Scalloped vs Non-Scalloped

[Jambi]

If scalloped braces make a guitar louder and more responsive with deeper lows, why does any guitar luthier/ manufacturer still do non-scalloped?

[SFCRetired]

Sometimes louder is not better. Like the HD versus the D 28. Some people like Blue Grass players want the loudness that comes from scalloped bracing while other people who play other types of music don't want the extra volume. (although many if not most Blue Grass players play a D18 and D28) And it also comes down to cost, scalloped bracing requires more labor and extra work.

My D16 has scalloped bracing and is louder than my DM without scalloped. But sometimes I don't want that extra volume, especially if I plug the DM in.

If I could order my own guitar I would however order a DM built with the bracing of a D16. I think that would be a perfect guitar for me.

[rokdog49]

If scalloped braces make a guitar louder and more responsive with deeper lows, why does any guitar luthier/ manufacturer still do non-scalloped?

Maybe because people like that tone...just guessin'

[champ0608]

Martin began to find in the early 40s they were beginning to have a lot of warranty issues, since the light scalloped bracing wasn't holding up to steel strings. And so the scalloped, became tapered, became straight.

[Jambi]

Originally Posted by champ0608

Martin began to find in the early 40s they were beginning to have a lot of warranty issues, since the light scalloped bracing wasn't holding up to steel strings. And so the scalloped, became tapered, became straight.

Interesting! I was wondering about strength issues, being that you are whittling away at structural support. So for heavier gauge strings you'd want un-scalloped?

[champ0608]

Originally Posted by Jambi

Interesting! I was wondering about strength issues, being that you are whittling away at structural support. So for heavier gauge strings you'd want un-scalloped?

My understanding is back in those days they were using very heavy strings. They were a relatively new invention at the time, having only recently transitioned away from gut strings.

And even at that, there are plenty of 80 year old, scalloped braced, pre-war Martins still being played today.

So I would say stay away from 17 gauge strings and you'll be alright.

[alien]

Originally Posted by Jambi

If scalloped braces make a guitar louder and more responsive with deeper lows, why does any guitar luthier/ manufacturer still do non-scalloped?

For me and the style of music I play, the straight braced D-28 is what I prefer. So that's what I own. Scalloped bracing for others is fine and I do like listening to those dreds. I am not a BG or lead player, so I just don't need any extra bass. Now my smaller guitars all have scalloped bracing. Go figure!

[guitar george]

Every guitar builder uses bracing as he or she feels necessary to strive for the perfect balance between strength and sound for the type of guitar being built at the time. Scalloped braces are less rigid allowing for more vibration, but, they are also weaker. Brace patterns also differ from guitar to guitar.

[redir]

It's not necessarily that scalloped brace guitars are louder but on what frequencies they are louder. They tend to bring out the bass more so that's why they are great for boom chucka boom blue grass.

[Looburst]

True, not a louder thing as much as a sweeter versus more raw sound of unscalloped braces.

[Wade Hampton]

Something that's easy to overlook is that loudness and projection are NOT the same thing. That's the natural assumption, but a guitar that seems overwhelmingly loud when you're sitting right next to it might not cut through the mix all that well when there are multiple other instruments being played at the same time.

So the oversimplified version is that scalloped braces will give you more bass response and perhaps more "warmth," while straight braces will give you better projection.

The next reason that not all guitars have scalloped braces is that not every guitar company or individual guitar builder is trying to make guitars that sound like pre-war Martins. That's a wonderful style of steel string acoustic guitar to emulate, but there are other possibilities out there and other approaches that can produce outstanding instruments.

So the short version is that the sound that scalloped braces produce is not necessarily the goal for every guitar being built. Nor should it be.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

PS: This being the Internet, undoubtedly there will be some folks who will want to swoop down and point out that not all scalloped brace guitars are Martins or sound like Martins. Duly noted. My point, though, is that those pre-war Martin guitars have had a profound influence on most acoustic steel string guitars ever since, even when the goal has been to NOT be like them.

[Jambi]

This has all been very interesting to read, and I can totally see how different types of bracing can be beneficial to certain genres of music.

[Alan Carruth]

The advantage of scalloped bracing is that it makes the top more flexible in the center; it takes less push to get it moving. Of course, there's only so much energy you can put into a plucked string. If it takes less force to get the bridge and top moving, it will get moving faster, and move more. This turns the string energy into sound more quickly, so you end up with, say, twice the power for half as long. Twice the power probably doesn't sound twice as loud, but it still could sound louder, and will probably carry further for as long as it lasts. Most of this advantage is in the low range sound.

This is a great sound for some types of flat picking. It's punchy, warm, and full, but because the level rises and falls fast it also articulates well: the sound doesn't 'get it it's own way'. Note that this type of sound can remain audible for quite some time: it's so powerful at the peak that it can stay above the minimum threshold of perception for a long time even if it falls off relatively quickly.

Some fingerstyle players, for example, want pretty much the opposite; a sound that may not ever reach a high level, but doesn't drop off quickly, for a more uniform sort of sustain. Scalloped bracing tends to provide a strong tone color that can be difficult to vary, which can also be less attractive to some players. Other players may want a 'thinner' timbre, with more 'cut', but similar sustain to the scalloped top, say for Blues.

It's been said that it's a good thing that everybody has different tastes; otherwise they'd all want my wife.

Originally Posted by champ0608

Martin began to find in the early 40s they were beginning to have a lot of warranty issues, since the light scalloped bracing wasn't holding up to steel strings. And so the scalloped, became tapered, became straight.

That has been the commonly held belief, but there is even more evidence now that the postwar boom and inability to produce enough guitars to fill orders led Martin to drop the scalloped bracing. Think about this, if they discovered the warranty issue in the early 40's, why did scalloped bracing only end when the war was over and production nearly doubled?


And a guitar doesn't have to be either one or the other. My Proulx has scalloped X-braces and tapered tone bars.

[Mr. Jelly]

At this point in history I think the difference has more to do with tone than volume and bass. One point is that if you are bass heavy then the highs get lost or sound weak. And to much bass can make the guitar sound rumbly. Non-scalloped braces seem to have sweeter highs to my ear. Articulation has already been mentioned. There are allot of people who found out the hard way that they prefer the D-28 over the HD-28. The D-28 is more balanced and less boomy. I think sometimes we get carried away with things like scalloped bracing lets the top vibrate more so it's better. I know I have. It's not necessarily better as a different sound.