back bracing, thick, thin, short or tall?

[hat]

My 1954 Gibson has very thin, tall back bracing. I notice a lot of guitars today use thicker braces, and sometimes a mix of taller and shorter but thicker braces. I like to think of the back as a vibrating surface much as the top is, and not just reflective. How much 'playing around' have you done with back bracing, and did it pan out, or was it a bust?

[SteveS]

I agree and make backs that will move. That is mostly useless if the player holds the guitar against himself while playing.

[arie]

double x brace, tapered, 5/8" to 3/4" tall x 7/32" to 5/16" wide (depending upon the size of the guitar) mahogany, active back. as stated though it only works if a player can play with the back not touching themselves.

the back is a lot of real estate, why not put it to work?

[dekutree64]

Here's a recent thread about this http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=411650

Tall and thin if you want lighter weight, short and fat if you want heavier. You can adjust the stiffness to be the same either way. I've been moving toward fat lately to provide more glue area because it should theoretically allow the guitar to survive in higher humidity relative to the % it was braced at, which allows me to brace in lower humidity, which increases the overall range the guitar will tolerate.

But on the one I mentioned in that other thread, I used a gouge to carve them to a sort of Eiffel tower profile. Fat at the base, narrower at the top. Lightweight and lots of glue area at the same time. I haven't closed up the box yet though.

[Alan Carruth]

I've experimented a lot with back bracing over the years. Lately I've gone to 'ladder' bracing, with the upper two taller and narrower, and the lower two low and wide. Yup, just like Martin (sorta). Each scheme has it's own sound.