#61
|
|||
|
|||
As a guitar builder, the one thing I'm surprised about (and object to) concerning the V-brace marketing is the stark contrast given to the bracing types. I look at bracing as a system. If you build with ultra thin tops then you need to do something different than if you brace with thicker tops. If you want a certain sound that emphasizes bass and mids then you would brace that differently than a guitar with more treble response and projection. If the guitar sounds muddy then there are numerous things that can and should be done to remedy that.
The basic x-brace system has a myriad of different possible configurations that make a massive difference on how the guitar sounds. In addition, there are a multitude of bracing systems that depart more significantly from the x-brace (Taylor's V-brace, Gore's Falcate bracing, Kasha, and many, many more). BTW, all these guitars still sound like "guitars". Classical guitars are different beasts altogether but that rests almost entirely on beginning with a different starting point/sound generator - nylon strings. When I look at the difference between the previous Taylor X-brace and the V-brace - I don't see massive differences in the way the top is able to physically move. The big horizontal transverse brace below the soundhole is reminiscent of classical guitar bracing and should help sequester vibration in the waist and lower bout region. The lower bout region bracing seems to be reasonably braced (not too heavy which is often a problem) and seems to promote a guitar with more cross dipole movement (the bridge would like to rock/seesaw left and right. At the moment, I'm not exactly sure what would happen with the long dipole movement (the bridge rocking back and forth in the direction of the strings). Just like the x-brace, with the v-brace you've got a bulk of bracing that exists right below the soundhole that will absolutely affect vibrational patterns. In short, I still see massive similarities between how the guitar top is allowed to move. Any bracing with steel strings has to put a big brace between the bridge and soundhole otherwise the guitar will fold in on itself. I do see a more flexible lower bout and less bracing which I think is a good thing. However, those same things can be accomplished with an x-brace. Additionally, other types of bracing styles can be modified to use more or less bracing as well and create numerous degrees of flexibility in the soundboard. Regardless of what Andy Powers may present, there are always tradeoffs and the art of guitar building is finding a balance. The wonderful thing about guitars is that there are always these lovely variations of tone that come from different ways of bracing. The issue that I take with the Taylor marketing is that there is somehow a magical best that is only possible with this Taylor V-brace. I'd love to play these guitars - just looking at the bracing I bet these are some of the most responsive guitars Taylor has ever built. But I'm struggling to reconcile what I know about guitars with what Powers is saying - that the V-brace allows the guitar to move in a revolutionary new way. Different bracing patterns are starting points for builders to achieve tonal diversity. Like the X-brace, the V-brace seems to have a nice range of potential derivations which I think is fantastic. But there are other bracing systems that have come before with similar pathways and that have a similar layout to the V-brace in terms of the major load bearing beams. Last edited by Simon Fay; 03-08-2018 at 09:53 AM. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Now I do not have a Taylor to test but that spectrum graph of your guitar seems quite smooth. I am used to seeing responses more in line like this. It is a shame the person did not zoom in on the area of interest but it is what it is. The resonances are much more pronounced, have a higher Q, which could effect the sound output. If you have two peaks close to each other and a scale tone is between them the note could waver back and forth between the two resonances. Or a big peak could shift the note away from the note that was produced by the string length.
__________________
Fred |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Well done Picker2! You used science and facts to rebut Andy's reasoning. The new bracing may very well sound better but he didn't do himself or Taylor any favor with his explanation of why.
__________________
Bourgeois, Collings, R Taylor, Santa Cruz Last edited by Acousticado; 03-09-2018 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Rule #1 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1.) Many don't feel exist. I don't mean players deny the acoustic guitars imperfections, but many feel those imperfections are part of what make give the instrument it's unique tonal character. 2.) What exactly is sacrificed in terms of tonal character is still subjective. A clear A-B test of a 2017 X-Braced 914ce to the new 2018 V-Class braced 914ce would give some answers, but Taylor has been careful about putting such comparisons in the spotlight. They left this type of comparison out of the NAMM videos altogether. This also leads to another point 3.) You'll notice in all instance Andy Powers talks up these changes between X-Bracing and V-Class bracing and his goals in terms of taking the guitar closer to (Taylor's idea) of perfection. But what's cleverly missing is quantifiable data. For example, you don't hear Andy say something like "We've measured a 8-12% increase in intonation accuracy". Now that he's putting into context a clear picture of how Taylor has defined "improved intonation with V-Class bracing" we know these measurements were taken. So why is Andy Powers only talking in broad terms about what was measured and not specific measured improvement in numbers? Probably because those percentages are so small it wouldn't help the product sell. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Wayne J-45 song of the day archive https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis..._Zmxz51NAwG1UJ My music https://soundcloud.com/waynedeats76 https://www.facebook.com/waynedeatsmusic My guitars Gibson, Martin, Blueridge, Alvarez, Takamine Last edited by Rmz76; 03-08-2018 at 10:06 AM. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Fred |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
No rolling eyes necessary TAYLORFAN50, just read my posts a little up in this thread. I explained all my concerns, in high detail and with simple words.
__________________
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
They don't have to provide data today. Facebook, Twitter, whatever other Social Me Me Media people use along with forums like this one will spread their gospel like wildfire, never stopping to figure out if it is even remotely true. Once the serious fans get a hold of their facts they'll repeat them as though they've built a thousand guitars themselves and they know this all to be true. It isn't really new, it has been going on for a long time now, just getting easier to start and more and more distanced from reality. The internet proves that if you say something enough times it becomes true to those that did or will buy your product. Taylor never needed that, they already make great guitars with a whole bunch of serious users. They didn't need to re-define intonation, but this kind of "fact" will become an evident truth to true believers. rct |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, those higher frequencies contribute very little to the tap tone of the top, which is predominantly determined by the first few large peaks in the spectrum, which are much louder as you can see in the graph. In addition, all those high frequency peaks are impossible to systematically control by adjusting your bracing, so they don't really matter. In addition, the peaks in your graph seem to have a higher Q, but they don't. Note that the horizontal axis is logarithmic so the axis gets compressed for higher frequencies. If the Q's were high, your guitar would produce high-pitched pinnggggg tones if you would you tap it. And no guitar does that.
__________________
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here are two videos I just made to demonstrate. The string, which you know well: And a plate with an initial Gaussian disturbance. It's a little computer intensive, so I have to pause the animation to see the shape. However, it does after a short time resemble tin foil:
__________________
Guild CO-2 Guild JF30-12 Guild D55 Goodall Grand Concert Cutaway Walnut/Italian Spruce Santa Cruz Brazilian VJ Taylor 8 String Baritone Blueberry - Grand Concert Magnum Opus J450 Eastman AJ815 Parker PA-24 Babicz Jumbo Identity Walden G730 Silvercreek T170 Charvell 150 SC Takimine G406s |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Dwight, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I really believe the current Taylor marketeers are seriously damaging the brand image that Bob painstakingly built up over the past 40 years. And I'm very sorry about that. Even though some accused me of 'brand bashing' here on the AGF, I was doing exactly the opposite!
__________________
|
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I assume Picker is honestly attempting to use science but the question is how accurately ? His post for me has brought up more questions than answers . Like is tapping the top of guitar like a drum really going to give you the same response characteristics as plucking a string ? Seems to me if one wants to disprove AP's claim that a lower freq. is also generated when you pick the E string at the 12 fret . Wouldn't it be more scientific to replicate and graph the claimed action as opposed to a different action ? And do the guitar strings actually move in an orderly triangle "All of the time"
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
There are a variety of reasons why his scientific model and changes to classical guitar design were never adopted in any significant way and never did replace traditional designs. One of those reasons was that his very scientific sounding model and theories lacked any physical evidence/testing to support his theories. His theories, his model, his presentation sounded great - very scientific, very plausible - but, in large measure, simply weren't true. It was largely a case of arm-chair theorizing, wherein one can "reason" one's way to any rational conclusion, only to find that it simply isn't true. (The ancient Greeks had "reasoned" that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. It was not until Galileo performed actual experiments, gathered objective, repeatable data, was it proven that the long-believed "truth" was incorrect. Simply believing something to be true doesn't make it true.) In the absence of any hard data - scientific measurement - he relied upon the subjective opinion of players to determine whether or not his design changes produced "better" sounding instruments. A few die-hard followers believed Kasha model guitars sounded better but, by far, most players didn't. (Many didn't care for the sound.) Fast-forward to 2017. Taylor introduces a "new", radical bracing design that they claim, based upon scientific theories, is "better" than other preceding designs. So far, no objective results of scientific testing have been publicly released showing hard data to substantiated their specific claims of improvement (e.g. improved intonation). Instead, there is subjective opinion that Taylor believes it is better and thinks you will believe it too. Taylor has offered scientific-sounding, plausible-at-face-value, rationale for why their design is an improvement. The question that remains is, is it really an improvement? Does it accomplish the things they say it does, regardless of how they suggest it accomplishes that? In the absence of hard data, there is only subjective opinion. In the absence of any hard data, it seems irrelevant to "get into the weeds" of the scientific explanation/justification. If there is no proof that validates a theory, it is just a theory, and becomes an intellectual, subjective argument of who's theory one prefers. As far as Taylor's new guitars go, you then like them better or you don't, you either believe the scientific-sounding verbiage, or you don't. Much like modern politics, where you choose what "facts" you want to believe. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Guild CO-2 Guild JF30-12 Guild D55 Goodall Grand Concert Cutaway Walnut/Italian Spruce Santa Cruz Brazilian VJ Taylor 8 String Baritone Blueberry - Grand Concert Magnum Opus J450 Eastman AJ815 Parker PA-24 Babicz Jumbo Identity Walden G730 Silvercreek T170 Charvell 150 SC Takimine G406s |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thanks for these clips. The plate simulation looks like the solution of a 2D wave equation right? There seems to be no stiffness. But it does show the point I made earlier: the individual frequencies needed to produce the initial shape of the top, shown one by one, would give the idea that the total behaviour were much more chaotic. In fact, in your clip you do see quite some orderly behaviour. If you would add significant stiffness to the plate, like a real guitar top, and not start with a narrow peak but with a larger, bridge-shaped vertical displacement executing a rectangular wave shape (like a real guitar), it would look even more orderly. And be MUCH more computer intensive too!
__________________
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Ha ha, no my friend, there is only science! That's the definition of science.
Quote:
This is the way they add reverb to audio files. You go to a large church, record the reverb of a short click, and then you can use that recording to add the church's acoustics and reverb to any audio recording made anywhere else.
__________________
Last edited by Picker2; 03-08-2018 at 10:58 AM. |