bracing makes the top more in tune with the vibrating strings. This eliminates much of the interference that causes some notes to waver and sound slightly out of tune. As a result, notes and chords played anywhere on the neck are more consistent and in tune with each other."

and,

"(the bracing) also creates a more orderly response from the soundboard, improving the intonation by putting all the notes more in-tune with each other. Up and down the fretboard, the notes are full, true and consistent, with more harmonic agreement."



Maybe the guitars with this bracing sound good, but sheesh. What does any of that actually mean?

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

I see nothing in the pattern nor the patent that would give them any more control the boxes resonances to allow them to eliminating wolf notes and tuning issues that can occur from poorly placed resonances. Sounds mostly like marketing mumbo jumbo.

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com

Speaking only for this repair folk who knows that bridge plates, especially in the age of cheap, pl*stic slotted bridge pins... need to be serviceable which may include removable. Granted bridge plate "caps" may be piled on instead this design clearly does not have the serviceability of say the traditional X brace design without a captive plate.

As to what it sounds like: My prediction is that everyone will think that is sounds exactly like what they want it to sound like just like all other bracing schemes.....

_________________
Ann Arbor Guitars

Thanks for reading that for us and sharing! I would have been more satisfied if they would have proclaimed that a purple monkey and a friend of the late Michael Hedges from heaven came through a portal, did some kind of dance, made some crazy whooping noises and then sprinkled magic purple monkey dust from heaven on this particular design and that is why it sounds so amazing.

Nice bunch of unquanitifiable jibberish though on their part. More creative than what I detailed above anyway!

after looking a bit closer the slot doesn't extent into the top, but very nearly does. I enhanced and enlarged the picture out of curiosity. if i was to guess I'd bet there is another insert that goes into that slot and the strings probably come through at that point too. i could see how that might dissipate string pressure enough to make it work, but I don't see the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Early in my building I did something very similar and got your same results, Haans. I also didn't care as much for the tone though it sounded like a guitar. My thinking was that it would work more like piano bracing...not so much.

_________________
Ken Franklin
clumsy yet persistent
https://www.kenfranklinukulele.com

I don't think it's a slot. It looks like an additional layer of not captured bridge plate. You can see a step at the top right corner.

I'll be curious to try one so I can enjoy the more tuneful intunefullness that this will clearly provide.

The language used in the patent might even convince the reader that Taylor Guitar Co. knows all there is to know about a guitar’s acoustical property’s and therefore is well equipped to arrange the soundboard bracing to produce the best sounding guitars. Ever. And this also keeps the CNC machines and programmers busy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"It is easier to fool a man, than it is to convince him that he has been fooled"
Mark Twain

I see it too. its an extra plate. That design reminds me of the Tacoma Thunderchief. Very light. Guessing the captured plate is there to prevent belly bulge. The extra plate is serviceable.

What I see there is a soundboard that is divided into two halves. The center is strong to withstand the string tension and those tall long bars are going to act as nodes that separate the soundboard into what is effectively two ladder braced sections. That's what I 'see' but not necessarily what Taylor intended, especially given their description. My guess is that it will be a punchy guitar.

There is more than one reason that some hige corporation makes a big to-do about rolling out some huge (and unproven) change... More than one reason that somebody runs a patent up... Right Hesh... I mean GE never did that during your tenure....

Remember... They are in a very different market than hand builders... And there is a giant amount of patent theft and copyright violation going on overseas..... Say thesr guys all rush to copy the design.. And lets say it goes the way of Kascha bracing... These copycats will have to spend a ton of resources and time thrashing about trying to make it work (because Taylor says it's awesome!) before jettisoning it...

And I am not saying this is the only reason.... But it wouldn't surprise me that Taylor might make a big thing to send these patent theiving copycat companies off wild goose chasing.....

So what's the real reason for the bracing? Maybe cheaper/quicker/??? than using an X brace? My bet is they are not doing this to improve sound but maybe to increase production or ?? Guess I can be a bit pessimistic at times when I see BS heaped on top of hype. Maybe cause I work in a manufacturing plant?

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

I wonder how these guitars will fair in the long run. The rout around the edge looks like a weak point and kind of like what they do to concrete slabs to provide a place for it to "crack" in an orderly fashion.
The short comings of the old parlor guitars was that they would "fold up" below the sound hole from the tension of misguided steel stringing. The X bracing pattern put the greatest strength in the center just below the soundhole and solved this problem without adding a lot of extra weight. From what I'm seeing in the Taylor bracing they are doing the opposite - reducing the thickness of the braces down to practically nothing in this critical area. Even the cross brace in this area is not fully supporting the top, but tapers at the edges.
Is it too early for an April fools joke?
It seems like someone has used the "reverse A" brace pattern in the past - early Gibson perhaps?

Just looks more or less like a return to ladder bracing.
Be interesting to hear one.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

This is awesome! With any luck they will start to sound less Taylor like!

I’ll second that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"It is easier to fool a man, than it is to convince him that he has been fooled"
Mark Twain

To my ear, Taylors have always been a bright sounding guitar, just a little to bright for me. When I listen to the guitar playing behind the V-Brace intro video it does sound somewhat different than a typical Taylor and it seems they have moved even farther away from the typical Martin sound. Bob Taylor is right, it is truly a Taylor sound. The true test will be what the guitar buying public thinks. My bet is they will like it.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

I wonder ... maybe the design was inspired by archtop design? The parallel braces and large bridge pad stiffen the center section similarly to the way the arch in a carved top does. The groove plays the part of the recurve. The tone bars in the lower bout may, at least in part, exist just to preserve the shape of the top. If they take advantage of those archtop design features with lower manufacturing cost due to a flat top and simple bracing they may make more $$.

??

Taylor has been doing the soundboard groove for well over 10 years now. It's not a problem.