V-bracing and Taylor's Marketing Machine... so NOT impressed.

[pleasurepaul]

Suppose you're experimenting with new bracing patterens. You hit upon one you like. Among other things you find that, to your ears, the guitar seems to sound more "in tune", than with your old bracing. You're pleasantly surprised of course. You're not a scientist, but then you start inventing all kinds of semi-scientifical explanations. 'Waves don't fight another', and other things that I don't care to look up in the videos. Eltjo, is this your objection? Taylor's pseudo scientifical explanations? An explanation might be strange, but that does not mean that a phenomenon does not exist. We have to grant them this, at this point. Maybe AP should have said: "I feel the notes are more in tune, I don't know why, but try it for yourself".

[peter.coombe]

So, he could, scientifically, be claiming that with a different bracing pattern the harmonic series produced by the strings could be less distorted or shifted
when coupled to the guitar than other bracing patterns.

Yep, so the guitar would sound different. It has nothing to do with intonation as most of us understand intonation.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by peter.coombe

Yep, so the guitar would sound different. It has nothing to do with intonation as most of us understand intonation.

Well, I'm saying it could be actually be intonation in regards to how the notes coming out of the guitar are closer to the harmonic series produced by the strings. In other words, perhaps on a certain fret higher up on the fretboard, the string produces a fundamental frequency of 440 Hz (an A). But, after the note is coupled to the guitar, it might shift it to 440.5 Hz or something similar. I don't know if that's the case, but it could happen.

If you know digital photography what comes out of the guitar is analogous to a jpeg. However, there's what you see and what the sensor sees and it processes. The strings are the analog of what you want to see and the guitar is the sensor, which gets close to what the string produces, but it will also be a little different. You want it to be as close as possible. Of course, the body also changes the sound a bit too, which is the analog of a filter on the lens.

[peter.coombe]

Well, I'm saying it could be actually be intonation in regards to how the notes coming out of the guitar are closer to the harmonic series produced by the strings. In other words, perhaps on a certain fret higher up on the fretboard, the string produces a fundamental frequency of 440 Hz (an A). But, after the note is coupled to the guitar, it might shift it to 440.5 Hz or something similar. I don't know if that's the case, but it could happen.

Yes that can certainly happen if a mode of vibration (usually it is the main top mode) is close to a fretted note. That is exactly what I was talking about in a previous post. A different bracing pattern may produce different relationships between modal frequencies, but there will still be a lot of variation because wood varies in stiffness and mass so much, and there are a lot of modes so it gets very complex. You don't have much control over that and can't actually measure the modes of vibration until the box is closed. So the absolute frequency of the modes of vibration can affect intonation, but a different bracing pattern can't "improve" intonation per se. The same variation happens no matter what the bracing pattern. It is in the nature of wood. So no matter what the bracing pattern, some guitars will have intonation problems caused by the frequency of a mode being close to a fretted note. The relationships between the modes of vibration is what gives a guitar it's particular tone, and a different bracing pattern may change these relationships so the guitar will sound different.

[pleasurepaul]

Originally Posted by fazool

When an elastic member vibrates, it temporarily elongates. That elongation changes the frequency of its vibration.

So, *WHILE* vibrating at a pitch, the string changes its pitch.

The best example is tuning your guitar. When you strike a string very hard the string actually stretches a little and increases the tension and raises the pitch.

You can see this yourself with a tuner. The harder you strike the string the more sharp it goes.

The same with tall frets: as you press down harder you are stretching the strings more and making them go sharp.

As the sound board distorts it will induce similar effects.

So, I imagine that a stiffer soundboard reduces some of that effect.

Interesting.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by robj144

In other words, perhaps on a certain fret higher up on the fretboard, the string produces a fundamental frequency of 440 Hz (an A). But, after the note is coupled to the guitar, it might shift it to 440.5 Hz or something similar.

I don't see how that could happen.

Even if it could, that's about 1 cent, I think. I believe how hard you're pressing the strings and how much you're unintentionally bending them will have that much effect and probably more.

[Picker2]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

I believe how hard you're pressing the strings and how much you're unintentionally bending them will have that much effect and probably more.

Spot on my friend, very true. And as a matter of fact, good players can easily adjust for this with their fretting hand.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

Hi redir...et al...

You guys...the bracing on the top does NOT act like a dam, and cut off the sound vibrations from moving from one area of the guitar top to another. The sound vibrations move very freely throughout the whole area of the top, and through the braces, and whatever other structural mass is there. Now what the braces DO effect, but just in part, is how much a given area of a top is free to vibrate at it's maximum, and what sound frequencies that area of the top is best able to vibrate at/reproduce...but...that is also dependent on the actual physical acoustic response quality of the raw top plate...is it acoustically live and dynamically responsive, the size and shape of the top, the area of the top, such as above the sound hole/upper bout, around the bridge/lower bout, out at the edges etc, the stiffness of the top by itself and the ALSO in combination with the braces attached, and how the guitar maker thinned and shaped the top plate and the braces to target a tone and dynamic response....

Sorry, I should have added, the transverse brace stiffens up the top in its vicinity so that there is minimal sound amplitude radiating from it. The upper transverse bout does the same. Taylor took care of the of area on either side of the soundhole with two beefy braces.



Martin also has been stiffening up this area with their A brace scheme.



I assume they do this to limit the possibility of a need for a neck reset, that is my reason for stiffening up this area. So if this area is stiffened up you should get less sound radiated for the area. There has been little to no laser interferometry done on an X-braced guitar although there has been a few done on classical guitars. I would not say that the transverse brace acts as a dam, more as a truss stiffening up a plate. While the area north of this brace may still radiate sound it seems that it does not do it at a large amplitude.









Mind you the above is only representative of the guitar and bracing pattern used, in a different scheme you may get more vibrations.



But in my limited experience I find that there is not a lot going on around the soundhole area if stiffly braced. It seems that Taylor was not attempting to use this area as a radiator but was more interested in the structural integrity of the guitar. And from the pictures I am seeing that, in my opinion, there will not be much acoustical output from this area.

[MrHooligan73]

Taylor’s idea.... send the highest mofo on the team to explain things to the people at NAMM.... didn’t work well.

[westman]

wish they'd gone the whole hog, somthin like this -


prob patented though = money

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Ed-in-Ohio

Here's a video of Andy Powers being asked, and answering this exact question:

Sorry, but this is rubbish. NO stringed instrument fretted according to the Pythagorean equal temperament formula has the ability to play perfectly in tune, and in every key. Powers used the phrase 'perfectly in tune'. In ONE specific key, maybe you'll get close, but those chord clusters will sound horrible in other keys. This has nothing to do with bracing and everything to do with fret spacing, which we know is fundamentally flawed. That's why we frequently need to resort to 'sweetening' tuning after having used an electronic tuner.
Unless Powers has magically re-interpreted algebraic equations I'm calling his 'improved', and 'perfect' intonation claim, a cleverly worded hoax.

Intonation issues have been addressed with more or less success; the Earvana nut for one. Various FRETTING arrangements have been designed to ameliorate the anomalies of even temperament. Again, nothing to do with the bracing pattern; even electric guitars with fully adjustable bridges and Earvana fitted, show no more than an improvement in intonation. 'Perfectly in tune' is impossible. Powers should know better; we're not all naive 14 year-olds!

Here's an attempt at 'true temperament'. Note the use of the word 'optimize': http://atoragon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...retboards.html

[Picker2]

Originally Posted by pleasurepaul

...You're not a scientist, but then you start inventing all kinds of semi-scientifical explanations. 'Waves don't fight another', and other things that I don't care to look up in the videos. Eltjo, is this your objection? Taylor's pseudo scientifical explanations?

That is exactly my objection indeed. They should have said: "Hey guys, we have a whole factory at our disposal, so unlike all those fantastic hand builders out there we can build 500 guitars in a day, all with different bracings, and try them all out. And guess what... most of the alternative bracing patterns were rubbish, but we also discovered one that we think you really like! It is louder, with more sustain, and it even seems like the guitar is better tuned! In fact, we like them so much that we decided to productise them, so come over and try them out!"

In other words: don't act like a scientist when you're not one, don't make up BS stories, be sincere and honest so as to show respect to your customers. This attitude has been inherent to the Taylor brand for many years, and I think it's what made them great. It's certainly what made me buy dozens of Taylors over the years, I liked their guitars and was happy to support them. Taylor has brought many good innovations to the guitar, such as the NT neck, the laser groove, the stealth look of the onboard electronics etc., but always with an honest story that made perfect sense. They make great guitars, probably the best. They don't need to make up all kinds of nonsense fairy tale stories. Eventually this will only make their customers loose trust in them, which is the worst thing that can happen to any brand.

[Picker2]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Sorry, but this is rubbish. NO stringed instrument fretted according to the Pythagorean equal temperament formula has the ability to play perfectly in tune, and in every key. Powers used the phrase 'perfectly in tune'. In ONE specific key, maybe you'll get close, but those chord clusters will sound horrible in other keys. This has nothing to do with bracing and everything to do with fret spacing, which we know is fundamentally flawed. That's why we frequently need to resort to 'sweetening' tuning after having used an electronic tuner.
Unless Powers has magically re-interpreted algebraic equations I'm calling his 'improved', and 'perfect' intonation claim, a cleverly worded hoax.

Intonation issues have been addressed with more or less success; the Earvana nut for one. Various FRETTING arrangements have been designed to ameliorate the anomalies of even temperament. Again, nothing to do with the bracing pattern; even electric guitars with fully adjustable bridges and Earvana fitted, show no more than an improvement in intonation. 'Perfectly in tune' is impossible. Powers should know better; we're not all naive 14 year-olds!

Well spoken my friend, can I offer you a beer?

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Picker2

Well spoken my friend, can I offer you a beer?

Thank you, most kind of you.

[kbraker]

I tend to agree with the OP. Too many aesthetic differences between the series models. Wood pick guards on some then plain black on the lower models? I’m a plain kind of guy I guess. I see the marketing behind the fancier 200 series, but they are in my opinion all the same under the hood. I’ve played both the 100 and 200 series side by side. Not enough difference for me. In all fairness though the A12 model is really nice for a solid mid level guitar.