Bracing: Martin vs Gibson

[HenrySu]

Martin left, Gibson right.
Any thoughts?


https://www.instagram.com/p/B-0KbQDJ...d=px1sdeng5p7n

[M19]

Surprisingly similar? Unsurprisingly similar?

[hubcapsc]

What's with the weirdo tabs on the Martin top? Some kinda jig
tabs used during the build process?

-Mike

[Kevin G String]

Yeah, jig location tabs Mike.

[Beakybird]

Very educational. Thanks.

[mercy]

The bracing of the Martin is slightly lighter in weight as they are "carved" and the Gibsons arent. Otherwise the pattern looks the same

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by HenrySu

Any thoughts?

What sort of "thoughts" are you looking for?

Originally Posted by mercy

The bracing of the Martin is slightly lighter in weight as they are "carved" and the Gibsons arent. Otherwise the pattern looks the same

There are a number of differences between them. One difference is that the upper portion of the Gibson X braces are tapered in height making them "carved" more than the Martin's, who's are only scalloped at the ends of the upper bout.

Originally Posted by Beakybird

Very educational. Thanks.

What did you learn from comparing the two?

[loco gringo]

Hmm. Those tabs would be useful for hanging the guitar on the wall. Maybe they could also be used for strap attachments. They would almost certainly need to be cocobolo, though, for ultimate tone.

I like them.

[brencat]

Martin bracing much more heavily scalloped, and the tone bars are parallel whereas on the Gibson they are not. Positioning is different too.

[Beakybird]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

What did you learn from comparing the two?

I learned that the bracing is very similar, and the differences in sound in the final product would probably be found elsewhere.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Beakybird

I learned that the bracing is very similar, and the differences in sound in the final product would probably be found elsewhere.

"The devil is in the details."

At first glance, the two look similar. With closer examination, there are many differences, too many for me to list here.

Here are a few of the more significant differences:

1. The Gibson X brace is closer to the sound hole. The usual target is to have the legs of the X pass through the ends of the bridge. "Raising" the X brace, while still having its legs pass under the ends of the bridge changes the angle of the X, "opening" the lower bout more. The "opening" of the X brace in the lower bout changes what the other lower bout braces do. This affects sound. With the X close the sound hole, the small horizontal brace beneath the sound hole is omitted. It's being omitted likely makes no real difference.

2. The Gibson bridge plate is smaller and of slab cut wood with a grain not oriented along the length of the plate. A poor wood choice.

3. As previously mentioned, the Gibson upper arms of the X brace are tapered, reducing stiffness in the upper bout/soundhole area. That can affect sound as well as longevity.

[ataylor]

It’s amazing that there are so many variations on this classic design from different brands and builders — all with subtle differences in silhouette curves, bridge placement, bracing subtleties, and bridge/soundhole placement.

Cool photo and comparison — thanks for sharing!

[mercy]

Its amazing to me also. Almost all builders use the Martin x brace idea but the small variations produce such different sounds. Compare Goodall with Gibson for example. Both use the Martin X brace but they sound so different.

[flatfinger]

Gibson doesn’t have a bridge across the lap joint of the X-brace pieces.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Beakybird

I learned that the bracing is very similar, and the differences in sound in the final product would probably be found elsewhere.

I don't think they are really that similar. Looks can be deceiving. Small differences in thickness or tapering can make all the difference in the final tone.