X vs Parallel Bracing

[edh]

Is the difference mainly the tone? If so is it just a preference thing or is there some actual difference.

BTW, I'm guessing it is tone difference, don't really know.

[Klatu]

It is a tone thing, and as such, is a preference thing.

Speaking in generalities:

Parallel bracing produces a more cutting tone with more volume. It's main purpose was to cut through the big bands which it was meant to back as part of a rhythm section. Some might say it's more treble and a touch strident than it's x-braced brother.

X-braced guitars send to produce a softer tone with less volume. To me, it sounds like a more polite and elegant tone.

Of course, it goes without saying that every guitar is different, and there are many factors besides the bracing which contribute to the tone of an instrument.

[rpguitar]

Good post. The only thing I'll add is that, while X-bracing generally produces a "softer tone with less volume," it also can be a warm, open tone with a typically rich bass response. Most of today's modern archtops are X-braced, including Eastman's x05 and x10 models. Gibson only did it for a scant few years a long time ago ('34-'39) except for the Johnny Smith, and today's reissue of the L-7C (which is arguably not a reissue, since the cutaway L-7 was introduced in '39 with parallel braces).

I think both sound good, like vanilla and chocolate, and every guitar is unique. Bracing is not the end-all attribute that affects sound, important though it is.

[Patrick2]

[qoute]Bracing is not the end-all attribute that affects sound, important though it is.

Well . . . . maybe not an end all attribute. . . but certainly a very important one. The bracing makes a world of diffenence. Even different variations of similar type bracing. Just pick up and play a Benedetto X braced arch top .. . .then someone else's version of an X braced arch top. Same with Comins. Look at Elmer Stromberg's bracing and how his concepts affected acoustic tone. This is what makes acoustic arch top tone the wonderful and nuance world of guitar that it is.

[rpguitar]

I guess I should have said that the TYPE of bracing isn't the end-all, meaning that one man's X is not equivalent to another's even though they have the same name. Yes, the nuanced world of acoustic archtops is fun to explore, albeit it is not that accessible to many due to rarity and expense!

[Patrick2]

Good post. The only thing I'll add is that, while X-bracing generally produces a "softer tone with less volume," it also can be a warm, open tone with a typically rich bass response. Most of today's modern archtops are X-braced, including Eastman's x05 and x10 models. Gibson only did it for a scant few years a long time ago ('34-'39) except for the Johnny Smith, and today's reissue of the L-7C (which is arguably not a reissue, since the cutaway L-7 was introduced in '39 with parallel braces).

I think both sound good, like vanilla and chocolate, and every guitar is unique. Bracing is not the end-all attribute that affects sound, important though it is.

I guess I should have said that the TYPE of bracing isn't the end-all, meaning that one man's X is not equivalent to another's even though they have the same name. Yes, the nuanced world of acoustic archtops is fun to explore, albeit it is not that accessible to many due to rarity and expense!

Yeah man . . . that's exactly what I'm saying. This is one of the main reasons I've become an arch top junkie. Each and every time I pick up an arch top and play it . . . . I hear the sometimes pronounced and other times very subtle differences in its voice. It's amazing . . . and it's wonderful, all at the same time. If I owned a thousand arch tops ... I would still feel that there were voices out there that I have not yet heard. (and I would still want to own more of them)

[hot ford coupe]

Wow, there are so many factors involved in an archtop's tone that it can drive yiou nuts when you want a particular instrument made. To me, that's what separates a great builder from a mediocre one. The great builder has control of a large number of those little variables in not all and knows how to combine them to get a particular response from the instrument. The mediocre builder has control of much less and gets lucky from time to time. That's why all of the D'As sound and are so different from one another. Benedetto and D'Aquisto among many others are in the same category.

[kenbennett]

Is the difference mainly the tone? If so is it just a preference thing or is there some actual difference.

BTW, I'm guessing it is tone difference, don't really know.

There has to be an actual difference. Otherwise there could be no preference. If they were the same, how could you prefer one over the other.

[kenbennett]

Wow, there are so many factors involved in an archtop's tone that it can drive yiou nuts when you want a particular instrument made. To me, that's what separates a great builder from a mediocre one. The great builder has control of a large number of those little variables in not all and knows how to combine them to get a particular response from the instrument. The mediocre builder has control of much less and gets lucky from time to time. That's why all of the D'As sound and are so different from one another. Benedetto and D'Aquisto among many others are in the same category.

This post presents a paradox or two.

If a builder has so much control, then you would think that his/her guitars would all sound the same, not different. What good is control if it does not result in consistency?

If D'As are so different from one another, how do you know that the differences were intentional?

Every builder, whether great or mediocre, has control over exactly the same number of factors. In my experience, differences in the sound of guitars are more attributable to factors that are beyond the builders control, not within the builders control. I bet that you could put two equally competent luthiers in the same shop, with the same tools and the same materials, using the same designs and methods, and more often than not they would build two guitars that sound different.

Building a guitar is somewhat like playing a guitar. Put the same guitar in the hands of two different players and you will get two different sounds.

None of this has anything to do with which is better, X or parallel. I would love to do this experiment. Get two luthiers to build 2 guitars each, one X and one parallel. Out of those 4 guitars you might expect 2 to sound similar to each other and the other two similar to each other. But which two sound similar, the two with the same kind of bracing or the two made by the same guy?

[amusiathread]

Two strats may sound different, but they'll both sound like strats. Likewise, different bracing patterns will sound different, but x-bracing will sound like x-bracing, and parallel will sound like parallel. There are other variables that will lessen or increase degrees of difference, but the main difference between the two remains fundamentally the same.

And while a luthier has some control, any one will tell you that there is always an element of risk, experimenting, and surprise.

[coolvinny]

My understanding is that parallel gives you more punch and less sustain. Back when lots of volume was the goal, acoustic archtops were parallel braced.

Nowadays, generally acoustic archtops are x-braced since it gives a sweeter acoustic tone, and electric laminate archtops are parallel braced to avoid muddiness in the tone.

I have an x-braced acoustic archtop and a parallel-braced laminate archtop. Each is excellent for its intended purpose.

[Duesenberg]

I've never had the luxury of owning an arch top acoustic. In my world every arch top has had two pickups and parallel bracing. Given the tone pots and TMB on the amp, I have no qualms. The flat top acoustics are all X braced.

Life is good

[Patrick2]

If a builder has so much control, then you would think that his/her guitars would all sound the same, not different. What good is control if it does not result in consistency?

Builders do have a great deal of control over the out come of an arch top guitar, but, as you point out . . not ultimate control. Also, "consistency" is not always a desired end result.

If D'As are so different from one another, how do you know that the differences were intentional?

One of the most interesting things I learned from studying up on John D'Angelico . . is that upon a customer placing an order with him . . he would always ask the customer "what are you going to use the guitar for?" Then, Mr. D'Angelico's choices of wood, top carve, dimensions, etc., would be influenced by the customer's response. By contrast, Elmer Stromberg pretty much understood that if people were coming to him for a guitar they wanted a cannon. That's what he built for them. A guitar that would project like none other.

Every builder, whether great or mediocre, has control over exactly the same number of factors. In my experience, differences in the sound of guitars are more attributable to factors that are beyond the builders control, not within the builders control.

The attributes that are beyond a builders ability to control (ultimately control) are usually limited to the reaction of the wood to vibration. This can be controlled, some what, with bracing and carve. However, the builder does have the ability of wood selection for the build.

I bet that you could put two equally competent luthiers in the same shop, with the same tools and the same materials, using the same designs and methods, and more often than not they would build two guitars that sound different.

Absolutely! But, let's turn that around . . if you put two competent builders in the same room and asked them to achieve an almost identical acoustic tone . . . they could get pretty damn close to that as well.

[wintermoon]

"since the cutaway L-7 was introduced in '39 with parallel braces"

the L-5P and Super 400P were, but there are no pre '48 L-7P's

[rpguitar]

Right you are - I should have checked that. But my basic point was that after 1939 there were no factory L-_ guitars with X-bracing (custom orders notwithstanding).

[kenbennett]

Absolutely! But, let's turn that around . . if you put two competent builders in the same room and asked them to achieve an almost identical acoustic tone . . . they could get pretty damn close to that as well.

That would be an interesting test. It would be more interesting if the two luthiers were NOT in the same room.

If they were in the same room, they could compare every aspect as they go. Wood, thickness of sides, overall dimensions, tap tone of the top and back, tap tone of brace blanks, tap tone of the top after carving braces, neck thickness and profile, finish material and thickness everything....

Let them be in the same room only for their instructions. After that, they go away and build in complete isolation from one another.

That would be boring reality TV show (for most people).

By the way, I was playing a little bit of devil's advocate there. The best advice is don't even ask what kind of bracing a guitar has; if you like it, buy it.

[hot ford coupe]

This post presents a paradox or two.

If a builder has so much control, then you would think that his/her guitars would all sound the same, not different. What good is control if it does not result in consistency?

If D'As are so different from one another, how do you know that the differences were intentional?

Every builder, whether great or mediocre, has control over exactly the same number of factors. In my experience, differences in the sound of guitars are more attributable to factors that are beyond the builders control, not within the builders control. I bet that you could put two equally competent luthiers in the same shop, with the same tools and the same materials, using the same designs and methods, and more often than not they would build two guitars that sound different.

Building a guitar is somewhat like playing a guitar. Put the same guitar in the hands of two different players and you will get two different sounds.

None of this has anything to do with which is better, X or parallel. I would love to do this experiment. Get two luthiers to build 2 guitars each, one X and one parallel. Out of those 4 guitars you might expect 2 to sound similar to each other and the other two similar to each other. But which two sound similar, the two with the same kind of bracing or the two made by the same guy?

Hi Ken. You make some pretty good points here and I understand where you're coming from. Let me explain what I mean here.

1.You're definitely right about what the luthier has or doesn't have control of. The raw sound of the finished guitars will never be exactly the same because of the uncontrolable factors like the denseness of a hunk of wood or the humidity etc. What I mean here is that when a prospective client requests a guitar with certain characteristics such as loudness, sweetness, cutting power, balance, amount of bass etc., a knowledgeable builder will know how to get those characteristics to come out to a degree. That's what John D'Angelico was good at. There was no magic, just knowledge and ability.

2. The reason why two luthiers of equal caliber won't build exactly the same sounding guitar with the same characteristics request is because the two luthiers hear things differently. Sound quality is subjective. What is sweet and mellow to one builder may be muddy and pinched to another. They each interpret sound differently and produce an instrument that has the characteristics according to said interpretations.

3. That leads me to the next point about whether or not the differences were intentional. Like I mentioned before, John D. sold guitars because the buyers felt he could give them pretty much what they wanted. The thing is not all guitarists look for the same thing in guitars. Some are chord melody players looking for that sweet and mellow while some are Freddie Green types who want power and definition. Some players want that heavy electric sound without feedback while others want more acoustic tone when amplified. The guitars may even look the same but are very different. John just interpreted what they wanted according to his own standards which were different than Elmer Stromberg his competition. Intentional? Yes.

4. You're right again. None of this has anything to do with X or // bracing. I was just making a general comment about archtops and how many factors are involved with a great sound. I like to participate in the forum and that's how I learn stuff.

[rpguitar]

Don't you mean /\ bracing?

Nice conversation though.

[kenbennett]

Don't you mean /\ bracing?

Nice conversation though.

Very well. If parallel braces were really parallel it would be: ||

[hot ford coupe]

I was considering something more like this

_
/ \
\_/

[kenbennett]

Hi Ken. You make some pretty good points here and I understand where you're coming from. Let me explain what I mean here.

1.You're definitely right about what the luthier has or doesn't have control of. The raw sound of the finished guitars will never be exactly the same because of the uncontrolable factors like the denseness of a hunk of wood or the humidity etc. What I mean here is that when a prospective client requests a guitar with certain characteristics such as loudness, sweetness, cutting power, balance, amount of bass etc., a knowledgeable builder will know how to get those characteristics to come out to a degree. That's what John D'Angelico was good at. There was no magic, just knowledge and ability.

2. The reason why two luthiers of equal caliber won't build exactly the same sounding guitar with the same characteristics request is because the two luthiers hear things differently. Sound quality is subjective. What is sweet and mellow to one builder may be muddy and pinched to another. They each interpret sound differently and produce an instrument that has the characteristics according to said interpretations.

3. That leads me to the next point about whether or not the differences were intentional. Like I mentioned before, John D. sold guitars because the buyers felt he could give them pretty much what they wanted. The thing is not all guitarists look for the same thing in guitars. Some are chord melody players looking for that sweet and mellow while some are Freddie Green types who want power and definition. Some players want that heavy electric sound without feedback while others want more acoustic tone when amplified. The guitars may even look the same but are very different. John just interpreted what they wanted according to his own standards which were different than Elmer Stromberg his competition. Intentional? Yes.

4. You're right again. None of this has anything to do with X or // bracing. I was just making a general comment about archtops and how many factors are involved with a great sound. I like to participate in the forum and that's how I learn stuff.

I appreciate your input. As far as customizing construction for individuals, I don't know the history of D'Angelico.

I like clarity but not too bright with a wide dynamic range. So we decided to build our first two prototypes with parallel bracing.

[ArchieHollow]

The input from y'all is really helping me with my choice of bracing the archtop for my new instrument. Many thanks

[Gregc57]

I always felt like parallel bracing lent itself to more of a loud, barking tone for punching out chord rhythms. X-braces lending itself to more of the chord/melody school. As has been stated above, these 'most of the time' rules are not 100%. Builders can do a lot with either bracing method.

[RJVB]

'nuf words, let's let the ears do a bit of work:

I have only played my own parallel-braced archtop, but I'm very happy with her (also given what she cost me). Rob MacKillop has a number of videos up on the classier Loar LH700 showing that an L5-style, parallel-braced archtop can definitely have sustain and warmth, same for this old Gibson:

Based on the 1st recording above I *think* I'd prefer the more focussed and (to my ear) less hollow sound of a parallel-braced guitar. And just maybe it has something to its sound that reminds me of the violins I used to play...

[ArchieHollow]

My '42 Gretsch New Yorker is parallel braced. It sounds great and plays beautifully all way up fretboard