Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi ya'll.

I am bracing my first guitar top. I am bloody slow!!

The cross is glued in place, shaped and sanded. I think it is finished but I can be easily convinced that it isn't! The rest are rough shaped and just laying in place, they have not been glued. This is, of course, a symetrical bracing pattern after Larrivee, Laskin and Manzer. Here are the pics:







My plan is to shape these braces as follows:

The upper face brace (big one above the soundhole) will be left fairly hefty and I may even just take a 1/4 inch bullnose router bit too it.

All other braces will be shaped parabolically, like the lower legs of the cross but without the scallops.

The bottom cross brace will be 'tented' with the middle higher than the outsides and trimmed tall and thin like the lower legs of the cross.

Thanks in advance for your comments. I plan on gluing these on tomorrow night (Wow, I guess that should read 'tonight!') So lets say, I plan to glue this up in about 21 hours!

Thanks

Shane

_________________
Canada

I think it's a great design, Shane. I might be a little worried about all that mass on the upper tranverse brace. But if you plan to do some routing on it, it might be okay. I usually cut my 3 soundhole bracing pieces down almost flat. I've never tried them with peaks. Are you going to shave those down?
This last point, I'm not really sure about, so take it for what it's worth, but do you have the grain on the bridge plate running the right way. Probably, but it just looks different to me. Maybe because it's Maple.
Anyway, I'm not an expert yet, so all of this may be for nothing, but hey, we're friends. And what are friends for, if not to feed you bad information.
Really, I do hope it might help in some way.

Hi Shane..Looks really clean and symetrical.
Glue it down and get your chisels out and it should be excellent. Keep going and you will have a winner!!
Good Luck!!
Walter

    Looks very clean. I think you may have more mass than you need. The lower tone bars may cause you some trouble , with the triangular truss you may be locking your top and keeping it from moving.
      THe sound hole braces are anti spilt bracing and can be lighter . I use 1/16 by 1/4 flat. The finger braces I will point to the center and shape. What you need to do is creat strength by shaping the wood to make it stronger.
      Too much mass can kill the top but you can allways reach inside and take some off. From what I see I think you may be just a little over built . Your workmanship is very good
John Hall

I'd shop for another bridge plate. That one looks to be nicely quartered, and the grain runs right with the pin holes. I'd rather see it running nearly flat, or, use the quartered stock, but cut it so the grain will run corner to corner on the plate. I'd like to see you use something without figure, also; the figure takes away from the stiffness. It could go on a diet, too...

Everything else looks good. Triangulate the lower bars, and run the upper huge one through the table saw one more time. Leave it as tall as it is, but take it down to 1/2" in width... No need for a bull nose bit; just use a plane to skim the corners and round it over. It's just as quick(if not quicker), and you'll get a better feel for the wood.

The soundhole braces can be half their width, also, and I run mine at full height right across. No need to shape these.

I'd also lose the popcycle brace, in favor of some triangulation...

The slip of spruce that covers the lap joint at the "X" can be trimmed down. This won't hurt sound, just looks too tall...

The over all mass and the cross body tone-bars worry me as far as how efficient the top will be. The workmanship looks great. I like my bridge plates to be skew cut so that the plane of the grain is not dead perpendicular to the pin holes. Skew or riff cut has far less chance of splitting than quarter sawn. The orientation of the grain, is indeed correct. I agree with many of the others comments on the both the mass a of the upper transverse brace and the sound hole bracing Way more than needed. The foot print of my upper transverse brace is .375", yours appears to be over .75". Always keep in the back of your mind that, "the lighter you build the top the more responsive the top". The x-braces look super, just right to my eyes. If you keep the tone-bars in this configuration, be sure let use know how it sounds when finished. I am afraid this arrangement may lead to a dead top in the exact area you want the top to be lively. But then again I could be surprised. It would not be the first timeMichaelP38720.5056134259

Don't worry Shane, we probably all have a tendency to overbuild for the first one.

Beautiful work though, just a bit more trimming and on your way to success!

Serge

Thanks everyone for all of the advice.

Here is what I am going to do.

I will saw the upper face brace to 7/16" and shape it parabolic.

I will make the sound hole braces 1/16" x 1/4", all 3 of them little fellas.

I will shave the the top of the cross brace junction down and reshape.

I will cut a new bridge plate, is rosewood better than maple, what is the difference in tone colour, is there a difference?

Ok, I will put that all together tonight and shape everything once it is all glued down.

Michael,

This is the same bracing pattern that Linda Manzer and Grit Laskin have been using on their world class guitars. You can see it on Manzer's site and Grit Laskin published a three part series on building a guitar in Fine Woodworking in the late '80's and showed a similiar brace system. It was developed by Jean Larrivee, who both Manzer and Laskin apprenticed with in the early '70's. I really like the sound of Larrivee guitars, load, open and clear. But I will definatley let you know how it sounds. I am a bit concerned though that I may have made this one too thin. The depth at the head block will about 3.375" and the tailblock about 4.375" when the top and back are on. This guitar is my own design and I am using a 25.4" scale length.

Thanks again!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Good Canadian bracing pattern Shane!

Take the suggestions that others have posted and it should turn out great.

Josh

_________________
Josh House

Canadian Luthier Supply
http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com
https://www.facebook.com/canadianluthiersupply?ref=hl
House Guitars - Custom Built Acoustic Instruments.
http://www.houseguitars.com

[QUOTE=Shane Neifer] I will cut a new bridge plate, is rosewood better than maple, what is the difference in tone colour, is there a difference?[/QUOTE]

Im my opinion Rosewood bridge plates creates a brighter more focused tone as in a bluegrass sound. Maple renders a more complex, warmer, tone

I would not call one better than the other. Just differnt.

I cant tell for sure but the shape seams to be a modified OM cutaway if this is the case the reationship between the upper and lower bout depths is just a shape on the deep end at the lower bout but this may in fact be a plus wth the tone bar arangment.MichaelP38720.5331712963

Im my opinion Rosewood bridge plates creates a brighter more focused tone as in a bluegrass sound. Maple renders a more complex, warmer, tone

I've found the opposite. The RW, being heavier, adds mass at the bridge, and lends to a bit more bottom, while its lower dampening lets the top end shimmer a bit more. The maple, being light, lends to a brighter, more cutting tone.

BUT, that is with the rest of my combination, and there's a lesson here; what works for one is the result of the whole acting as one, and not just the singular parts acting for themselves. With this in miond, Michael's findings can honestly be the opposite of mine, and we're both correct.

It's a minute difference... use what ya got <g>

THanks Mario and Michael, I have both...I'm a tonewood guy!    I think that I might go rosewood though, it looks prettier against the spruce top! How's that for a good reason. But seriously, I think that trebles will not be problem with guitar and I was worried a bit with the maple plate adding to those. I was considering rosewood, but the maple was real handy and already to go, I think I will switch to rosewood. I post the results in a couple of days!

Michael, it is based loosely on an OM, a bit shorter at 19.625 inches so maybe my dimensions might work. Well, they will work but we'll see how she sounds when I have her done.

Thanks again!

Shane

_________________
Canada

19 5/8" is actually 1/4" longer body than an OM, at least mine at 19 3/8 body, 15" Lower bout @ 4 1/4" deep and 11 1/4 upper @ 3 13/16 deep. I have built a modified that the upper bout depth was 3 3/8" at the upper bout. I seem to be just a bit bassier but as you know so many differnt things play a role in the tone that to say the shallow upper end had much to do with it.

Bridgeplate appears too thick, and the long edges should be beveled. What
others said about grain.

I think the soundhole braces are structural, and that 1/16" thick is way
undersized. I would shape what you have. Ever notice how the soundhole is
distorted on old Martins that have those shallow soundhole braces?

Upper transverse is huge, although it's not a very active part of the top,
especially with the cutaway.

Lower transverse braces look too big, but I can't really see how the Larivee
design is supposed to work. Maybe it relates to proximity to the magnetic
pole? Howard Klepper38720.6119791667

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

Thanks for the reference Michael, I willstore that incase modifications become in order!

Howard, what is a good bridge plate thickness? And who told you about or our polar magnetic secrets, that secret was supposed to stay north of the border...I smell a rat!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Two words, Shane: reverse engineering. If it doesn't make a good guitar,
you can always use it to dowse for oil sands.

I make bridge plates about .095". Lately I've been playing with laminating
them to prevent splitting.Howard Klepper38720.6236574074

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] Two words, Shane: reverse engineering. If it doesn't make a good guitar,
you can always use it to dowse for oil sands.

I make bridge plates about .095". Lately I've been playing with laminating
them to prevent splitting.[/QUOTE]

Let us know how laminating goes Howard. I have been considering the same thing but was worried a little about the resin dampening the bridge plate.

Thanks Howard, I will shave .030 off the plate. My guitar would have to do a bit of travelling to find the oil sands, at least two days worth, but if it sounds crappy, hey I could always use it as goalie stick in a good ole' game of road hockey! I wold want to leave them braces BIG though, they play mean around here!

Shane

_________________
Canada