***** Guitar Project Jigs, Tools & Techniques Online Resources Archives OLF Video Page Library of plans MP3 Library Inlay Class
Offical Luthiers Forum





And our community proudly sponsored by:

RC Tonewoods | Stewart MacDonald | LuthiersForum
TasmanianTonewoods | OLF | OLF MERCH
Luthier Suppliers | Pacific Coast Woods | ELEVATE
OLF X | Tasmanian Acoustic Tonewood | Luthiers Forum Store!
Luthiers Forum | OLF Facebook | AVAIL SPACE
OLF | Alaska Specialty Woods | A.Hix Tonewood
Duke of Pearl | Birkonium CNC | Space




Official Luthiers Forum!

Owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2025 3:25 pm


Board index » Luthiers Forum Rooms » Guitar Building Forum

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 6 posts ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
oddmanout
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:42 pm 
Offline
Mahogany
Mahogany

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 49
First name: James
Last Name: Strange
City: Carson City
State: Nevada
Zip/Postal Code: 89701
Country: USA
Status: Amateur
I note in comparing the OM plans from Kinkead's book and the Payne plans from StewMac, that the spread of the x-brace is quite different (Kinkead's x-brace has a wider spread with the top of the x significantly further below the transverse brace, with an addition soundhole brace). I guess one of these is a "forward-shifted" x-brace? Which one?

So, I would like to hear your observations/experiences regarding resulting sonic differences when varying the spread and shift of the x-brace. I understand that historically the change was made to better support the belly of the guitar.

I assume that the bridgeplate will contact the interior of the x, thus the resulting spread would influence the size of the bridgeplate. Is this correct?

Thank you,

jim

_________________
Mmmm....wood.
Top
 Profile  
 
bluescreek
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:21 am
Posts: 4915
Location: Central PA
First name: john
Last Name: hall
City: Hegins
State: pa
Zip/Postal Code: 17938
Country: usa
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
the wider spread is more of the vintage locations when the bridge plate was tucked under the X brace. I am a Martin traditionalist and like the sound of the brace position of the wider pre war location . I have documented a few pre war ( post 1939 ) instruments and find that for my ear the balance tonally is better .
I also use the tucked bracing and HHG for the top bracing . That doesn't mean the other bracing is bad just my preference .

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it
Top
 Profile  
 
truckjohn
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:27 pm
Posts: 2109
Location: South Carolina
First name: John
Last Name: Cox
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
The trouble with bracing schemes is that it's a system - not just a disconnected set of sticks..... If you do one thing differently - it forces you to make other changes to get everything else to line up properly...

For example.. assuming the same bridge - spread and shift of the X are tied to one another.... What happens is that a narrower X can cross up closer to the soundhole without loosing the bridge wings - where a wider X must cross farther back.. Now... Assume that you have about the same X-brace to bridge wings crossing then the bridge plate sizes won't really be all that different.... and it could conceivably end up a bit smaller with a wider X...

Now... you could allow for significant other changes - like a 7" wide bridge... Then - you could have a wider X that is also a bit farther forward.... but you do bring along an enlarged bridge plate.. Both of which end up quite a bit heavier.....

I suppose you could also decide your bridge doesn't need to cross the X, or just barely touches the X... but I haven't had good luck with that... I suppose you could use a very thick top to compensate in that case.... like what you see on ladder braced guitars...

As you see... it's all trade off's...

Thanks
Top
 Profile  
 
two dogs
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:29 pm 
Offline
Mahogany
Mahogany
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:37 am
Posts: 61
First name: steve
Last Name: vanpelt
City: Weatherford
State: TX
Zip/Postal Code: 76085
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I recently strung up my first OM, which was also my first guitar. I got the OLF plans and also the template from John At BluesCreek. I noticed the same thing regarding the x spread differences between the two. After looking through many many pages of Henk-0-grams over at the UMGF, I went with John's bracing scheme as it looked more in line with the old Martin bracing patterns I saw there. Payne explained his thoughts on the narrower spread in a thread here a couple years ago. Sorry, but I can't figure out how to link it from the iPhone. There are also a couple great threads on OM bracing and some adjustments to the plans that were really helpful too.

Steve
Top
 Profile  
 
Jim_H
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:30 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 708
Location: Bothell, WA USA
First name: Jim
Last Name: Hansen
Country: USA
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
I recently used the OLF OM plan to re-top the first guitar I built. I doing so, I also researched this topic and found this thread where MDP discusses the topic.

viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=27112

Here is his quote from that thread
Michael Dayle Payne wrote:
here is a little more insight into how I came up with the 87 dgrees on the OLF-OM (Stewmac distributed) plans As Phil noted the very first set of the OLF-OM plans were 90 degrees with the center of the X 8" form the neck joint. As I continued to build the OM I refined the X so that the plane of the X was tangent to the sound hole at 1/4" offset. that put the sound hole intersection of the X 1 7/16" from the lower quadrant of the sound hole. This gave better support to the area of the cound hole with out having to use a thickness doubler. this also captured a larger crosssection of the bridge wings wich ment higher energy transfer into the X-brace without overly loosing the top structure.

One thing to understand is that my bracing was developed over time to what works for me. No to designer/builders will develop bracing exacly the same. There are governing principles to follow as explained earlier. I thinner bracing that Cumpaino or Kinkead, I use differnt locations for my fingers and tonebars. That is the beauty of doing your own designs adn proto-typing them. you get find what works for you.

I will not discourage you form using features of more than one plan set to build by but if you do you need to lay it out becasue many components are dependent on the Xbrace and other components


Speaking of MDP, where the heck is he? Someone needs to drag his bee-hind back here to the OLF :p

_________________
Jim Hansen
Top
 Profile  
 
Mike OMelia
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 6994
First name: Mike
Last Name: O'Melia
City: Huntsville
State: Alabama
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
John, do you make the molds for the OLF plans?

Mike
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 6 posts ] 

Board index » Luthiers Forum Rooms » Guitar Building Forum

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris Pile and 28 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpBB customization services by 2by2host.com