Understanding Taylor V-Class bracing, centre beams, broom stick analysis

[jazzer44]

Sharing my findings
I installed a large centre beam (heavy like a 2x4) between the neck and tail blocks inside an old double bass and found a remarkable difference in sound. Tried various beams and dowels in both guitars and violin family instruments wedged in between neck and tail blocks and had a bit of a eurika moment. The results are similar to what Taylor touts with its V-class bracing system. A tuning meter shows the needle settles in place much quicker for any note up and down the fretboard. Here's my viewpoint as to why.

Recall Les Paul's steel rail experiment (string had "endless ring") and his log guitar (first electric guitar) back in the 1930s. This is same idea although LP admitted his experiments focused on electric guitar and I'm applying it to acoustic guitar - kind of a regression analysis.



Link to pic of Les Paul's "log guitar"
https://www.lespaulfoundation.org/wa...les-pauls-log/


The string vibrating on a steel rail rings for a long time and I want to say that the string vibrates truer because of the dense even mass onto which it's suspended. The centre beam inside my bass affects the string vibration in the same manner, making it easier to intonate individual notes and overall results much the same as what Taylor claims with its new bracing. If you look at Taylor's V-class notice the top bracing is more longitudinal (more mass in line with the strings) that's why you get the truer ring. Archtop guitars are similar having 2 longitudinal tone bars (while the "V" opens at the opposite end) and archtop players have been enjoying clean sound for over 100 years now. (In our jazz duo, we immediately noticed cleaner overall sound when we changed from using archtop & flat top (x braced) to both of us playing archtops.)
Violin family instruments are similar having one tone bar on bass side inline with strings and also the top & back plates are thicker longitudinally towards the middle. This design around for well over 300 years now. The bass side of the bridge sits on the bass bar, the treble side sits just in front of a sound post. It would be fun to try the X brace experiment on a concert violinist by taking that bass bar and angling it towards the treble side of the instrument like the X brace does. Fundamentally that just seems wrong. I'll bet the conflicting frequencies would drive the violinist nuts.
That's why your tuning meter shows individual notes on your thru-neck electric guitar lock in quicker, but your X braced flat top acoustic shows the needle bounces around.
So I think that generally any longitudinal style bracing system like V-class, center block design like ES-335, centre beams like on my bass, and also thru-neck and hard body guitars minimize conflicting frequencies making it sound cleaner overall and easier for singer to find notes.
I don't think it makes the instrument any louder. However Taylor guitars may be louder because of the groove cut along the outside edges inside of top plate. This leaves the wood very thin and more flexible at the edges, but also Taylor's poly finish is extremely strong, so my opinion is that the finish supplies the added strength to keep the top from ripping along the groove. Perhaps that's why they call it a bracing "system" because perhaps for the first time in history, the finish itself is part of the bracing.

So for the luthier who is trying to figure out why a guitar isn't sounding right, if it has too many conflicting frequencies (what I call "swirl" sound) a useful shop tool may be the old broom stick. Its easy enough to put inside a double bass - through the tail pin hole (make it about same size as the probes which Martians use on us Earthlings). For guitars you can fit a very dense but much smaller diameter dowel through the end pin hole. Otherwise you have to open the body or install a beam in 2 stages.

This knowledge may be useful in build designs. eg. try a bigger heavier chunk of hardwood over the centre seam inside the back which would add longitudinal mass, and have it cut through the latitudinal braces not pieced in between.

I could see this as a starting point for all kinds mathematical formulas which analyse string vibration on a guitar.

[BoneNut74]

Thank you for this very interesting analysis! Intuitively, I have been thinking along the same lines, and believe this is what Andy Powers is talking about with regard to better intonation on the V-class braced models. I also think this explains why the volume of my GP 517 is more uniform up and down the neck than my Martin or my Gibson. As I have mentioned in earlier posts here, I still very much love my x-braced acoustics, but the GP models offer something different, and that difference is also very, very pleasing to my ear.

[mcduffnw]

jazzer44

Interesting and very thorough analysis...but...a number of us, including me, here on the AGF think that Taylor's implementation of V-Class bracing had much MUCH more to do with guitar production/assembly cost efficiency/savings than it did tonal improvement or enhancement.

I think the tonal changes were a great "shiny object" marketing/selling point for them, but really a secondary...very very secondary...matter of importance in the whole decision to implement the V-Class system.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[martingitdave]

I agree with your theory. Many of us on AGF believe that the Taylor V brace is effectively bridging the gap between the fundamentals of the electric guitar and the traditional flattop. It's not much different that the concept of the arch-top guitar. Essentially, by increasing the stiffness along the axis of the strings, you make the fundamental frequency more prominent and more in-tune sounding up and down the neck, like an electric guitar. What I find less enjoyable is the reduction of low end resonance, overtones and undertones which I associate with flattop guitars. It's not that one is better or worse, but different. The trick with V brace was that Taylor found the inflection point where "in-tuneness" starts and resonance drops off and placed the bracing to try and get the best of both worlds. To that end, they did a good job, and reduced manufacturing costs as an added bonus. This new sound evidently appeals to a lot of players looking for an alternative to a traditional flattop design. And, since Taylor makes an excellent looking and feeling instrument with nice lightweight electronics, I see why they are popular. Some of us are a little jaded/jealous about the changes because we would love to play Taylors for the quality and features, but were hoping for something that sounded more traditional, not less. C'est la vie.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

... It's not much different that the concept of the arch-top guitar.

I'm not going to go very far down that rabbit hole, but there is relatively little similarity between a "flat top" guitar and an arch top guitar. Forces are different, plate thicknesses are different, plate contours (arching) are different, sound hole size, shape and positions are different, attachment of strings is different...

What is most similar is the neck, frets, number of strings and tuning. Beyond that, there is more that is different than there is in common.

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I'm not going to go very far down that rabbit hole, but there is relatively little similarity between a "flat top" guitar and an arch top guitar. Forces are different, plate thicknesses are different, plate contours (arching) are different, sound hole size, shape and positions are different, attachment of strings is different...

What is most similar is the neck, frets, number of strings and tuning. Beyond that, there is more that is different than there is in common.

:-) No doubt. What I was suggesting is that the V brace leads to a result which is not dissimilar to an arch top guitar.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Some of us are a little jaded/jealous about the changes because we would love to play Taylors for the quality and features, but were hoping for something that sounded more traditional, not less. C'est la vie.

I had to watch Tony Polecastro's interview with Andy Powers in order to fully grasp and understand V Bracing. It makes total sense and your post is spot on. I for one certainly enjoy the things that V Bracing adds, but I am MOST impressed with the balance and volume/thickness of the high B and E strings. I can get just as much volume and fortitude out of the high notes without the thin/brittle sound that playing up the neck can sometimes bring with a Martin or Taylor in the traditional realm.

I will also say that I find that my 717 is extremely traditional sounding and sounds like I think that a vintage guitar would in my head. It's extremely difficult for me to play my D-18 and enjoy it after playing the Taylor. The 717 is spoiling me, and that may not be a good thing in the end because it is causing me anguish on whether or not I want to go all in and pair my 717 with a 517. I love the neck, sound, playability, heck, I like EVERYTHING about the 717 so much that I'm almost willing to play two Grand Pacifics and make it "my sound."

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue

I had to watch Tony Polecastro's interview with Andy Powers in order to fully grasp and understand V Bracing. It makes total sense and your post is spot on. I for one certainly enjoy the things that V Bracing adds, but I am MOST impressed with the balance and volume/thickness of the high B and E strings. I can get just as much volume and fortitude out of the high notes without the thin/brittle sound that playing up the neck can sometimes bring with a Martin or Taylor in the traditional realm.

I will also say that I find that my 717 is extremely traditional sounding and sounds like I think that a vintage guitar would in my head. It's extremely difficult for me to play my D-18 and enjoy it after playing the Taylor. The 717 is spoiling me, and that may not be a good thing in the end because it is causing me anguish on whether or not I want to go all in and pair my 717 with a 517. I love the neck, sound, playability, heck, I like EVERYTHING about the 717 so much that I'm almost willing to play two Grand Pacifics and make it "my sound."

Shades,

My understanding is that the GPs were designed specifically to take the V brace and yet try to get a more traditional sound from it. Before they were released I might have been one of a few people who got to try the prototypes. I was impressed by the differences, and the quality, but it still wasn't a Martin to my ears. Recognizing that wasn't what they were going for, I was just disappointed. The bottom line is that they are nice guitars with a different appeal. And, they are making V brace guitars that sound Taylor-esque and Traditional-esque. Neither are my cup of tea, but I'm not the be all end all in guitar opinions. I'm just one guy who likes the Martin tone. Heck, I even had time bonding with Huss and Dalton and Collings which are arguable nearly the same as Martin with some modern improvements. Alas, I tried different guitars but I'm stuck with one sound in my head that I like.

[chistrummer]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

jazzer44

Interesting and very thorough analysis...but...a number of us, including me, here on the AGF think that Taylor's implementation of V-Class bracing had much MUCH more to do with guitar production/assembly cost efficiency/savings than it did tonal improvement or enhancement.

I think the tonal changes were a great "shiny object" marketing/selling point for them, but really a secondary...very very secondary...matter of importance in the whole decision to implement the V-Class system.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

Do any of you have any proof of this "guitar production/assembly cost efficiency/savings" due to V class vs X bracing? I'd be interested to hear about it.

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Shades,



My understanding is that the GPs were designed specifically to take the V brace and yet try to get a more traditional sound from it. Before they were released I might have been one of a few people who got to try the prototypes. I was impressed by the differences, and the quality, but it still wasn't a Martin to my ears. Recognizing that wasn't what they were going for, I was just disappointed. The bottom line is that they are nice guitars with a different appeal. And, they are making V brace guitars that sound Taylor-esque and Traditional-esque. Neither are my cup of tea, but I'm not the be all end all in guitar opinions. I'm just one guy who likes the Martin tone. Heck, I even had time bonding with Huss and Dalton and Collings which are arguable nearly the same as Martin with some modern improvements. Alas, I tried different guitars but I'm stuck with one sound in my head that I like.

Hey awesome, no problem! I didn’t intend to make my post seem...condescending? Sure hope not!

What I am trying to convey is that I’m also a lover of the Martin sound, but I may have just discovered something that I like better than anything else I’ve played so far!

[redir]

When I build a flat top steel string guitar conflicting sounds and swirl is what I go for.

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by redir

When I build a flat top steel string guitar conflicting sounds and swirl is what I go for.

Bingo! That's my take. If I want "clean" fundamental tones, I'll play a new Taylor V brace or an electric. Not better or worse, just different.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by redir

When I build a flat top steel string guitar conflicting sounds and swirl is what I go for.

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Bingo! That's my take. If I want "clean" fundamental tones, I'll play a new Taylor V brace or an electric. Not better or worse, just different.

Yep, I view flat top steel string guitars as something of a folk instrument...so I like idiosyncrasies. Those “conflicting sounds and swirls” that give a guitar character rather than notes so “clean” they sound clinical and sap the soul from the tone.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by chistrummer

Do any of you have any proof of this "guitar production/assembly cost efficiency/savings" due to V class vs X bracing? I'd be interested to hear about it.

Have to admit I'm curious about the story behind this assertion. I recall that someone recently posted that the original design of the V brace is not what actually went into mass production -- is this related?

[jazzer44]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

jazzer44

Interesting and very thorough analysis...but...a number of us, including me, here on the AGF think that Taylor's implementation of V-Class bracing had much MUCH more to do with guitar production/assembly cost efficiency/savings than it did tonal improvement or enhancement.

I think the tonal changes were a great "shiny object" marketing/selling point for them, but really a secondary...very very secondary...matter of importance in the whole decision to implement the V-Class system.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

How may of you think that?
Usually companies don't put $millions in marketing for slight changes in production/assembly process. In Taylor's case it would be too risky to roll-out on the highest end models anyway.
So I have the same question. Has Taylor actually announced that they are saving money somehow? Because looks like the new bracing system has few extra steps - one being to cut the groove at edges, two is the big belly patch (maybe that was there before I don't know), and three is the V braces need to be cut around the belly patch. Three extra steps is significant in the world of process engineering and production costing.
But if indeed the production costs are somehow lower, even after all the re-tooling, R&D etc., I can't see that offset enough to justify the cost of such a pricey & risky advertising campaign. Just doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the improvement is significant enough for Taylor to risk company reputation going head-on with X brace industry giants Martin, Gibson etc. and they're big enough to do it. Small luthier couldn't pull something like this off.