I have found that "Klingon" bracing gives me the sound that I am looking for in my guitars. I prefer my scallops pan-fried
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Parabolic or Scalloped - What Do You Use http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=6149 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | GregG [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
With so many experienced builders here I was very curious what bracing style you have found best for you. Is it some form of parabolic or is it scalloped, and what do some of the other well-known, very successful builders do/use? Thanks, Greg |
|
| Author: | MSpencer [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
scalloped for me, but I am not well known or successful Mike |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have found that "Klingon" bracing gives me the sound that I am looking for in my guitars. I prefer my scallops pan-fried
|
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What is the Klingon brace? Sounds interesting. |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Joe Beaver] What is the Klingon brace? Sounds interesting.[/QUOTE] Joe, Just my pet name for p*******c bracing, which as some people are quick to point out is not exactly p*******c in shape 
|
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use hyperbolic. It's way more impressive. |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Iused scalloped on my first and will do both types on #2 and #3 (twins but different) and will compare the 2 types!
|
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Hesh, Those shadows look pretty parabolic to me 
So it's Moonburst on the inside and Sunburst on the outside - way cool!! (Mind you, like Don I still think an "Hour Before Dawn Sunburst" would be better when the Adi shines out in the moonlight) |
|
| Author: | GregG [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
All prejudices aside, I'm really curious which style has won over the ears of the buying public and why. I used a form of parabolic on my first guitar and it sounded great, but wonder sometimes what a scalloped version would do. Greg |
|
| Author: | Rod True [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As Mario MAY say: It's not necessarily the shape that matters, but how light/stiff you make it. Mass is what dampens sound, shape may have something to do with it, but you glue a big piece of wood in the box that shouldn't normally be there and it doesn't matter what shape it is, it's still going to dampen the vibration of the top. So Try both, like Hesh there has done and listen to the difference, now of course you will have used two different tops, b&s and braces, but you should be able to hear some sort of difference. Of course for acurate testing, the braces should all be the same weight and stiffness for a good parabolic versus scalloped brace challenge. Having said all this, I've done scalloped for my first 4 and I have a friend who is making his with parabolic. I'm sure both designs make great sounding guitars, as we have seen with some of the high end builders. |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Howard, hyperbolic is great, especially given the discussions around the issue! [QUOTE=Dave White] which as some people are quick to point out is not exactly p*******c in shape [/QUOTE]
How about cyberbolic? parabolish? |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I shouldn't be revealing this, but the secret of some of the pros is using anabolic. Makes the guitars so powerful it's almost like cheating. |
|
| Author: | Cocephus [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Scalloped for me. That`s just how I chose to do it, though. |
|
| Author: | Alain Desforges [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tried scalloped on my first. I think I will try parabolic on the second, or maybe not. |
|
| Author: | Andy Zimmerman [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess I use both. All my braces are arched ???parabolic???? And then I scallop the X braces |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] Well, I shouldn't be revealing this, but the secret of some of the pros is using anabolic. Makes the guitars so powerful it's almost like cheating.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but after a while their bridges shrivel and they get just plain mean. |
|
| Author: | paul harrell [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, but you should never have any problem with the bridge lifting because you would have such a good Bond. Paul Harrell |
|
| Author: | Michael McBroom [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Rod True] As Mario MAY say: It's not necessarily the shape that matters, but how light/stiff you make it. Mass is what dampens sound, shape may have something to do with it, but you glue a big piece of wood in the box that shouldn't normally be there and it doesn't matter what shape it is, it's still going to dampen the vibration of the top.[/QUOTE] I agree with this assessment, which is why I have switched from scalloped to parabolic bracing. All other things being equal, a parabolic brace, because of its arched shape, should be able to withstand more force or tension than a scalloped brace. With classical bracing patterns, I am able to have less mass glued down to the top using parabolic braces than I do using scalloped ones, while still maintaining the same level of stiffness. The proof is in the pudding, though. The two guitars I'm working on right now are the first ones I've built using all parabolic bracing. It'll be interesting to see if there is a noticeable difference. Best, Michael |
|
| Author: | John K [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well said Michael. 
|
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Parabolic". It seems much better suited to modern playing styles. Dave, if it's truly Klingon bracing, maybe if it could go cloaked it would reduce the overall mass of the top. Colin |
|
| Author: | Rossy [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some of you guys should quit making guitars and start doing standup comedy. My wife is sitting here asking what I'm laughing at. I don't really know how to respond.
Would you guys say parabolic is easier to make? (can't wait for your answers) Ross |
|
| Author: | Rossy [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also, do you guys cut your braces short to stop at the lining or tuck? Thanks. Ross |
|
| Author: | charliewood [ Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] Well, I shouldn't be revealing this, but the secret of some of the pros is using anabolic. Makes the guitars so powerful it's almost like cheating.[/QUOTE] Unfortunetly when you do this - you start with a 25.5 neck scale and end up with a 21.3 after a few years, woh woh wohhhhhhhhhh and "mean as hell" as someonee else said - but who wouldnt be with such a tiny neck, 
Cheers Charliewood |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like the looks of Hesh's 'parabolic' braces. I'd love to know how they sound! Where did the term parabolic come from anyway? It is cool sounding but I doubt the shape can be represented with y2=2py.
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|