V Class Bracing: why did Taylor make the change?

[varve]

Originally Posted by FLRon

Some of the greatest luthiers in the world ply their trade in the AGF Custom Shop. When I see some of them making the switch to a V braced design, then I might believe it has some merit beyond increasing sales. Until then, not so much.

I’m not the first to notice the striking similarity between V-Class and Trevor Gore’s falcate bracing.

https://flic.kr/p/2msr1w4

This is an interesting example of coevolution of design. Both Andy and Trevor are friends of mine. I have had the privilege of doing research with both, and I have research guitars from both of them in my living room right now. I know for certain that neither copied or was overtly influenced by the other. They both simply used different iterations of this design to solve a fundamental problem, that being the need place a support along the axis of torque exerted by the tension of the strings, without unduly restricting the movement of the top. Both of these guys are immensely gifted in diverse ways, they approach problems in different ways, and I think it is absolutely fascinating that they settled on rather similar designs. There is much more to work out in the details, of course, and a lot more to explore about this solution to this central dilemma of guitar construction.
Cheers, Dave Olson

[hubcapsc]

Never heard of falcate bracing... there's a lot of good stuff to look
up on it...

https://seattleluthiers.org/wp-conte...eel-String.pdf

-Mike

[Mr. Jelly]

I don't see where changing the bracing makes any sense on any level unless Taylor's market share was dropping. If you have a thriving business selling A why would you quit and sell B? Obviously it isn't such a great idea that the world wants V bracing. Not even close. So the OP's question is a good one and I don't see where anyone has come close to a real answer here. I can't imagine selling a board on reinventing a company on pure high road explanations.

[TDavis]

I may be out of place here...but it seems there are a lot of players who dislike the changes in tonality in Taylor guitars since the bracing change. Andy just came onboard (or at least recently) as a genuine partner with Taylor guitars...and I just think, like a lot of young engineer types...he wanted to justify his new level of corporate status, by putting his "signature" on virtually every model in the Taylor line. No shame in that game...but maybe it's cost Taylor more than prospered them.

And, of course now...it's way too late in the game to admit that they might have gone too far, might have "advanced" beyond what appeals to the general guitar playing public that might be looking at a Taylor guitar.

I dunno...purely speculation on my uneducated part.

I do know that, with 35-years in the automobile business, I've seen a LOT of things that were brought on by engineering hotshots to product lines that were utter failures...but because cost to remove the tech across the entire line would be so prohibitively expensive, the "idea" was left in place...even though the buying public, almost to a huge majority...hated it.

Anyone familiar with the "Auto-Stop Technology" on recent cars & trucks? My case in point.

[GCWaters]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

I may be out of place here...but it seems there are a lot of players who dislike the changes in tonality in Taylor guitars since the bracing change. Andy just came onboard (or at least recently) as a genuine partner with Taylor guitars...and I just think, like a lot of young engineer types...he wanted to justify his new level of corporate status, by putting his "signature" on virtually every model in the Taylor line. No shame in that game...but maybe it's cost Taylor more than prospered them.

And, of course now...it's way too late in the game to admit that they might have gone too far, might have "advanced" beyond what appeals to the general guitar playing public that might be looking at a Taylor guitar.

I dunno...purely speculation on my uneducated part.

I do know that, with 35-years in the automobile business, I've seen a LOT of things that were brought on by engineering hotshots to product lines that were utter failures...but because cost to remove the tech across the entire line would be so prohibitively expensive, the "idea" was left in place...even though the buying public, almost to a huge majority...hated it.

Anyone familiar with the "Auto-Stop Technology" on recent cars & trucks? My case in point.

I've seen no evidence that Taylor's sales have gone down, and I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of the guitar buying public is only vaguely aware that there are top braces at all, much less that they might make a difference in how the guitar sounds.

I remember similar reactions to Ovation guitars in the 70's, among my guitar-focused friends--"why do they need all those bracing patterns? Why can't they just do what Martin does/"

[LakewoodM32Fan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I don't see where changing the bracing makes any sense on any level unless Taylor's market share was dropping. If you have a thriving business selling A why would you quit and sell B? Obviously it isn't such a great idea that the world wants V bracing. Not even close. So the OP's question is a good one and I don't see where anyone has come close to a real answer here. I can't imagine selling a board on reinventing a company on pure high road explanations.

Occam's Razor: This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

So here's what we know: Taylor was successful before V-bracing. Maybe their tonality wasn't in favor in AGF, but their stuff was selling well to "the masses". So what's the theory with the least assumptions? That somehow Andy Powers felt the need to keep up the "innovation" stereotype that he threw the baby out with the bathwater and wanted to risk Taylor's profit/sales? That they wanted to make V-bracing to save so much more money in producing these guitars and are willing to risk turning people off by the new sound which would actually then reduce their profits?

Or that Powers actually thinks it sounds better, and thus took the company in a direction in which he believes they make a better sounding product? Whether you agree if it sounds better is totally your decision, but why do we feel the need to ascribe some nefarious motives to the move?

Do we really think Powers is hanging out in his house going "man, I hope everyone falls for this schtick I'm selling about V-bracing being better, so I can either save the company money on the small amount of brace material I'm saving each guitar, and keep our "we innovate" mantra alive"?

I can understand CEOs of Fortune 500 companies trying to squeeze every last dollar out of the process to increase shareholder profit, increase stock price, and thus line their own pockets. But remember that Taylor just became employee owned, so when Powers makes a decision like this, he's impacting the livelihood of his employees even more.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I don't see where changing the bracing makes any sense on any level unless Taylor's market share was dropping. If you have a thriving business selling A why would you quit and sell B? Obviously it isn't such a great idea that the world wants V bracing. Not even close. So the OP's question is a good one and I don't see where anyone has come close to a real answer here. I can't imagine selling a board on reinventing a company on pure high road explanations.

This is the problem I have had with this whole V-Bracing change at Taylor. From the outside of the company, it's hard to understand why they made this drastic change.

In my 51 years of experience in pretty much all aspects of design, marketing, sales, and manufacturing during my career, it's pretty much axiomatic that you don't change what is not broken. There are exceptions here and there, of course.

So what was broken?

I doubt that we'll find out here in this discussion.

- Glenn

[blakey]

Looking at the shape of the V brace it looks like it's maybe a compromise on sound to improve bridge stability. Maybe they're getting a lot of bellying issues.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I don't see where changing the bracing makes any sense on any level unless Taylor's market share was dropping. If you have a thriving business selling A why would you quit and sell B? Obviously it isn't such a great idea that the world wants V bracing. Not even close. So the OP's question is a good one and I don't see where anyone has come close to a real answer here. I can't imagine selling a board on reinventing a company on pure high road explanations.

Exactly: from a business perspective, an all-encompassing change like this would need to be a slam dunk in some respect or another (cost, efficiency, or obvious improvement to quality of product), or else why would you risk the existing business that is massively successful?

My guess is that Taylor/Andy believes that the V bracing is a clear/unarguable improvement that will catch on eventually, even though the customer bass is (at present) heavily split/in favor of the past. Maybe they figure that acoustic guitar players are conservative and slow adopters of change (which is true) and that they will get on board eventually.

The jury is still out on whether this will happen; however, most of the objections to V bracing are not sentimental but rather technical: specifically when it comes less low end tone and making a bright-sounding construction even brighter. This isn’t just a conservative preoccupation with the past that is going to go away over time as people get used to it. Maybe Taylor will attract a new/younger customer base that favors the V bracing tone, but from reading this and other forums, there’s no doubt that some of the historical customer base is permanently partial to the X bracing tone, and not likely to eventually come around any time soon.

As for me, I’m split and don’t strongly prefer one to the other, but my opinion depends on the specific model and tonewood pairing.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by blakey

Looking at the shape of the V brace it looks like it's maybe a compromise on sound to improve bridge stability. Maybe they're getting a lot of bellying issues.

While I haven’t heard of this issue plaguing Taylor guitars specifically, this would be a reason that makes sense. However, I would think that Taylor would state this rationale rather than citing advantages. Most consumers would be glad to know about a stability improvement like this.

For all that I know about Bob Taylor and the company he founded, including the people he has left to lead the company in his retirement, Taylor guitars is one of the most honorable and ethical businesses out there. I have personally experienced that myself during a warranty repair. The idea that “someone over there is pulling a fast one” does not align with those facts.

This leads me to conclude that Taylor guitars genuinely views V class bracing as an improvement of tone (as they have represented it). Tone is subjective to the listener, so not all customers will share Andy’s opinion. It proves that Taylor is willing to take the risk to innovate, even if some customers are not in favor of the change. Whether or not they made the right long-term business decision remains to be seen, but I admire their courage and commitment to innovate.

[619TF]

Originally Posted by PeteyPower16

Exactly: from a business perspective, an all-encompassing change like this would need to be a slam dunk in some respect or another (cost, efficiency, or obvious improvement to quality of product), or else why would you risk the existing business that is massively successful?

My guess is that Taylor/Andy believes that the V bracing is a clear/unarguable improvement that will catch on eventually, even though the customer bass is (at present) heavily split/in favor of the past. Maybe they figure that acoustic guitar players are conservative and slow adopters of change (which is true) and that they will get on board eventually.

The jury is still out on whether this will happen; however, most of the objections to V bracing are not sentimental but rather technical: specifically when it comes less low end tone and making a bright-sounding construction even brighter. This isn’t just a conservative preoccupation with the past that is going to go away over time as people get used to it. Maybe Taylor will attract a new/younger customer base that favors the V bracing tone, but from reading this and other forums, there’s no doubt that some of the historical customer base is permanently partial to the X bracing tone, and not likely to eventually come around any time soon.

As for me, I’m split and don’t strongly prefer one to the other, but my opinion depends on the specific model and tonewood pairing.

^^This. It was clearly done as a perceived improvement by Andy Powers. Any other suggestions are cynical speculation.

[LakewoodM32Fan]

I think the biggest issue here was communications, and how Powers handled the messaging. He alienated a sizable portion of people, admittedly many who were not in the Taylor fanbase, but even some who were, by putting out videos talking about how V-bracing solved a lot of X-bracing's problems (to his mind).

Many people took that personally, saying "oh so Powers is saying all my old X-braced guitars are crappy and he's got the solution!" I don't know Powers' mindset. If he did think that (I mean the part about intimating all X-braces were crappy) then he deserved what he got.

The reality is that he has plenty of X-braced guitars (and other braces) that he loves. But in the marketing push to trumpet V-bracing, they went a step too far.

Imagine if this had been the communications strategy:

First, start with the GPs only. That seems to be 1) what the bracing was first intended for, and 2) the model that more people seem to think are positively impacted by the v-bracing. He could have gone whole-hog in "we are trying to do X, Y, Z with this, it's a totally new design from Taylor, something we've never done, in a body size and shape that's new to us".

That likely would not have been off-putting to many of the people who took offense in the first place.

And then, slowly roll it out to the rest of the line, and phrase it as "building on the overwhelming success of our GP line, after many prototypes, we have decided to move in this direction for our other lines...while we love the X-bracing models we've built, we truly feel V-bracing takes it up another level".

While some would still have taken issue, I think this would have been a much smarter marketing strategy.

One thing you'll notice, Powers isn't out there still talking about how much V-bracing solves of X-s problems. All those videos (at least the ones I've seen) were early in the debut of V-bracing and after the backlash, I think he may have learned a bit of a lesson to tone down the rhetoric.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

I don't see where changing the bracing makes any sense on any level unless Taylor's market share was dropping. If you have a thriving business selling A why would you quit and sell B? Obviously it isn't such a great idea that the world wants V bracing. Not even close. So the OP's question is a good one and I don't see where anyone has come close to a real answer here. I can't imagine selling a board on reinventing a company on pure high road explanations.

This. The only people who can really answer the question are those who came up with, and implemented the idea at Taylor. They have talked extensively about it in various videos, so all those of us here in the forum who don't work for Taylor AND have the inside scoop, have to decide for ourselves whether we choose to believe what is being said or not.

I suspect there are those of us who don't really care as much about this as we do the sound and playability of the instruments themselves.

Tony

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by LakewoodM32Fan

I think the biggest issue here was communications, and how Powers handled the messaging. He alienated a sizable portion of people, admittedly many who were not in the Taylor fanbase, but even some who were, by putting out videos talking about how V-bracing solved a lot of X-bracing's problems (to his mind). ...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ... compliments of W. Shakespeare from Hamlet.

In some partial defense, I am guessing that Andy Powers' early videos were part of the organized Marketing Department's plan to sell V-bracing, though I'm sure he didn't mind touting his own ideas a little. I agree that V-bracing was oversold without due consideration of the reaction from all the players who appreciate their earlier X-braced guitars regardless of manufacture. As if everything you know about your guitars is now wrong.

I was also very put off by all this talk about supposedly improved intonation. To me all that really meant was fewer bass overtones.

Please note that I am the owner of two (earlier) Taylor guitars and I have owned three others. I read Bob Taylor's book. I was a fan.

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

...I suspect there are those of us who don't really care as much about this as we do the sound and playability of the instruments themselves.

Tony

Yes. Agreed.

- Glenn

[waterlooz]

Regardless, a Taylor sounds like a Taylor and always will. : )