Official Luthiers Forum!

I currently tuck the x-brace in both the upper and lower bouts. But....

I have been reading where some notable builders don't tuck any braces on the top. They say it gives them a top that is more responsive. I know some (including Taylor, so I hear) put a little channel around the top edge for the same reason.

If you do something like the above to 'loosen' the top what approach would you take to couple it with the back?

Thoughts?

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

I've tucked the lower x. Once. I was not happy with the results. I do some perimeter thinning of the top from the waist stopping a couple inches short of the heel block. I just push with my thumb and look for a little more flex. Not overly scientific but that's the way I roll.

I could be mistaken but I think not tucking the upper braces would be asking for trouble. Never tried it though.

At Trevor Gore's suggestion, I did not tuck the lower bout ends of the X braces on my last two builds. I liked the results. I do graduate the rim of the lower bout, in about 2", setting the final thickness by feel and tap sound. The upper braces should be tucked.

_________________
It will probably be alright.

Danny & Greg
Good information. When I think about it there is really no reason to leave the upper bout x-brace untucked.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

I tuck the upper legs, and don't tuck the lower legs. I think that the debate is normally about whether to tuck the lower legs. Everybody tucks the upper legs.

I think tucking the lower legs is overbuilding the thing, and it has a tendency to inhibit the top from moving the way it should. But I'm a hack, so . . .

I used to not tuck the lower legs, but lately I've taken them down very thin and tucked them. I like that the top registers nicely when I'm gluing it up. I have my doubts whether a tiny tuck makes a difference either way...

_________________
Steve Sollod (pronounced sorta like "Solid")
www.swiftcreekguitars.com

I do the same thing, figuring that it may help prevent a future crack in the top at the rim...? I do tuck my upper bout X leaving the braces 1/8" tall at the lining. I've built several guitars where the lower X stops 1-1/2" or so short of the linings. I run into some of these folks now and then with nothing bad to report.

It depends. The one I am building now will have tucked braces because a tighter top is what I am going for. If I don't tuck them in then what I do is feather them down to zero and then the linings go over the feathered ends so in essence they are still tucked in but it's paper thin.

Uppers never lowers.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I assume most of you don't tuck the lower face braces. So, if I have this right, when you don't tuck the lower x-braces or the face braces then the soundboard has a bit more freedom to give voice to the lower (longer sin wave) frequencies? All things being equal I should see a little more bass response and maybe slightly less treble and volume? Has that been your experience? And I suppose the rims are slightly less ridged. Not sure what effect that will have on the sound or volume, although probably slight.

Apparently no structural issues?

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

We do not tuck the lower X braces (or fingers or tone bars) - the load on that portion of the top is directed outward/toward the center of the body, so the extra weight and stiffness at the rim would seem to be both unnecessary for structural integrity and possibly detrimental to acoustic performance.

_________________
For the times they are a changin'

- Bob Dylan

Same as Woodie and crew, didn't tuck lower bout braces and instead feathered them to nothing.

I did tuck the UTB and upper X legs.

The whole idea of any of these implementations of not tucking, feathering to nothing, rabbiting around the lower bout top or, what I did, additionally thinning the top but from the outside to to free up the top. Not recommending this but less bracing, less tall bracing both strategically located and even wimpy top wood could..... when properly deployed.... possibly.... achieve the same end.

I watched a master who does commissions for the stars use his fingers to feel and watch top deflection and back deflection while holding a guitar in front of him and sideways. When I asked him what's up he said he was trying to determine how easily the top would......"pump....."

And there you have it or at least I did, that "pump" word was significant to me in my understanding of how we may want to top to function. Then one day I read Mario P. describe a guitar with it's top as not unlike a fireplace bellows and the dots were connected for me.

Now actually putting all of this to work in a meaningful manner and achieving our tonal goals is the real work.

BTW these discussions always remind me of this, can't help it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3HcIXvIo0

How does one embed youtube? The embed button seems to not work...


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3HcIXvIo0[/youtube]

Funny - That's one tuck and one no tuck...

_________________
Steve Sollod (pronounced sorta like "Solid")
www.swiftcreekguitars.com

But a few very solid reasons to tuck them.

All this post Christmas tuck talk has got me thinking!

After reading this thread and several past threads on the topic of tucking the ends of the lower x-brace arms, it's going to be one no tuck for me on the guitar I'm building now.

I'm also going to try a tip from Tom West in one of those previous threads:

"I allow all 4 ends of the X brace to go through the linings. On the lower ends I then cut of the ends where they emerge from the lining. This allows one to have the advantage of the indexing by the little stubs and still taper the ends of the lower X to nothing. Two birds one stone.
Tom"

"The impression I get from reading Tom's post is that he first fits the back ,notching the linings and allowing the braces to fit into them. He then cuts through the lower X braces at the point they meet the linings. He then tapers the lower legs to nothing, but leaves the little "stubs" that fit into the linings intact. When the back is glued on the little stubs take the place of the removed section of lining. Atleast that is how I am reading it."

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

I tuck the ends of the transverse brace and the upper legs of the X brace to try and get as much strength as possible in the upper bout.
I leave all brace ends untucked and feathered to the top in the lower bout to make that area as responsive as possible.
I have made a couple with the X tucked in the lower bout and felt it made the soundboard a little stiffer than what I was looking for.

My view is that anything that's taking enough load to be left thick at the ends needs to be tucked. If you don't want to tuck it, shave it away to nothing at the end, and do it far enough back so that the brace end is not so stiff that it will tend to peel loose from the top if it gets knocked. That's why they're tucked in; to keep them from peeling up.

Put me down for a "no tuck"!

_________________
Pat

So.... if you were to make a large body guitar, say 16+", how would you handle the lower bout bracing? I know that you consider several factors like top and back stiffness, body volume, back bracing, how the top and back are to couple, etc. before deciding. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

Also, if you (Alan) have another minute for answering questions, do you take the same approach for archtops? I've seen and heard your L5 archtop and I still dream about the sound of that guitar. It's a great one.

i do not tuck anything. and i do not couple the top to the back either. after assembly, binding finishing etc.. i want the back at least a whole note lower then the top. i will support the utb though, but not necessarily by tucking. i use tentallones and will stick one under each end of the utb on the rim. spanish style.

Are you bulding SS or classicals? And if your back is <4/5 semitones from the top frequency, less or more doesn't matter, I believe it's coupled acoustically as well as mechanically (- hopefully)

_________________
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.

Upper X and UTB, not lowers, ('cepting the latest 12 string)

_________________
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.

I generally don't tuck in the lower bout, except for my new jumbo model I decided to tuck all 4 corners of the x, but not the lower face braces. I still get a nice bass and what sounds to me like a balanced sound. It is unclear to me how much affect the tuck/nontuck thing had on sound or volumn.

I know some such as Alan, Trevor, you and others have done extensive testing and/or experience and have insight into what the expected effects would be.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust