Official Luthiers Forum!

I came across this video about repairing a Gibson L1 from 1918 the other day and apart from the fact that it is an interesting story about repair I was struck by the similarity of Taylors new bracing system to this old Gibson with the two parallel bars running down the top.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBiCwv9Wtkg

Nothing new under the sun methinks.

Dave M

Yeah nothing new in the fact that most all guitars have bracing but Taylor's approach is 'new' in their implementation and much different than the old school parallel braced old Gibsons. I for one really appreciate different and a few will pooh pooh Taylor's approach as just a marketing gimmick but it take a huge commitment for a company like Taylor to change directions and the sound's not for everyone but isn't that the whole idea?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I think Taylor's "V" bracing gets narrower at the bottom, where the Gibson bracing gets narrower at the top. Other people came up with the bracing scheme Taylor is using before Taylor did, but like X bracing and C. F. Martin, Taylor will probably take credit for it.

Yes Taylor's bracing gets narrow on the bottom but the engineering is much more complex than a simple copy of another's idea and they should, I think, take credit for the effort expended to create their own bracing system. Not take credit for putting 2 flared braces from the heel to the neck but credit for the overall effort which is much more complex than a simple copy of an old idea.

I've never played Taylor's new (old copy?) 'V' brace and have no interest in promoting Taylor but I am interested in promoting new and different, not for its own sake, but to expand the world of guitar making whenever possible as has been done for centuries.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

Oh boy, here we go again with the V bracing.
You might consider that the Gibson is an oval archtop. Has nothing to do with a flat top...

I'm trying a version of the 'V' bracing on a new design. Will know something about its effect soon.

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

Just thinking about this earlier today, never seen a pic of Taylor V bracing with a upper transverse brace included - do they in fact have one?
I presume they do, otherwise I could see the guitar folding up quite quickly.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Here is one showing the UTB:

Below the soundhole- ?? is that all?
Even a classical with lower string tension has that transverse brace plus a UTB.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

Here is a shot showing what appears to be a fairly substantial UTB above the soundhole - I couldn't find and others with a better view...

Thought so, thank you Rob!
I see the back braces aren't tucked too.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

"I see the back braces aren't tucked too"

That is an interesting point. How many other companies have built with "untucked" braces and what has been the track record with them? Some of us don't tuck the lower legs of the X brace or tone bars, but I think most of us tuck the back braces. Not tucking the braces eliminates a couple of steps in the building process, but at what if any added risk? I always use a back graft which some builders leave out, but again - how has that worked out over the long run?

also notice that none of the braces are carved. This proves to me that the new bracing is an effort to expand profits, a new bracing for people that already have Taylors, advertising for those that dont and simplified construction = new profits

By the way Gibson used the H pattern bracing in flat top guitars also. The railroad track bracing has been a continuous feature in archtop guitars though Gibson and others left the H pattern a long time ago.

V bracing, X bracing, H bracing, Y bracing they sound different yes but not necessarily better.

Taylor is all about profits and being a new company they dont have a history that customers expect like Gibson and Martin. Can you imagine what would happen if Gibson or Martin went to V bracing? Customer upheaval.

It seems the 'V' bracing give a noticeably different sound to those Taylors with 'V' bracing. Not sure I've read anything about it being better in anyone's opinion - just different and an option that was not previously available.

I was also curious about the non-carved braces but am not sure it's as simple as more profit, let's not carve the braces. Does anyone think that Taylor simply thought, hey we can save some money let's not carve the braces, without at least a little bit of testing? What if all the carving we insist upon has no real beneficial other than our belief that it must?

And is Taylor really all about profits? How could/would one possibly know this? Profit can be a natural result of passions pursued and creative energy executed.

Don't Martin and Gibson also need a profit to grow and expand as a company? Or is Taylor unique in this regard and therefore their risk in to another bracing system should be viewed as simply a move for more profits?

I dunno but I really respect any company taking risks, especially in a specialty market that can be so close minded about change.

Personally don't like the sound of 'V' of the 'X' but have only heard video on the computer. Anyone have first hand knowledge?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I am also trying a version of the V-Bracing on a current build. Hope to have it strung up in the next couple of weeks.

One design issue I struggled with was string spacing. I have a large mitt and prefer finger style over standard strumming thus lean towards 2 1/4" and 2 5/16" string spacing at the bridge.

When you close the two bottom legs of the V braces at the heel block, you create a situation where the bridge pins coming through the bridge plate are extremely close to the V Braces. I think all Taylor stock Guitars are 2 3/16" at the bridge. I slightly opened the spacing at the heel block to accommodate a wider string spacing.

viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=50344&hilit=taylor+v+brace (Thanks to Dan Kirkland for the photo dump.)

You can see in these photo's how close the pin holes are to the main braces.

Not a criticism of the design, just an interesting observation. As a hobby builder at the end of the day...I suspect it will sound kinda like a guitar. lol

_________________
Guitar Building = Continuous Improvement Process

I didn't notice how close the V came at the bottom and spaced it out more by look/feel. Just about to string it up and hopefully can evaluate with my uneducated/tin ear...

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

There's no question that not carving those braces reduces production costs. On the other hand, those braces south of the transverse brace at the waist are so small that the weight reduction that they would get from profiling them would be next to nothing so it wouldn't be likely to make any audible difference if they did. So, I have no doubt that the choice to not carve the braces was driven by cost savings, but I bet it doesn't matter from a performance perspective.

When I look at that photo above, I can't help but see a transverse hinge below the sound hole where the longitudinal braces dive down on both side of the transverse brace. That's exactly where x-braces are at their tallest and strongest for structural reasons. I guess they are counting on the transverse brace to keep the guitar from folding.

Taylor has a pretty solid track record of innovation in guitar manufacturing so there may have been a desire to do something innovative with top bracing that was influenced at least to some extent by that history. At the same time, every manufacturer, no matter what the product, has to differentiate their product from those of their competitors. Based on the hyperventilating marketing campaign they waged in support of v-bracing, I think that differentiating their product (even from their own x-braced guitars) was a huge driving factor behind the development of v-bracing. Possibly the main factor. There have been a lot of reviews over on the AGF from people who have actually played them and compared them back-to-back with x-braced Taylors. The most common assessment I've seen has been that the v-braced guitars do in fact sound different, but many have noted that they lack bass response compared to the x-braced guitars.

I've played a fair number of Taylors over the past twenty years, but I've never played one that made me want to own it. Even so, I respect their innovation and craftsmanship and they obviously build guitars that are great for a lot of people. That said, the copious amounts of ridiculous mumbo jumbo nonsense BS they shoveled out onto the guitar world when they introduced v-bracing early in the year totally disgusted me. It severely damaged my opinion of the company. So much so that I would never even consider building a guitar with that type of bracing because I wouldn't want me or my guitars to be associated in any way with all that BS they put out there.

For those who want to try it out, that's cool, but it's definitely not in my future. But what if it made the guitars sound like unicorns singing under rainbows coming from pots of gold you ask? Even then I wouldn't do it. I despise BS that much.

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

I'm kind of with you on a few points there. I like the innovation with things like the neck system. But if you want to see some more serious BS just consider the market wanketeering that comes with pretty much every single PRS guitar out there. Best one I ever heard from a PRS rep was "These necks will never move".

Taylor does do alot of things right, and what I think they'll be known for in 40-50 years is the amount of reliability that their guitars have. When you consider how long it takes to reset the neck on a standard dovetail versus how long it takes on a Taylor the costs/benefit is massive.

The only Taylor I really liked alot were the older jumbos (315s 615s) from the mid 90s or so. The Leo Kottke signatures were still fairly good compared to other guitars. When I saw Leo live about a year ago he was still playing them.

Has anyone here actually seen or played one? That might be a logical first step before passing judgement.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I have played a couple of the new V-class.... Didn't impress me any more than their normal Taylors. In fact, I find most run of the mill Taylors pretty "meh", with maybe 10 percent sounding worth the money. The really high buck ones sound better overall. But the off the rack stuff... No better tone than many Seagulls or even Alvarez stuff that crosses my bench.

I think Taylor is shooting for the same sound from each guitar, much the way Ovation did. Not great, but good enough for most folks. Call me jaded.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince