|
|
#1
01-28-2016, 07:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Tongue brace vs no tongue brace
I play with a couple of groups of "enthusiasts" with a wide range of ability. It's a lot of fun to play and talk guitars with these people. This week the topic of leaving tongue bracing out of guitars was discussed, and I was actually surprised to see some pretty strong opinions on this topic. I haven't been able to hear a noticeable difference (pro or con) on the guitars I've played without tongue bracing. Do any AGFers have experience they can share?
|
|
#2
01-28-2016, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bryan Kimsey would be the one to ask. Google his name. He's played several same guitars with and without.
|
|
#3
01-28-2016, 07:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It depends on the goal. If you want to hit the 1930's Martin sound in a 14 fret guitar, you'll need to build them that way. The closer you get to that design, the closer you get to that sound. However, if you've deviated in other ways, then the popsicle brace may not be terribly important to that goal.
Generally speaking, I think a guitar is better without one. I believe more sound comes from the upper bout than is commonly thought. It's one reason I don't care for cutaways, which is another issue I think people misinterpret. Some builders say a cutaway doesn't affect sound because they compensate in other ways. Well, if there was no tonal contribution, why would they need to compensate? Historically, 12 fret Martins always had one, but the 14 fret guitars didn't until 1939. The early 14 fret Dreadnaughts had bigger neck blocks too, so the upper bout was somewhat stronger to begin with. I have owned (and currently own) guitars with and without. Some started life without, while others had them removed later. To my ear, the guitars that have had them removed are better than before, but I made other modifications too. I can't say with certainty how much off the effect is due to removing the brace, but I don't think it's none. Regarding stability, I don't see it making much difference. If you see cracks in the upper bout, they are often close to the fretboard and a result of slipped neck block due to overheating. A popsicle brace doesn't stop that failure, so I don't perceive a big structural advantage. Long story short, I don't think it's a make or break design feature, but it is a piece of the puzzle. I don't make much judgement about any particular guitar based on its presence or absence, but if I were starting a custom build, I'd leave it out. Here's what Bryan Kimsey says about tone. The effect of the popsicle brace on sound is hotly debated. Some say "no difference", others hear a difference. I think it depends on the overall state of the guitar, your picking technique, and other factors. I like to use the race-car analogy; great suspension isn't much use if you use cheap tires. It all has to work together. My hypothesis is that the upper bout area responds to vibrations from the neck, not the bridge. People tend to focus on the bridge and yes, that's where most of the sound comes, but there are a lot of vibrations in the neck and these are transmitted into the box (try rubbing your hand up and down the neck and putting your ear to the box...). I have found that work to the neck (good nut, light tuners, tight frets) transmits to the guitar. And where does the neck attach? To the upper bout. The fingerboard extension lies right on the upper bout and the neck itself attaches to the neckblock, which I've accused of trying to rotate forward, which in turn means that it's under some stress. Stress and vibration and sound all go hand-in-hand together. So, if you have heavy tuners, a plastic nut, and loose sloppy frets over a popsicle-brace, then, yes, the upper bout is a dead area. But, it doesn't have to be. http://www.bryankimsey.com/popsicle/
|
|
#4
01-28-2016, 07:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have one guitar (a Collings OM1A special light build) that was made without a tongue brace and it's an absolutely an amazing guitar. But I have no idea what role the absence of the tongue brace per se plays in that. In general, I would think that the area under the fingerboard extension is petty sonically inert and that the presence or absence of a brace under there wouldn't make a whole lot of difference in and of itself. But as part of the overall bracing approach, I suppose it could. All of which is to say, I have no idea.
I suspect that this is a topic that will garner strong views on either side and that both groups may be right some of the time. Personally, I'd let the builder decide.
__________________
Bob DeVellis
|
|
#5
01-28-2016, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Having said that, leaving the popsicle out does no doubt add something to the tone. How much, very little in my opinion and does require more diligence in terms of ensuring the guitars stays in a suitable RH environment, not always easy. So as was said, it depends what you want. If treated gentle your OK if treated a bit rough you may have problems. Tom
__________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything Last edited by Tom West; 01-28-2016 at 09:41 AM.
|
|
#7
01-28-2016, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom, I think Martin's original design with a larger neck block provides plenty of support. On later guitars with the popsicle brace removed, the trapezoidal brace that Bryan Kimsey and John Arnold use offers more structural support than the popsicle brace, and does so without extending very far past the edges of the fretboard.
This is a catastrophic example, but it illustrates the heat issue well. 
|
|
#8
01-28-2016, 10:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No sound difference, but there is an increased chance of cracks occurring in the top (for example due to warranty issues Collings imposes an extra charge to leave it off).
__________________
Derek Coombs Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love To be that we hold so dear A voice from heavens above
|
|
#9
01-28-2016, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How does this translate to different body sizes? A smaller box is generally stronger with all other things equal. I also believe that the upper bout can contribute more (good or bad) to the instrument's sound when no popsicle brace is present but some structural reinforcement is needed to spread the force of the neck pushing inward. The trapezoidal brace seems to be a good solution but also looks like a more timeconsuming solution in the build, but on the other hand it looks really well designed to do the job.
Many archtop conversions (like Jeff Daniels OM C2 by Joe Konkoly) omitted the popsicle brace, but it wasn't omitted when Martin came out with his signature guitar. Also the CS-OM-13 was designed? for no popsicle brace, but the first 10 or so had one, whereas mine doesn't. I can't really determine how the design differs from my OMJD, apart from the posicle, both guitars sound worlds apart, but there is some likeness after all. Ludwig
|
|
#10
01-28-2016, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Todd, how and/or what caused that when you say heat? Steam from a neck reset?
|
|
#11
01-28-2016, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The photo is from frets.com.
|
|
#12
01-28-2016, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wouldn't the extra bracing located in the vicinity of the neck have minimal effect on soundboard variations. However, it can provide a safety factor, that Todd's photo shows graphically without the bracing.
Dan
|
|
#13
01-28-2016, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Point being, you can more effectively add strength with a trapezoid brace as Bryan Kimsey describes without having the brace span the entire upper bout.
|
|
#15
01-28-2016, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That said, plenty of 1930's guitars have suffered various forms of damage without a failure in the upper bout. My 1936 000-18 is crack free, but not mint. It has been played and loved. 
|
. ......Mike
