X or Parallel Bracing - What is Your Preference and Why?

[AKA]

If you were commissioning or purchasing your holy grail archtop, which top bracing would you select and why?

AKA

[deacon Mark]

One diagonal brace with an off shoot brace to the treble side. This the bracing that the late Bill Hollenbeck used and it gives the guitar the power of parallel brace with the warmth of cross brace. This used on Barker guitars and later Hollenbeck modified it looking for more of everything. Something to be said for a boxed type bracing too possible more strength, would like to hear some more of these type guitars.

[QAman]

If you were commissioning or purchasing your holy grail archtop which top bracing would select and why?

AKA

It depends on your style of playing. If your more fingerstyle, I would suggest X bracing with a flatter neck angle. But if you play loud rhythm , then go for the parallel bracing with a slight steeper neck angle, like early gibsons.

If you play plugged in , you may want more feedback resistant bracing.

If you want a nice additional sonic experience - add a side port.

If your undecided - order both - ......then you'll have no regrets.

Sent from my SM-P610 using Tapatalk

[Jimmy blue note]

Not necessarily the question you asked, but I'd choose the builder over the bracing. If the builder is good and knows how to voice the top and tune it in concert with the back, that'd be worth more than a builder who can't get the most out of the wood given.
All things being equal, I've been partial to the X brace because in the hands of a luthier who can do an accurate graduation and tap tune, the X brace gives a balanced 'pianistic' voice to the instrument; not a bass cannon, which is not my thing, but even and strong throughout the frequency spectrum, clear and articulate in the high range.
I will specify that this is for an acoustic instrument.
Working with an electric full sized humbucker, I'd get a harder top, lower arch and parallel bracing. More even, good punch and solid control under power of an amp.

That's just me. A lot of people don't like what I like, and don't agree with me. I don't like a lot of guitars that others hold as holy grails.
Try a lot of guitars out. Know yourself well enough to recognize when an instrument can express YOUR music.
Good luck!

[sgosnell]

I have both, and I think I prefer parallel bracing, at least with the ones I have. There is more midrange and less treble. My x-braced guitars lean more toward the flat-top sound, to some degree. I can't be certain it's all due to the bracing pattern, but that seems to be involved, since I have multiple guitars from the same builder with different bracing patterns. They do have different depths and widths, so that has to be accounted for somehow. The parallel braced guitar is the smallest and thinnest, and has the most mid and least treble and bass. How much is due just to the bracing, I can't say for sure. But if I were ordering again, I would have it parallel braced.

[RJVB]

I tend to prefer parallel though I fully agree that the bracing choice comes after a number of other choices. In the recording above the x-braced instrument does sound what one could call warmer, though you could also call it more hollow. The parallel-braced instrument isn't that less warm in sound, but to my ears it's more balanced and precise.
This is also the (main) comparison that helped me decide to get an LH-650 rather than an Easman. I play fingerstyle, and have no regrets.

That said, my current idea of my personal grail guitar would be a nylon-strung archtop, if anyway possible without any bracing at all (like certain vintage German archtops).

[iim7V7IM7]

I have chosen an x-brace every time.

This was in all cases an outcome of prospective discussions with the luthiers about my playing preferences and tonal goals for the guitar. They made both guitars with both types of bracing, and in each case recommended a version of an x-brace. Within each respective bracing type there are other parameters to manipulate that can tilt a guitar’s tone one way or another. With luthier made guitars, I always recommend discussing your likes and dislikes with them and let them recommend the solution vs. having a predetermined bias.

If you were commissioning or purchasing your holy grail archtop which top bracing would select and why?

AKA

[jads57]

Now to the next challenge floating or built in pickup! Always seems X braced for floating and built in for parallel. But if you only use a neck pickup, why not parallel?

[Dennis D]

........Re: '30's Gibson's L-7's w/ that double carve and x-brace ....Has there ever been a definitive explanation as to why they did that carve ?

........And had it ever come up in any custom build discussions ? Maybe just wondering how G ever made that decision.....

[AKA]

Now to the next challenge floating or built in pickup! Always seems X braced for floating and built in for parallel. But if you only use a neck pickup, why not parallel?

Along with lower bout width and rim depth. I’m favoring 16” width and 2.5” depth at this point. I’m also inclined to commission a pair; one with built-in pu and the other a floater; both optimized based on acoustic versus electric voice.

AKA

[RJVB]

Wouldn't you want the acoustic to be deeper?

[AKA]

Wouldn't you want the acoustic to be deeper?

Ideally, yes. However, as I’ve grown older I have found 3”-plus depth instruments less comfortable to play. If I commission a pair (acoustic, set-in pickup) the luthier will be challenged to maximize the instrument’s voice within the shallower form.

AKA

[AKA]

RJVB,

Thanks for posting that. I preferred the tone of Instrument 2. Which bracing was used for that one? I didn’t see that pointed out in the video?

AKA

[ThatRhythmMan]

RJVB,

Thanks for posting that. I preferred the tone of Instrument 2. Which bracing was used for that one? I didn’t see that pointed out in the video?

AKA

Archtop #2 is the x-braced one. I preferred that one too. Isaac Kahir is the guy behind Cranmer guitars. He has a passion for the acoustic archtop for sure and has been trying some very interesting things.

[RJVB]

The legend is in the video's description (which you don't get to see on here), but yes, #2 is the X-braced one.

What bothers me a little bit is that the differences are small enough that we could also be hearing them if the instruments had the same bracing, IMHO. You simply can't make 2 wooden guitars that sound exactly the same.

Isaac sells a number of his designs, btw - as in the pdf. I'm hoping to have enough money one day to have him build a nylon-strung version of his soundport design.

[ArchieHollow]

[QUOTE=AKA;1182845]If you were commissioning or purchasing your holy grail archtop which top bracing would select and why?
This bracing is actually carved into inside of archtop as part of the solid wood. It's a "combo" of parallel and X bracing. Guillaume Rancourt explains why he considers it supreme. I'm planning to use this one on my next instrument.

[ArchieHollow]

[ArchieHollow]

Rancourt makes sense to me

[ccroft]

I have to agree with this:

What bothers me a little bit is that the differences are small enough that we could also be hearing them if the instruments had the same bracing, IMHO. You simply can't make 2 wooden guitars that sound exactly the same.

And would proceed like this:

Within each respective bracing type there are other parameters to manipulate that can tilt a guitar’s tone one way or another. With luthier made guitars, I always recommend discussing your likes and dislikes with them and let them recommend the solution vs. having a predetermined bias.

I have a couple of each at the moment. Both X's are solid carved top. Both parallels are laminated. More acoustic and more electric purposed in that order. All have f-holes & are 2 3/4 deep and 16" due to O.M.S. (old man syndrome) as outlined by AKA.

My X'ers are an interesting comparison and bear out the idea that in otherwise similar guitars, top thickness and bracing size/weight have a huge influence on tone, both plugged in and unplugged.

One of my electrics is holy grail enough for me. If I was to go to a next level commission it would be carved acoustic, and I'd most definitely let my luthier decide. At the top level these folks know waayyy more about how an archtop gets it's tone than I do.

If I was going to spend 5 figures I'd factor in a trip to the shop or a guitar show or 3. Maybe I'd prefer the Rancourt or Barker style.
Too bad it's not like Warby Parker: send me a couple to try and I'll keep my favourite!

[Alter]

I have one of each. I prefer the parallel braced sound though as a category, as it fits the way I play better.

Parallel braced also lends itself to guitars that end up being more feedback resistant and so gig friendly.

[ArchieHollow]

I have one of each. I prefer the parallel braced sound though as a category, as it fits the way I play better.

Parallel braced also lends itself to guitars that end up being more feedback resistant and so gig friendly.

My ol' '42 Gretsch New Yorker is parallel braced. I love her play and sound.

[deacon Mark]

Bracing is not the all and all end. I would agree with most of what is already said and add that how the top is carved and graduated has just as much to do with the sound. The makers I knew all used a modified version of a single traverse bass bar with an offshoot brace toward the treble end. Carl Albanus Johnson (Albanus Guitars) a fine makers from Chicago of some fame used a single traverse bar like Stromberg and his guitar's seem a bit more punchy than Bill Barker's.

Barker learned to build guitars from Albanus and Barker after the first 15 guitars when to the modified version extending the brace to treble side in the upper bout. This gave I think the guitar a bit better mellowness and much like QAman says of a guitar with more fingerstyle type playing. Then Bill Hollenbeck who learned to build guitars from Barker used another version of the single traversed brace like Barker but he actually carved the brace differently to give the guitar a bit more push. Having each one of these guitars my preference is the Hollenbeck but we are splitting microns to be fair.

Another aspect of the sound is the neck and how it is attached to the guitar either with extension right on top of guitar or raised a bit. Johnny Smith wanted the extension to extend into the top to transmit highs. A well-made Johnny Smith guitar will be as good as any guitar so go figure? Buy one of each and every just to cover the bases right?

[Freeman Keller]

I recently finished building a 16 inch carved top acoustic archtop. I debated whether to use X or parallel bracing - I have done parallel on mandolins but never guitars. I mostly build flat topped guitars and am somewhat familiar with how bracing works on them but archtops are a new experience.

In the end I chose X bracing. I don't need ear splitting power and think I prefer a bit more of a mellow complex sound. The top is carved more or less to Benedetto specs in spite of the fact that its one inch smaller across the lower bout. It is approximately 1/4 inch thick in the center tapering to 1/8 in the recurve. F-holes are pretty standard Gibson size and shape and are bound.

One of the interesting things that I did during building was to take sound clips of tapping the top and run them thru some spectrum analyzing software. This is a learning experience for me - I'm trying to correlate what I am hearing (and feeling) as I work with the top plate by looking at the spectrum of notes that are resonating when I tap it. Are they moving up or down in frequency, are there more or less, what are the peaks.

Anyway, here are a few pictures of the top while being carved and the spectrums. At the top is the time domain response, the one thing that can be gleaned from it is the attack and delay of the note, the "sustain" if you will. The lower part is the transformation at one point in time into the frequency domain, commonly called a Fast Fourier Transformation, or FFT.

Here is the plate rough carved to slightly more than 1/4 inch.



And the spectrum



Here is the top with the f-holes cut, carved closer to Benedetto's specs with the braces glue on but not carved



And the spectrum


The significant things are that the 430 hz peak is still there but now I have 570 and 607 - those tell me that the top is really stiff, and of course it is, I just glued big fat braces on it

Next I've bound the f-holes, thinned the top a little more (which makes it less stiff) and shaved the braces to about 1/2 inch tall. Remember that the stiffness of a beam (brace) is the cube of its height, if I reduce the height by half the stiffness is one eighth.



And its spectrum


Significant thing here is that the peaks have moved down in frequency (the top is less stiff) and I've got a lot of complexity in the 600 to 800 hz range which should mean there will be a lot of mid frequencies. I've got nothing to compare it with but it gives me a good feeling.

Here is one more spectrum with the box closed, the significant thing here is are the peaks at 117 and 228. Those were not there before and now are dominate - they are the air resonances of the box itself at A2 and A3 and should give a nice bass response




I finished the guitar, it is very loud so that turns out to not be a problem. It is also very bright, altho that has been settling down with time and playing, I'm actually very happy that I did not use parallel bracing. In retrospect maybe I should have carved a little more......

[Vihar]

Doesn't matter, acoustic archtops are a design failure: Are acoustic archtops a design failure?

[ArchieHollow]

Thanks Freeman. Your spectrum tests outmatch anyone's biased ears. And you created a truly beautiful instrument!
???????