#136
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I choose not to. My Taylor guitars work too well for me to think they are now obsolete. I have been around the block enough to know that I could buy a Taylor with this new bracing and play it at a gig and the audience would hear no difference, and there is a good chance my friend who handles the sound might say "That guitar's sound is too thin" or "It doesn't sound as good as that old Taylor you play" so it really is a crap shoot with things like this, IMO. Buy it if YOU like it and sounds great to YOU. Which is always the way to go. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
My question based on what I have read from the last few posts is pretty simple.
Is what Powers is saying here is that the bracing stability he has designed more effective to the guitar staying in tune due to atmospheric variations that affect other forms of bracing in a negative way thus causing intonation issues. An easy way to express this would be if my "B" string goes slightly flat when there are temperature and humidity changes, with his system, that won't happen or at least not as significantly. Indulge me on this and allow me to assume that is what he is saying. We are now in a place where fantasy meets fact. It would appear to me that there is no true scientific method to prove or disprove what he claims with all the variables present. We all know what those variables are as no two guitars are perfectly identical. If his intonation claim is to be believed, it would seem scientific proof by testing would have to be done and documented. It would be relatively easy to escape criticism of this claim by introducing the variables if put to the test. I'm not suggesting there is anything here that is intentionally misleading. What I lean toward is an overly enthusiastic and perhaps unrealistic claim that probably should have been examined more closely before it was used in a marketing pitch. These things happen all the time. Unless someone calls it out, it usually goes unchallenged. It isn't generally in a competitors best interest to do that...has a tendency to make the competitor look small and childish. I guess time will tell us all.
__________________
Nothing bothers me unless I let it. Martin D18 Gibson J45 Gibson J15 Fender Copperburst Telecaster Squier CV 50 Stratocaster Squier CV 50 Telecaster |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
I'll admit that the hype was a bit much. I'm fine with Taylor trying new things. I'm holding off on a hard opinion on the new bracing until I hear one in person.
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for the analogy of the top being like an equalizer, never thought of it before, but a great and simple explanation that even none guitar geeks could understand.
__________________
Steve |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And on the bracing I am not discounting it yet. If you look at the X brace top the two main braces do allow the string's energy to try and move these braces and the top they are attached to. With the 'new' brace profile the transverse brace below the soundhole appears that it would limit the movement of the top to below this brace. In the low frequencies the lower bout might just act as a better loudspeaker than with the X brace. On the better intonation I would think if the energy is moving the whole top in and out more evenly then the bridge would have a lower movement from resting position. If this were the case the higher frequencies would be modulated less by the bass excursions. I think the relief rout in the top plays a great function here and the bracing as it is shown is just one way to keep the top moving as one whole. The bracing is thickest under the bridge and tapers to the edges. The side braces do the same function but allows the bridge to rock back and forth allowing transverse resonances to add to the mix. It would be interesting if someone did a spectrum analyses of the top as well as Chladni patterns. I am guessing they tried to flatten out the resonances getting a more even sound. Intonation? Maybe it makes it better.
__________________
Fred Last edited by Acousticado; 01-27-2018 at 01:45 PM. Reason: Edited quote |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
I'm a physicist too, a working professional one even, piled high and deep with a very long publication list. Truth is, and I'm sure you've seen this too, most people don't communicate in physics terminology according to physics rules of clarity and evidence, unless they are two physicists talking to each other about physics. Music is not about physics, and neither is guitar making, it's about making pleasing sounds, with an emphasis on the completely subjective word "pleasing".
I don't know the details of this "V-Class bracing", but I do know that a guitar is a coupled resonator. You have your strings, but you have your top too, and the vibrational modes of the top have their own frequency distribution. You can tune these modes with bracing, and luthiers can say much more about how this is done than I can, but software and tap tuning are two tools people use to optimize this part of the coupling equation. So, I can completely get that different bracing affects the top resonances, and apparently Taylor is doing something different and claiming it's an improvement. Only players and listeners will be able to judge that, and we probably won't ever get a full physics explanation, which is fine with me.
__________________
'17 Tonedevil S-18 harp guitar '16 Tonedevil S-12 harp guitar '79 Fender Stratocaster hardtail with righteous new Warmoth neck '82 Fender Musicmaster bass '15 Breedlove Premier OF mandolin Marshall JVM210c amp plus a bunch of stompboxes and misc. gear |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Omg that was great! I lost it when his apprentice started to bathe the wood
__________________
1999 Taylor 912c 2004 Taylor XXX MC 1995 Taylor 512c 1996 Taylor 422k 2016 Taylor GS mini Koa 1971 Guild Mark III Epiphone EL-00VS Ovation 2778AX-NEB Yamaha FG 700s |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
I think I'm with him on the chaos of tones thing because I've heard it myself in some guitars. Especially when strummed. I think where he whent off track was using the term intonation. I'm interested to play one but what I think we're going to hear is a very clean and well-balanced guitar. Now the question is how pleasing that will be. Looking forward to playing one to see.
__________________
'59 Gibson J-45 "Spot" '21 Gibson LG-2 - 50's Reissue '94 Taylor 710 '18 Martin 000-17E "Willie" ‘23 Taylor AD12e-SB '22 Taylor GTe Blacktop '15 Martin 000X1AE https://pandora.app.link/ysqc6ey22hb Last edited by Goat Mick; 01-27-2018 at 11:24 AM. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So getting back you your question: I fail to see how an equaliser (or bracing for that matter) could make a short stringed upright piano sound more like a long-stringed grand piano. It cannot be done. So I must be missing your point. I do know that short stringed pianos suffer from distorted harmonics because of the stiffness of the strings. 'Distorted' means the overtones are not perfect multiples of the fundamental frequency. This makes them sound less pleasing in the ears of most people. Short stringed pianos should have lighter (more flexible) strings in order to reduce this effect, which would reduce their volume to an unacceptable level. Hence the compromise. Long stringed pianos require more tension to get the strings at concert pitch, which reduces the bad effects of stiffness, which makes them sound better. Now I can imagine that by adjusting the bracing of a guitar top you can also adjust its harmonics so that they provide a more pleasing tap tone. This is akin to shaping a church bell in order to improve its sound. Maybe this is what Andy means. However, this is what guitar builders have done for over a hundred years when they tap tuned their tops while shaving off the braces. Moreover, this approach only changes the tone of the top when it is freely vibrating by itself. No matter the tap tone of the top, it cannot correct a poor intonation of the string signal driving it. Just like an equaliser cannot do it either. So in my opinion it seems like Andy tries to make us believe more than he understands. But maybe I am the one who does not understand things here, in which case I hope someone can help me out.
__________________
Last edited by Acousticado; 01-27-2018 at 01:49 PM. Reason: Edited quote and parts of response...rule #1 |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You guys...the bracing on the top does NOT act like a dam, and cut off the sound vibrations from moving from one area of the guitar top to another. The sound vibrations move very freely throughout the whole area of the top, and through the braces, and whatever other structural mass is there. Now what the braces DO effect, but just in part, is how much a given area of a top is free to vibrate at it's maximum, and what sound frequencies that area of the top is best able to vibrate at/reproduce...but...that is also dependent on the actual physical acoustic response quality of the raw top plate...is it acoustically live and dynamically responsive, the size and shape of the top, the area of the top, such as above the sound hole/upper bout, around the bridge/lower bout, out at the edges etc, the stiffness of the top by itself and the ALSO in combination with the braces attached, and how the guitar maker thinned and shaped the top plate and the braces to target a tone and dynamic response. If you go over to Peghead Nation, and listen to Andy talk about the V Class Bracing, I think he kind of lets the cat out of the bag...so to speak...about what it really does, in regards to intonation, which is that the new bracing pattern helps to cancel out inharmoic or wolf tones at the upper registers of the fingerboard. This is what he means, I think, when he talks about the tonal frequencies "fighting each other" or the "friction" that occurs between the frequencies, and how the V Class bracing seems to calm those issues down. And it does seem to do that, to a fairly effective degree, based on the sound clips available. It also dramatically changes the tonal and dynamic response character of the V Class Taylor's compared to his "Re-voiced" models of the past few years. Like printer2 says, he just created a different bracing pattern that created a different multiband EQ pattern, that created an overarching different tonal/response character, and one of the things it did was to smooth out those interactions between the root note, and those pesky wolf tones. It is also just a variation of a basic bracing pattern that was developed and used many years ago. Andy's version may be better, and more effective...time will tell...but it is hardly ground breaking original. A VERY nice design, and VERY VERY well executed, but not a major innovation. duff Be A Player...Not A Polisher |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for the 'improved' intonation aspect being touted, I fail to see how a bracing pattern is going to affect scale length, nut and saddle accuracy and string gauge-all of which are critical to achieving, as near as possible given the compromise of tempered tuning, good intonation. I want to know how this miracle of Taylor's works.
__________________
Faith Mars FRMG Faith Neptune FKN Epiphone Masterbilt Texan Last edited by Acousticado; 01-27-2018 at 01:50 PM. Reason: Edited quote |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
To me this would be WAY more of a shot at Martin than Taylor.
They're the ones that have been around over a hundred years and have the old craftsman guitar making in their history. As far as I know Taylor has never sold $100,000 acoustics like Martin's Authentic Series guitars. Definitely a stab at Martin cork sniffing. Go ahead and laugh Martin fan boys
__________________
'49 Martin A Style Mandolin '76 S.L. Mossman Great Plains '78 Gibson Gospel '81 Martin 7-28 7/8 D-28 '03 Taylor Jumbo Custom '04 Ramirez 1-E Classical '09 Breedlove Roots OM/SR acoustic/electric ‘15 Martin Centennial DC - 28E Last edited by Texsunburst59; 01-27-2018 at 12:37 PM. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Alright, why can't I see whatever is posted in the OP?
__________________
Too many guitars and a couple of banjos |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Well I can't see the video in the OP, but the song is OP's signature is awesome.
__________________
Too many guitars and a couple of banjos |