Forward-shifted X brace vs. Standard X brace

[66strummer]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Some may make claims that the new guitars are built exactly the same as the pre-war guitars ... BUT ... upon closer examination, that is ... NOT ... the case. They may use the same bracing footprint ... BUT ... they are making changes elsewhere to cover their warranty in case the owner uses heavier strings than they should. There are lots of subtle ways to stiffen the bridge including: thicker bridge plates, taller braces, less scalloping, thicker and taller bridges, thicker tops, etc... So what may initially ... LOOK ... the same on quick reading of the specs ... closer examination of the two structures reveal VAST differences that are not apparent immediately to the unsuspecting.

Do you think this is the case with all or most of the modern day companies that offer forward braced models covered under a lifetime warranty? There are 3 or 4 import brands I know of that come to mind when I think of this, Blueridge being the top one. What's interesting is that 2 of the brands I tried out did not have the tone I was expecting, as they seemed way overbraced. I wonder if Blueridge has altered it's bracing at all since offering a lifetime warranty on the latest models. I'll guess that the original 1 year warranty they offered had to do with forward bracing and speculation on problems developing later because of it. Is a modern made forward braced Martin built "stiffer" or don't you know offhand?

[Bruce Sexauer]

It is surprising that the are not called backward shifted braces v. Standard braces as the shift was made in that direction in the late 30's, I believe. I have always done my braces in what is currently called called the "forward shifted" way as it seems so obviously correct to me. I've yet to see the reason to change.

[brian a.]

According to Walter Carter in The Martin Book page 39: Most players stayed with steel-string guitars, and by the mid-1930's, in order to get more volume, they had begun using heavier-gauge strings, which took their toll on guitar tops. So Martin made several structural changes to counteract the problem, the first of which was to move the bracing.... On the smaller guitars the move took place by 1935; on the dreadnoughts it occured in 1939 or '40.... the top bracing on Martins had always been 'scalloped' ... According to the notes of factory foreman John Deichmann, this practice was halted in 1944 with guitar #89926.

page 105: 1935 X-brace moved away from soundhole toward bridge on 000 and smaller models. 1939 X-brace moved away from soundhole toward bridge on dreadnought models. 1944 Braces no longer scalloped.

[Brackett Instruments]

There's a bunch more going on with the X braces, even if you don't consider the rest of the braces. "Forward shifted" is just a term, and really shouldn't mean alot unless you're dealing with specific Martins. It is a term used alot, but not really accurately. Gibson J-45's have a different angle(wider than Martins) on the "X", as well as a shorter scale. Gibson Advanced Jumbos have an angle wider than J-45's, but a longer scale. What's really changing, with "forward shifted" braces is the location where the "X" crosses under the wings of the bridge. Moving the intersection of the "X" forward, or back changes this, but so does the angle, and scale length.

[stringjunky]

The construction of my guitar's top is apparently based on Prewar Martins using a thinner than usual top (apparently) which is, centrally, 2.5mm tapering thinner outwards towards the edges. The structural rigidity is maintained by heavier, rounded scalloped braces...I can't use strings heavier than 12's or they will pull it to bits! It sounds as powerful as any dreadnought I've heard but with more balance befitting its body type of 000.

The logic is that the thinner top creates a more responsive guitar and the heavier bracing carries the sustain. Is the thinner top /heavier bracing approach common amongst US luthiers? Is this the 'authentic' Prewar Martin approach?

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by woody b

There's a bunch more going on with the X braces, even if you don't consider the rest of the braces. "Forward shifted" is just a term, and really shouldn't mean alot unless you're dealing with specific Martins. It is a term used alot, but not really accurately. Gibson J-45's have a different angle(wider than Martins) on the "X", as well as a shorter scale. Gibson Advanced Jumbos have an angle wider than J-45's, but a longer scale. What's really changing, with "forward shifted" braces is the location where the "X" crosses under the wings of the bridge. Moving the intersection of the "X" forward, or back changes this, but so does the angle, and scale length.

Hi Woody B & All,

Another guitar-construction variation that can throw an observer's visual cues off is the introduction of larger soundholes on some dreadnoughts. Generally, a dreadnought soundhole is about 4" in diameter but guitars like Huss & Dalton's DS and D-RH/DM models, Larrivee's D-50/D-60 Traditional models, and Martin's D-28CW Clarence White model, have enlarged soundholes: 4-3/8" for the H&D guitars and maybe about the same for the Larrivee's, and 4-9/16" for the Martin Clarence White (also Santa Cruz's Tony Rice models have this diameter). This gives the impression that the braces are forward-shifted because the enlarged soundhole diameter is closer to the legs of the X-bracing as they pass the soundhole's diameter. The H&D, Martin and Santa Cruz guitars actually feature forward-shifted braces with the Larrivee D-50/D-60 models a maybe but the enlarged soundhole diameter can make the forward-shifted bracing feature seem even more so.

Regards,

SpruceTop

[Doubleneck]

Tim insight certainly true of my old J-45. Larger bridgeplate for that adjustable bridge. No schallop bracing either, though very thin by modern standards.
Steve

[John Arnold]

Gibsons have always been forward braced, with a wider X-angle than most Martins. The wider X-angle facilitates the higher bridge due to the shorter Gibson scale.

page 105: 1935 X-brace moved away from soundhole toward bridge on 000 and smaller models. 1939 X-brace moved away from soundhole toward bridge on dreadnought models. 1944 Braces no longer scalloped.

I will insert a correction here. The braces on the 000's were moved the same time as the dreadnoughts (late 1938).
Like Bruce, I have always used the forward pattern when doing a Martin-inspired design, and I have had no problem getting the sound I want. There is a lot more to it than just brace location. Sure enough, if the top thickness, bridgeplate size and thickness, and brace shape are all exactly the same, the forward pattern will produce more bass. But that is not the way things were done in the Golden Age. When Martin shifted the bracing, they altered the scalloping and the top thickness. Shortly after that (mid-1939), they also added a popsicle brace, made the #1 cross brace 60% thicker, and made the neck block 1/4" thinner. Add the narrower neck to the equation, too. These are significant changes, to the point that they probably have as much or more to do with the result than the brace location.

[KMClark]

Never thought about it but i have 3 different brace placings. the Same template but 3 designated places for the body fret . X closer to the soundhole for what will be considered tight wood and farther back for softer woods. {cedar} Only thing to change are the cantilevers.

Tend to change it for tone also so the rules above don`t apply in those cases..

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by KMClark

Never thought about it but i have 3 different brace placings. the Same template but 3 designated places for the body fret . X closer to the soundhole for what will be considered tight wood and farther back for softer woods. {cedar} Only thing to change are the cantilevers.

Tend to change it for tone also so the rules above don`t apply in those cases..

Isn't the "body fret" always placed where the neck meets the body? Or is there something else you call the "body fret?" And what parts are you calling the "cantilevers?"

[KMClark]

Yes the 14th fret or the edge of the neck attachment point , the scale is always the same. If its a 12 fret to body or Baritone its a different template. Tone bars and transverse bracing, sorry about that.

[slowhand15]

I own a 1994 Martin Custom 15, which was the 1st Martin with Forward-shifted bracing in the modern era, excluding the Mandolin Brothers exclusive 250 “1934 Reissue” D-28 Herringbones (based on the woods and techniques that were available in 1977)."

The Custom 15 evolved 3 yrs later in 1980. The early Custom 15s didn't have forward shifted bracing. the early ones had the X brace 1 1/2" from the soundhole. Forward shifted bracing came along on the Custom 15 sometime in the late 80's with the X brace 1" from the soundhole.

Now for the question and perhaps a builder would be a great resource for an answer. If Martin, for example, in the "pre-war" years used forward shifted X bracing, why would they have migrated to braces positioned rearward only to later market pre-war forward shifted bracing? What are the pros and cons of each type of bracing patterns, both structurally and long term durability. Is one better than the other? And secondly, perspectives on the resulting tone to your ears?

Heavy strings that were used back in the day and as recent as the 1960's and '70s were hard on the Forward shifted bracing so Martin moved them back as is seen on their Standard models and others.
These days I don't think there are many pros and cons to the bracing. No doubt my Custom 15 has more Bass and has a Big sound (thumpy) compared to my customized 1973 D-35. Even though the braces have been scalloped, a 1 3/8 bridge plate replaced the large rosewood BP, rather than the 2" BP Martin uses now.

My 21 yr old Custom 15 isn't even close to needing a neck re-set and is holding up really good.

The 42 yr old D-35 needed a neck-reset after 22 yrs.

I also use Light gauge strings on all my Martins as suggested to me when I had all the work done on my D-35 by T.J Thompson back in 1995.

I also get a clearer tone using 12s.

That all I have to contribute, right now.

[Toby Walker]

For some time I followed the 'herd' in thinking that forward shifted bracing was the only way to go for a superior tone. That was until I purchased a '56 Martin with standard bracing. Wow.

[Guitar1083]

A little off topic, but one of the worse box designs is played by one of the best guitarist, now when i say worse box design weighing in at 6lbs 12oz. and 30K , I dont wanna give up the name but really.

so what i'm getting at is maybe people don't care about bracing patterns, maybe they do.

Question if Martin change the bracing pattern on a HD-28 would people stop buying it? My guess would be no, Taylor is changing their stuff and players can't stop buying them.

[kiva238]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

I agree that forward shifted scalloped braces add some bass and responsiveness, the negatives in some instances can be some loss of balance or clarity. Probably just as influential on the small body models is the size of the braces, 5/16" versus 1/4". To me 5/16" braces on OM/000's can be the culprit for the dreaded "boxy" sound, while 1/4" braced OM's can be almost as powerful as dreads. I know Martin geeks who prefer OM/000's and their criteria for purchases is that the braces be 1/4", now that I've had my OM-45for a while I agree.

I must be one of those geeks, because I've reached the point where I won't even buy a Martin 000/OM unless it has 1/4" bracing, preferably under an Adirondack top and best of all, with Adirondack braces.
It's gotten to the point that I'm just exploring the many options in Martin OM's and 000's with the "Golden Era" bracing. Amazing power and tone in these smaller bodies.
John