Taylor Guitars - V-class Bracing

[newsense]

V-Class Bracing | Taylor Guitars

Taylor has been trailing this for a couple of weeks now as a revolution in acoustic guitar build. Now its out of the bag. I follow the logic about volume and sustain, but not sure about the intonation arguments (video #3). Even by the standards of a marketing video, the players seem pretty excited with the results (video #4). Its probably going to be a long tome before I will get to try it myself (unless, of course, I win the prize draw linked to this release).

I wonder whether archtop builders have anything to learn from this ?

[ptchristopher3]

Hi Newsense,

Wow they know how to take 12 seconds of info and bury it in 4 minutes of emotive cinema.

I get the basic idea, and it sure makes sense to me.

If X-bracing does not optimize the two tasks at hand, stiffness and free-movement of the top - but rather does both at once in an inefficient way, I think their point makes sense.

Maybe they would have done well to add that bracing also carries energy across the grain of the top, which is pretty important. But it is a sales and marketing presentation. So not too tech-geeky is a good idea maybe.

The non-Bob Taylor guy says “rigidity” equalls sustain. Well maybe we could do better by saying that at a given total guitar mass, added rigidity can possibly increase sustain.

But indeed (and in my opinion), one look and you know this bracing design makes considerable sense. Not changing the world, but woof, the steep V bars look perfect for dealing with the bridge torque (pulling up in back, pushing down in front) while not adding stress to the place from where the majority of volume comes. X-bracing arguably mushes this all together with likely compromises.

I suppose the question would be why not make the V even closer to parallel and re-design the sound hole as needed. But as a marketing move that could upset the plaid shirt and jeans crowd.

I like it a lot and will try something along these lines if I ever get serious about finishing my long standing nylon string project. (Which was going to be fan braced, but maybe not now.)

The intonation part strikes me as a complete pant-load. I certainly fail to understand most things about most subjects, but they present absolutely nothing at all about how this would affect intonation except some vague statements about some thing being somehow more in tune with something else through some unidentified means.

I feel that the intonation part makes no sense whatsoever. Any sort of explanation of the principle (on non-emotive terms) that they feel is in play here would be great.

Builders have tried MANY bracing patterns over a long period. This one looks like a great idea to me.

Fun idea to kick around, many thanks for posting.

[Matt Cushman]

This V class bracing pattern reminds me of a 1920s Gibson L-0 guitar.

A very good sounding guitar for its size.

[omphalopsychos]

I think the promotional material just converted my disposition of indifference regarding Taylor to distrust.

[ptchristopher3]

I think the promotional material just converted my disposition of indifference regarding Taylor to distrust.

Indeed.

But sometimes maybe the target audience gets what the target audience wants.

Possibly the fine folks at Taylor considered that many of the target customers buy into the idea of PIO Capacitors, fret end nibs as a “feature”, and other lore.

I suppose they considered that a little actual info was OK, but swooning opinion and smoke up the pooper of the guitar buyer made more sense.

This is supposition on my part. But arguably kind to Taylor.

They did take two very sound ideas and force them down the throat of the market. Bolt-on neck joints, and the catalyzed fininish - which both work GREAT, yet took some effort to become accepted.

They have an intriguing, if not entirely original, idea here. So maybe worth wading through the idiocy to try it out in person sometime.

One thing: Taylor are great to deal with when you are repairing one of their guitars. For example, the old design had a label over the bolt holes. So to tighten the bolts (the front one can become remarkably loose) your need to wreck the label. They will get one out to you with incredible speed.

Chris

[jzucker]

they lost me when they tried to convince customers that their scrarf joints (huge cost savings) were actually a benefit to the customer.

Reminds me of the heinz thick ketchup ads...

[iim7V7IM7]

A couple thoughts:

On one hand, I admire the bravery of companies who attempt to try something new. That said, despite their marketing talking points, the changes that they have made will have sonic tradeoffs. There are no free lunches with the finite energy available from the strings. They may obtain longer sustain, but at the expense of bass response. They may achieve higher volume, but at the expense of responsiveness. There is no free lunch in acoustic guitars.

Here is the patent...
US9520108B1 - Internal bracing for a guitar
- Google Patents

[jads57]

While Taylor guitars are fine functional acoustic instruments, they seem rather flat and generic sounding. Especially when compared to Martin and Gibsons. The higher end Taylors seem better but now we're talking $5K range. And for that i'd much rather have a Gibson or Martin.

[ptchristopher3]

The power of Brand Names.

I suppose this inspires Taylor to associate the name with, in this case, a mix of claims.

We the public get what we deserve - or rather demand.

[ptchristopher3]

Back to the actual design:

I can not find anything in the patent that claims any sort of intonation benefit. The patent specifically discusses the potential benefits volume, but seems silent on the unfathomable (to me anyway) “intonation” benefits from the reality TV show.

Has someone seem something that I am missing?

[john_a]

I did not yet view the videos, or look at that patent, so my take on their "better intonation" claim could be wrong as it was just what I got reading their brief paragraph describing that claim.
Where they say "eliminates much of the interference that causes some notes to waver" it makes me think they are ascribing the reaction of the top to some improvement in *timbre* rather than actual intonation.
It's the phenomenon where separate wavelengths (top vs strings) can provide selective cancellation or reinforcement of each other -- they are saying the "top more in tune with the vibrating strings" allows more consistent notes anywhere as they've tamed the interference.

So I was following along with what they were saying as if it was about the notes (not pitches) and then they ruined it by adding "in tune with each other" which takes it from wolf tones to selling woof tickets. Marketing needed them to juice it up?

John

[newsense]

Just wondering, after reading John A's post whether the intonation benefit is from the increased stiffness parallel to the string axis. That is, on a normal guitar, the very act of plucking the string, lifts the bridge slightly as the sound board flexes, thereby slightly de-tuning the string - just how much depends on where you are fretting and how hard you pick. By redistributing the flex off-axis, this effect is reduced.

Having been flat-top shopping 2 or 3 times in the last 3 years, I have to say that every time the salesperson hands me a Taylor, the sound beats similarly priced instruments that I am testing by some margin. One cynic has been noted to say it is because they string them with Elixirs at the factory, which don't age like the strings most other brands use.

Say what you like about the marketing, but I believe Bob Taylor is a very smart guy - all the more so for employing some talented designers, builders and CNC machinists.

[Sam Sherry]

Say what you like about the marketing, but I believe Bob Taylor is a very smart guy - all the more so for employing some talented . . . CNC machinists.

[iim7V7IM7]

I spoke to friend of mine who is an experienced luthier who was attending NAMM today. Here was his review.


I tried about eight of the new Taylor’s. They sound even and have a flatter EQ. Nice volume, but not more than other guitars. I’m not impressed. The marketing hype is over the top. I think the patent is part of the marketing more than a substance.

I trust his opinion...

[Jabberwocky]

No publicity is bad publicity but bad publicity is good publicity. There is no such thing as bad publicity, I guess, if it attracts the scuttlebutt. This V-bracing has got people talking in the few "dominant" guitar fora.

I get a bad rash looking at Bob Taylor who reminds me of a young-er Dick Cheney. His guitars provoke the same reaction in me. American Takamines and Yamahas sans the economies of Asian production. And it is a compliment to call Taylors that.

As for new Taylor-Power V-bracing Dr. Trevor Gore has much more on bracing than my peanut brain can absorb, without any of the marketing sauce: Overview .




Anyway, the shaping of the V-braces looks suspiciously like George Lowden's whose guitars I really like.

[ptchristopher3]

Not sure that Taylor’s personal appearance has much to do with the bracing.

In principle, the idea of isolating the two main things that are combined in the typical X brace strikes me as a perfectly good idea, well worth trying out.

So the V provides longitudinal rigidity, and the lateral sub-bracing can provide the mechanical strength needed to keep emotive players (and varying temperature and moisture) from deforming or breaking the flat top, and (arguably more importantly) move energy laterally - much as the wood grain moves it longitudinally.

As for who finds this a novel concept, the patent office has the job to decide this. Thus the remarkably long and detailed descriptions.

Sure the vids get silly claiming seemingly free volume increases, and completely wack-o-potamus (in my opinion only) intonation claims.

But is this any sillier than the claims of other vendors? Or the even sillier claims by brand-fans of any guitar brand?

This is an interesting bracing approach in my opinion.

**********

Off topic but mentioned as part of general Taylor-not-like sentiment:

Scarf joints can provide very specific benefits in terms of strength. I have glued together countless Les Paul headstocks that would have survived the fall if built with a “cheap” MIK scarf joint. Sure scarf joints save wood, and in a highly automated work flow can also save cost. They also happen to be very specifically stronger.

Just bothersome to those who value the lowest cost method for a single guitar built by a single builder.

all in my opinion,

Chris

[ptchristopher3]

Actually it is possible that a single builder (Matt???) could say that they can build a single guitar at a lower cost using a scarf joint for the headstock.

I just have figure that it would take me longer to set up and scarf the neck than I would realize in cost savings in the wood.

But I am a very very occasional builder. So maybe someone like Matt could crank out a scarf while on the phone and eating a pizza.

But I mean that there is a general perception of Cremonese Master values in a guitar with the neck and headstock made for a single piece of wood - and a general preception that the widely used scarf joint in Asian production facilities must be inferior.

I am sure that one could find inexplicable perceived differences in sound.

But there is an easily described and demonstrated difference in the strength of a scarfed on mahogany headstock vs. the somewhat alarming weakness of the grain running at an angle to the headstock on a one-piece neck.

But of course, if you do not leave the guitar on a stand and go get a beer during your break after the second set (and some idiot plays “China Grove” on the jukebox) nobody can knock the guitar over and break it. So arguably a single piece neck is not necessarily “worse”, even if certainly weaker in the classic headstock break location.

All in my opinion.

Chris

[Matt Cushman]

I have made necks made from 1 to as many as 5 pieces. There is no sense wasting wood. A 1 piece is the simplest as there are no glue joints. For a 1 piece neck, the wood should have a verticle grain orientation. For a small shop, a one piece neck adds considerably to the cost of a build in large part because you need a large piece of wood and what can you do with the waste pieces. On the other hand I enjoy building and I don't mind a few extra steps to build up a neck.

A multi piece neck is probably stronger than a one piece neck if the pieces are joined properly. My preferred neck is a three piece lamination which works well for maple necks, very stable. For a mahogany neck, a scarf joint and a stacked heel is probably the best layout. A laminated neck is a bit of effort to glue up and they look best with the addition of a headplate. The cost of wood is much higher for the small shop than it is for the big quantity buyers. I charge more for a one piece neck even though it less effort.

[sgosnell]

I think a neck is more stable if it's made from multiple pieces, because a larger piece of wood is somewhat more likely to warp or twist. Different pieces well glued together are less susceptible to it. I would prefer not to have a one-piece neck if I were choosing, but mostly I just get whatever is on the guitar I buy. But if I ever do order a custom guitar, I will not get a one-piece neck. My own builds have been one-piece, but they were solid or semi mandos, so it was much easier to do that than to cut and glue up more pieces.

[Hammertone]

... But I mean that there is a general perception of Cremonese Master values in a guitar with the neck and headstock made for a single piece of wood - and a general preception that the widely used scarf joint in Asian production facilities must be inferior. ...

Of, course, that general perception neglects to consider that the Cremonese (and later) Masters used plenty of scarf-like joints. The lovely pointed volute on some Martin flattops is a vestigial remnant of that very method, and a pleasant reminder to me of the history of the instrument.

[ptchristopher3]

Of, course, that general perception neglects to consider that the Cremonese (and later) Masters used plenty of scarf-like joints. The lovely pointed volute on some Martin flattops is a vestigial remnant of that very method, and a pleasant reminder to me of the history of the instrument.

The “General Perception” is staggeringly neglectful indeed.

When my wife suggests I am neglectful, I mention just how much worse life would be if married to the General Perception.

Yet so many seem to be.

[stringmaster]

I don't know about the details of the bracing but I understand Andy Powers was the designer/builder behind the design. He's a very talented luthier and was the only local guy that I trusted with refretting/repairing my 30's Epiphone--he's also built some amazing instruments (prior to Taylor snapping him up). That in and of itself makes me want to take a look/play!!

[ptchristopher3]

I don't know about the details of the bracing but I understand Andy Powers was the designer/builder behind the design. He's a very talented luthier and was the only local guy that I trusted with refretting/repairing my 30's Epiphone--he's also built some amazing instruments (prior to Taylor snapping him up). That in and of itself makes me want to take a look/play!!

Plus he does not spam threads with ads for aluminum guitars. Always a plus.

[bostosh]

The website and patent show everything needed to duplicate this in your own shop.

[ptchristopher3]

How wonderful. Probably best if you identify yourself and your business then place an advertisement.