| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Another top bracing pattern http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=4339 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | paul harrell [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is my first attempt to post pictures with my very limited computer skills-hope it works. It seems there have been a lot posts recently about bracing patterns, so I thought I would add the two I am working on now. The one on the left is a Carpathisn spruce top for a 14 fret OOO/GC, the one on the right is a Port Orford cedar top for a 13 fretter. I've only built one other guitar with double X bracing, but it turned out well so I think I'll stick with it for a while. Paul Harrell 
|
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very nice paul - can you tell us how do did the brace behind the bridge plate? |
|
| Author: | paul harrell [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lance - The brace behind the bridge plate is a bent lamination, three pieces of sixteenth inch spruce glued up on a form. I make the brace first and then fit the bottom edge of the bridge plate to it. This brace and the lower X are let into the main X brace. I did this the first time on a guitar with a western red cedar top, thinking the curved lamination and the lower X brace would help protect the cedar top from bellying too much behind the bridge. And because I started life as a furniture maker I did it because I thought it looked good - I know, no one else will ever see it, but old habits die hard. Paul Harrell |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very innovative Paul, Serge |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks good. Very similar to the pattern I use with the exception of that bridge plate brace. I have heard repairmen comment that braces like that make it really hard to work on the bridge plate should it need to be removed in the future. The idea is good but I don't know if it is necessary. Very clean Paul! 
Josh |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
really Josh - repairmen huh, I wonder who that might be  ?!?!?!?!?!
|
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony Yea I heard that from a fairly reliable source. 
Personally I don't think it (the brace that is) will cause a problem anytime soon. And besides its would not be impossible to fix - it just might cost more. (great quote Tony) Josh |
|
| Author: | j.Brown [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Will the lower X brace cause a little too much stiffness and not allow enough billowing? |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
J. Like I said my bracing is very similar to Paul's. I don't believe the lower X brace will cause to much stiffness unless your braces are to big. Paul's bracing pattern looks nice and light (I really like lighter bracing, good job Paul). That brace behind the bridge may have some effect on the tone and Paul can hopefully chime in here. I am very pleased with the tone I get out of this pattern. So what do your guitar sound like Paul? Josh |
|
| Author: | Jim Watts [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
here's another deviation of a curved brace behind the bridge plate on one of my double tops.  |
|
| Author: | John Kinnaird [ Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That is an interesting variation Jim. What is the central wood you use in that curved lamination? What do you think about the tonal properties of this bracing pattern compared to more traditional patterns? |
|
| Author: | paul harrell [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Josh - I have only built one guitar with double X bracing (a cedar and jatoba SJ fingerstyle) and I think it turned out very well - it has good balance and great sustain even high up the neck. But whether this is due to the bracing pattern or the phase of the moon when I strung it up, I don't have the experience to say. I have used the curved brace behing the bridge plate on a number of guitars, but with traditional tone bars. I have seen on Mario's site that he uses a straight brace behind the bridge plate and swears by it, and I'm sure he would have a more informed opinion on what effect it has on tone. But so far, I'm a happy camper. Paul Harrrell |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Josh - RIGHT ON brother !!! I use a variant of the Laskin pattern in the old FWW, and I swear by it - I love the tone that it gives - it works well on any body size as well - when creating a new pattern, all I do to start is set the X wherever it needs to be so that the bridge just touches, the X crosses thru the bridge end. All other braces then fall into place. On the smaller bodies I do make the X thinner and not as tall, and make the two ladder bars no wider than 1/4. |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul I have built a number of guitars with different variations of the double X design. All the guitars have had great sustain and balance across the strings. Good volume as well. See how these next 2 turn out for you. Josh |
|
| Author: | Shane Neifer [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Tony..... I just had a look at your web-site and I don't see any pictures of your modified Laskin brace pattern. I have the very same FWW edition, along with some Manzer and Larrivee stuff, on my bench right now. Just glued the last of the top braces on last night. Still, I would be glad to see another version of this bracing pattern, I really like the sound of those guitars! Thanks Shane |
|
| Author: | LarryH [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just wanted to say how cool the bracing patterns look. Can't add much technical info as I am very new to the forum and the guitar building world but it seems that so many patterns work very well. I know it is an endless debate and part of the mystery but seeing all the options is very inspirational. Larry |
|
| Author: | Jim Watts [ Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
John, The curved brace is a laminate of spruce .020 Carbon fiber and spruce. It's hard to indentify tonal properties due just to the bracing as it's also a double top, but the guitar has loud well balanced tone. It's definately different and I like it a lot. I'm doing another one like it currently. |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Shane - the modded part comes from the X angle - I have been using 98 degrees for the past 3 years - used to be 90 like the other Canadians , up to 104 for a couple as well !!! |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was using 100 degrees becuase I read that is what Laskin uses. I am now trying some with 100 and am interested to see how that goes. Josh |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Josh - where did you read this - In the article I have its 90 - just like a Larrivee. |
|
| Author: | Skip Beach [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi guys, Not that it would matter much, but I measured a Larrivee guitar from the early 1990's & the x-brace angle was 93 degrees. How's that for splittin' hairs !
Skip |
|
| Author: | Shane Neifer [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony, When you change the angle do you still orient the upper face brace so that intersects with the top legs of the cross? this would seem to compress the inverted triangle tighter around the sound hole and raise the lower legs of the cross so that they contact the guitar sides higher up on the lower bout. Does this open up the sound a bit more? Shane |
|
| Author: | Josh H [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony My mistake I meant 90 is what Laskin does.  I have now started experimenting with 100. I read that in Grit's inlay book. He has an article at the start of the book where he tells a bit about his building.
Josh |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shane, No, the upper face doesnt touch the x like it does at 90 degrees - it cant really, the X would almost be in the soundhole !!! You get a look like most Martins have there, where they are about 3/4 inch or so apart at the linings. I place the first ladder right behind the bridge plate, about 1/4 space, then the rear ladder meets the X at the body templates edge, just like yours. Opening the X a bit loosens the top compared to 90 degrees, as the top area inbetween the X behind the bridge is greater. |
|
| Author: | Shane Neifer [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Tony, this is interesting! Shane |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|