Innovation? What do you think?

[stearnguitars]

Hi All-

I feel like I'm in a guitar-making bubble sometimes so I wanted to see what some of you builders and guitar fanatics thought. I had the simple idea a couple of days ago to attach the bridge-plate structurally to the X-braces. I originally thought of creating a pocket on the underside of the X-brace that would overlap the bridge-plate but then I thought of just gluing in a small piece of spruce that I can carve down later to tie the bridge-plate and the X-brace together.

My thinking is that, by tying the bridge-plate to the X-braces, the union would create more movement in the top because the ball-end of the strings are transmitting energy that could be displaced more evenly. Does that make sense? Or does it sound like a bunch of hooey? Ha ha. I'd like to hear what you think. Also, I'm sure this isn't a new idea but it's new to me so I wonder if others have done something similar.

[ZekeM]

Maybe it will make a difference but then again maybe not.

I think that a lot of people overlook the fact that all the braces are already attached together by the soundboard. So technically when one moves it causes the other to move as well. My opinion is that it probably will not provide much of a difference sonically. Though structurally it seems like a great idea. It will provide more structure to a very stressed area.

I anticipate seeing what differences you find

[stearnguitars]

I thought about the fact that the bridge-plate and X-braces were connected via the top but it wasn't a direct connection. I'm thinking (hoping) that a direct connection will give a more immediate response to the energy from the strings. It will be interesting to see, anyway. I'll be sure to post any findings when the guitar is finished.

[Pat Foster]

I'm wondering if there would be any structural benefit, as long as the bridge plate fits snug up against the x-braces. The force on the bridge plate would tend to pull it up. Might be different if the forces were going the other way. My two cents.

Pat

[haolebrownie]

I know that I, as well as a lot of other ukulele builders, notch the tone bars so that they overlap/connect to the bridge plate. I'm not sure if it makes any sonic difference in a uke because I've never built a uke that doesn't have the overlap. Just thought I'd throw that out.

[ACraig]

Looks like extra weight with no real advantage structurally over tucking the bridge patch, which has been done by a number of builders at one point or another. No right answer. Maybe the added weight in those areas will give you the tone you've been chasing. Good luck!

[Matt Mustapick]

It's on the other side of the soundboard, but the bridge (another brace) does, or at least seems like it ought to do if anything's gonna do it, exactly what you're talking about, but to a much greater degree.

[Steve Kinnaird]

A little extra stiffness there, and a wee bit more weight.
All else being equal, you might notice a small drop in the bass with a little bit more presence in the trebles.
However, those little patches usually make the D string buzz at the 7th fret.

Steve


(Take that last sentence with a shake of salt...)

[dberkowitz]

There is a reason that repair people call Gibson's double X brace, the double cross. It's impossible to replace or reglue the bridge plate because everything is in the way. I don't see any particular advantage here, and when voicing you're going to have to pare a good deal of that away to balance the response. A solution looking for a problem.

[Bruce Sexauer]

My thrust has been to remove weight rather than to add it.

[stearnguitars]

Thanks to all for the replies and insights. I just finished shaping the braces on this top and here are the finished ties. I agree that the bridge and the bridge-plate are connected indirectly to the X-brace. But the only thing holding it all together is the soundboard. If you can imagine the soundboard being as thin as paper, the bond between the X-braces and the bridge-plate wouldn't exist. By overlapping or adding a structural tie between the X-brace and the bridge-plate, the X-brace has a strong bond to the bridge-plate, regardless of the thickness of the top. And possibly, there could be more transference of energy. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I will most likely have the D string buzzing on the 7th fret though, Steve. Ha ha. Thanks again for the replies.

[Brackett Instruments]

Originally Posted by stearnguitars

.................................................. ............
My thinking is that, by tying the bridge-plate to the X-braces, the union would create more movement in the top because the ball-end of the strings are transmitting energy that could be displaced more evenly............................................ ..........................................

Pre War Martins had the bridge plate tucked under the "X".

[stearnguitars]

Sounds like tucking the bridge-plate under the X-brace is the way to go if one is going to do this. Good to hear that Martin was doing it on the pre-wars. Who knows though, maybe there's a good reason they stopped doing it. I don't know enough about pre-war Martins to figure it out.

[stearnguitars]

I just did a little searching and found this photo of a pre-war Martin. It does look like the bridge-plate is tucked under the X-brace. Here's the URL where I got the picture from http://www.vintagemartin.com/xbraces.html