Official Luthiers Forum!

I am about to brace my 3rd guitar, and was wanting to hear opinions from fellow builders. I am debating on whether using the regular bracing i used on my 1st two guitars, or use a modified X brace with a lattice brace or X brace below the main x-brace. Im sure many of you have tried different bracing styles, What are your opinions and conclusions based on your bracing?!

Its my 3rd guitar and i want to take it up a notch, I want to strive for a more responsive guitar, I'm sure i can tweak my current bracing but also want to see what others have found in relation to bracing pattern along with top stiffness and thickness!?

Jonathan

Baby steps.
In other words,
make gradual changes to what you started with.
Not that I necessarily do that!
I don't really know what a responsive guitar is.
They all respond to when the string is plucked.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I d love to help, but - Presuming you have chosen the model you want for the style of playing, so....
Perhaps start by asking yourself what's wrong with the ones I have already built?
Poor balance? Not enough sustain? No punch? Just dull?
Then ask what could be causing that? e.g. my build quality, the wood properties, over/under bracing, etc. then ask what can I try to improve the sound of the next one.
How much do you know about what things influence the sound a guitar produces?
Many suberb guitars are built with "standard" bracing patterns, there are no "magic" bracing patterns.
I've only built 4 OMs to 2 almost identical plans, but (hopefully) have learnt something from each of them.
Probably I have learnt as much about myself in the process.

_________________
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.

Sounds like good advise to me.

_________________
Say what you do, Do what you say.

I agree with all the above comments, while admitting that I've violated most of them....
I personally find it really hard to stick with incremental changes - I tend to be more inspired by trying more radical shifts; laminated braces, bracing pattern changes, etc. At the same time, I acknowledge that it's not possible to isolate the effect of design changes when you make big shifts or multiple changes in the same guitar.
If you're trying to make a more responsive guitar, truly, then the best advice is what's been given before. Take very precise notes on your process and measure everything; top thickness and deflection, brace dimensions (and density/deflection of the bracewood) your observations while building it. Read a lot - archives in this forum contain everything you need to make those tweaks that will allow you to attempt to affect the volume, balance, projection of the guitar. One sweeping generalization that I've found to be more or less true is that by building lighter (scalloping braces, a thinner top), you'll produce a louder "more responsive" guitar. But of course, like everything with luthiery, there are tradeoffs and it's a very complex combination of factors. Too light and the guitar will collapse, or have a "flabby" or "tubby" sound. Too light in some areas and the guitar won't have balance.

Finally, (and I'm only a couple of years ahead of you in the process - I've just finished #9), by concentrating on fit and finish - really good joints, working clean, glue joints that are almost perfect before adding the glue, working clean, measuring three times, cutting once, working clean (have I mentioned working clean) you'll find that your guitars end up sounding much better than you'd expect. I'm still dialing in my process in terms of joinery, and frankly think that has as much to do with the sound of the guitar as anything - as long as the design isn't off the charts.

thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions!

colin- thats some good advice, when looking at my first 2 builds, i have yet to string my 2nd, but my 1st is actually a great sounding guitar (to me and my taste). so for the second i worked a little off that and tried to tweak it a bit. I really would have liked to wait and hear how my 2nd came out, but its still curing the finish. But based on your suggestion i might just wait to see how #2 sounds and go from there.

corky- i am actually just like you, i am open to radical changes, and maybe thats why i posted this thread, just wanted to see if there was builders that had better success with different bracing systems.

Jonathan

I've heard great sounding guitars with all kinds of bracing schemes. Lattice, two X-braces, Double tops, Scalloped, parabolic, etc. I think it boils down to your personal preference and being familiar enough with the changes you make to your own style of building. Learning from previous builds, and seeing what little things you can change to make the next one better (like has been said already in this thread). If you make drastic changes, you don't have much to compare it to and it is mostly an experiment at that point (which isn't a bad thing either). Find what you like (or don't like) and then, work on perfecting what seems to work the best for you. Good luck

I am currently working on my 3rd, and I'm in your same situation. One thing I noticed between my first and second is an infinite difference in fit and finish. My second is much better than the first and I think it's important for me to have a consistency with fit and finish before I start really messing with things like bracing. Like the others mentioned, understanding the variables are key to understanding why a guitar comes out the way it does. I don't want my workmanship to be an unknown variable.

That being said, on my second, I added a soundport and did much better documentation of the build. On my third, I'm planning to do a cutaway, wood purfling, and arm bevel... all fit and finish things. Bracing and shape is staying generally the same at the moment but the big change is I'm doing a double top. I'm trying to decide if I should try an idea I have for a new neck joint but that might be too much for a 3rd... Perhaps all the other facters are already too much.

Nothing magic is going to happen if you move some braces around. If you get really radical, without understanding what the "radical stuff" is causing you have the more potential for disaster, instead of magic. Since you're wanting to experiment, for your #3 I'd recommend making a "test mule". Build it string it up, play it some and record it, then replace the top with something different, and do the same thing. I put 7 different tops on my #4. Not because the first top was "bad", but it was my plan to figure out some stuff. I've also done similar experiments with necks, bridges, back bracing ect.

_________________
I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said.
http://www.brackettinstruments.com/

Take my thoughts with a grain of salt as I also have very little experience. I think it's very easy to leave the lower bout too stiff using the double X. Not that it can't work very well.......but it's easy to create a lot of stiffness on the perimeter if you aren't careful.

Personally, getting the lower bout perimeter loose and moving where I have a nice monopole response has been my focus on early builds. I can't say it's the best thing, but it's certainly a good thing.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

This radical?

http://luthiersforum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=30211&mode=view

Whilst not the only way of getting to a truly responsive guitar, this method works really well. Usually, I'm not using such strange wood combinations, though. The rest of the story (if you have plenty of time!) is here:

http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10132&t=35192&start=0

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au