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

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by Johnny_Boy

I hope not! As a product manager one would have a price and cost target, but the most important part is to design a product that the customers will actually want to buy! You will have a separate engineering and sourcing and manufacturing team that will drive the cost cutting throughout the life of the product cycle.

What I am trying to say is that Taylor would not have made this change purely to save cost (though I am sure that was one of the considerations). Too risky. There are other easier ways to optimize the cost on the existing X-brace based design, without having to redesign and retool for every model.

(I don't own a Taylor, but I did compare same model in X and V, and agree that V had less bass than X, but it has much cleaner sound (based on 1 SAMPLE!). Tough to pick one, but I would lean slightly over towards the V bracing. I understood what Bob said about not noticing squeaky door for years and suddenly when the noise disappears that you notice. I did notice the notes sound less muddy)

Sorry no, I wasn’t saying I drive cost cutting in my position, or at least I didn’t mean for it to come across that way. Just explaining that I personally see cost cutting as one of the main drivers of modern production. As it always has been and always will be.

[Paddy1951]

OK everybody. Break time. You have 1/2 hour to go play the guitar of your choosing.
Play what makes you happy. Hold the thought... this guitar is about making music.

Breath deep. Close your eyes. All will be right with the world- x braced, v braced, ladder braced....

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

OK everybody. Break time. You have 1/2 hour to go play the guitar of your choosing.
Play what makes you happy. Hold the thought... this guitar is about making music.

Breath deep. Close your eyes. All will be right with the world- x braced, v braced, ladder braced....

Ok I’m back. Still love my 717 lol, as I’m sure everyone loves their faves!!!

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

To be fair...I feel the same way...with slightly different reasons, but still for the most part the same...about Larrivee and how they changed from the truly amazing solo luthier/small staff boutique shop of staggeringly talented luthiers...to Jean's full credit...to a small/medium factory. Still very talented craftsman...though not like the truly stellar luthier teams that Jean developed from the 80's to the early 2000's...and still making very fine guitars...but...to me...when you look at the Larrivee's from the 1970's though the late 90's/early 2000's as compared to the Larrivee guitars made today, the changes in look and feel are striking, and for me...not for the better. But again...that is just me, and I know most people feel the opposite.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

Just my humble thoughts from a once dedicated Martin man: I'll put my new Larrivee D-40M ($1450) up against any mahogany dreadnought for tone and quality construction. I'm completely satisfied with this guitar.

As for Taylor guitars, whether X-Braced or V-Braced, I consider the Taylors of recent years to be the best ever made by the company for tone and consistent quality construction.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

If you look at how Taylor has evolved throughout the last 7 or 8 years, it seems to me...again my opinion...that every move they are making is geared to production efficiency and thus cost/profit efficiency. They market it all very well, very savvy, very clever...but...at the root...it looks, smells, and feels to me like production decisions for design/production/cost efficiency.

Just to be clear, I'm not a defender of Taylor. They don't have my preferred tone, and I'm no fan of their marketing strategy for V bracing. When would you say that Taylor last made changes to their upper tier models to improve the guitar? I'm not well versed in Taylor history, but the routing of the edges of the tops for more responsiveness seems like an extra step to set apart their more expensive models.

Originally Posted by tadol

No - but when people believe strongly that these kinds of changes are purely the effort to make a better instrument, no point in wasting alot of pixels -

Does it have to be an either/or situation? Again, my own view is that Andy Powers went through a lot of linguistic contortions in an attempt to justify the switch to V bracing, but is Taylor really so "bottom line" oriented that they didn't think the V bracing was an improvement to at least some ears, but made an attempt to sell it as such. If so, there must have been some interesting boardroom discussions when they decided to make this gamble.

I'm cynical enough to buy that, but it still seems like a heck of a gamble with the Taylor reputation.

[Simon Fay]

I build guitars for a living and I've never understood the "cost cutting" argument as the primary cause for V-bracing. I doubt anyone that builds instruments or is involved in the lutherie industry would buy into that argument either. IMO, Taylor did this to simply separate their guitars from everybody else and because they genuinely like the direction they are heading with the V-bracing.

To clarify, I also don't see Taylor or any major mfg adding labor or material cost to their instruments either without raising prices. You generally get what you pay for but with mass produced guitars, the base models often sound just as good as more expensive models -- the money doesn't get you "better" tone. Unique product lines like the Martin Authentics are a different matter and generally, improvements in tone will come from going from mass produced products to small shop mfgs like Santa Cruz, Collings, etc ...

Like many, I was disappointed in Taylor's marketing strategy and lost some degree of respect for the company. However, I recognized that marketing tends to build hype and overstate things so I took what they said with a grain of salt.

For the OP and anyone wishing to really understand how instruments function, a lot of research has been done and there are several great books on the subject. My personal favorites are those written by Trevor Gore. One of the primary ways soundboard bracing affects tone is by how it shapes modes of vibration. Google Chladni patterns for guitar.

[printer2]

The OP's theory on the brace acting as a beam thereby producing a purer tone (simplification) makes little sense if you think of the different frequencies the top produces. As recommended, a reading of the books by Gore and Gillet might be in order. Also in relation to the violin family, the guitar acts differently as it does not have a soundpost tying the top and back together.

[jazzer44]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

For the OP and anyone wishing to really understand how instruments function, a lot of research has been done and there are several great books on the subject. My personal favorites are those written by Trevor Gore. One of the primary ways soundboard bracing affects tone is by how it shapes modes of vibration. Google Chladni patterns for guitar.

Thanks very much Simon. I've read studies using Chladni patterns only for violin but not guitar. I think they go back to late 1700s(?) It would indeed be interesting to see a Chladni pattern modal comparison between V and X bracings, and also for center beam experimenting.

[jazzer44]

Originally Posted by printer2

The OP's theory on the brace acting as a beam thereby producing a purer tone (simplification) makes little sense if you think of the different frequencies the top produces. As recommended, a reading of the books by Gore and Gillet might be in order. Also in relation to the violin family, the guitar acts differently as it does not have a soundpost tying the top and back together.

Printer2, the OP presents empirical evidence not a theory. It was stumbled upon by accident about a year ago after having installed a beam inside an old double bass and found this remarkable difference in sound. The difference is basically same as everything Taylor says about their V-class bracing. Can be measured with tuning meter if your ear can't hear it.
I posted my findings about center beam because of the similarities to V class as claimed by Taylor. My findings imply that virtually any bracing that's more inline with strings (and mass more uniform with neck) than X bracing will have evener tones, a truer ring, better intonation at every position. It shows there's not some magic unique to Taylor's unique bracing design. The center beam experiment basically helps bridge a gap in our understanding of string vibration, intonation, and noise between acoustic and hard body electric guitars which should be beneficial to the guitar maker.

I haven't tried a Taylor V'class yet, only read the company promo, and I play archtop so don't care about Taylor or Martin sounds. But I did acquire an old Gibson SJ flattop (totally player grade) and re-installed the bracing like V-class. While it sounded great before, that swirl sound was not good for quick jabs and fills if trying fit in with a bunch of scary good musicians. And since individual notes didn't intonate well jazz style chording sounded more out of tune than what I'm used to hearing from an archtop. After V style bracing installed this Gibson guitar seemed to keep its timbre while overcoming its intonation problems. Now the guitar works in situations it didn't before. I did not notice a loss in bass response in this one single sample.
For the Chirps, I did not install the V bracing as a cost saving measure; the difference in cost for X or V brace installation in my shop is pennies at most.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by jazzer44

Printer2, the OP presents empirical evidence not a theory....

...The center beam experiment basically helps bridge a gap in our understanding of string vibration, intonation, and noise between acoustic and hard body electric guitars which should be beneficial to the guitar maker...

'helps bridges the gap in our understanding', I am sure many a luthier over the past 100 years would have been proud to achieve that.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by 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.

What an interesting read. I get it entirely. I think the result of V bracing is that it tends to release some of the dampening effect, allowing more the sympathtic vibrations/resulant harmonics that the strings produce. The "V", as you indicate, cheats the latitudinal axis, and if your theory is correct, provides more relative mass along the longitudinal axis. Adding or removing mass in key places on a musical instrument can have a great bearing on waver resistance and tonal nodes. Brass players mess with that stuff regularly, and have found that with metal it takes very little to affect the resistance and tone of the instrument significantly. Obviously wood is different from what's needed to affect tone and response, but the principle remains the same.

[jazzer44]

Sharing a pic of one of 2 or 3 guitars that Stradivarius made. Looks like its more stick shaped - not as wide as contemporary flat tops. It might be elongated like that in order to help achieve a cleaner sound.



I heard somewhere that one of his guitars had about a 28" scale length. This one if drawn to scale has 25.5" scale and a lower bout of about 10"

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by jazzer44

Sharing a pic of one of 2 or 3 guitars that Stradivarius made. Looks like its more stick shaped - not as wide as contemporary flat tops. It might be elongated like that in order to help achieve a cleaner sound.



I heard somewhere that one of his guitars had about a 28" scale length. This one if drawn to scale has 25.5" scale and a lower bout of about 10"

Wow, that’s an incredibly beautiful instrument; I guess by 1700 he as an Italian Cremonese he was following patterns set by the Spanish vihuela de mano going back two centuries. Probably fairly quiet instruments with plucked gut strings.

[jazzer44]

Actually Stradivari and the other masters were not known for making quiet instruments, quite the opposite really. I'm sure this guitar is well tuned and quite loud for its size.

[DesertTwang]

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

I'm not questioning these reasons, but I do have to say that when I tried out the Grand Pacific at a bluegrass festival a couple of months ago where Taylor had a booth, it was the first time ever that I thought, "yup, if I was in the market for a dreadnaught right now, this would be a very serious consideration."

Until then, every Taylor I've played left me cold -- with the exception of the GS Mini, which I like as a camping and travel guitar and therefore doesn't have to meet super-high standards.

So I dunno. I was fully expecting to be underwhelmed by the Grand Pacific because it's been hyped so much. My natural reaction to anything being hyped is to ramp up my expectations so high that the product in question has to really, really impress me.

And the GP did. I remember thinking, "Dang, this is the first Taylor that actually sounds close to that Martin growl that I like so much."