parallel and x bracing

**marshall** · 08-14-2010, 10:58 AM

Could some one explain the difference in sound between parallel and x bracing? I've tried to check past post, if its there i'm not smart enough to find it.The three archtops that I have[cheap] are all parallel braced.When it is time for a higher end guitar I would like to know the difference.Thanks.

**Wes'MusicBox** · 08-14-2010, 11:34 AM

Parallel bracing tends to give a brighter sound that projects more, it also handles string pressure really well. Depending on the guitar the disadvantage would be an overly bright tone.

X bracing gives a darker sound and it propagates string energy over a wider surface area. A Disadvantage would be that the joint where the "X" crosses can be structurally weak (although I have never seen a problem with one)

hope this helps some!

**marshall** · 08-14-2010, 11:57 AM

Thank You,that helps a bunch.I do like that darker sound.I'll have to ponder tone woods now.Again thank you.

**kamlapati** · 08-15-2010, 01:31 AM

I'll second Wes' comments plus add some more. I have a couple of old parallel braced L-5s, and I have a modern Grimes with x-bracing.

The parallel braces have the traditional 30's and 40's sounds, they bark, they cut through the horn section in a band, they are loud in the attack with quick drop in volume afterwards. Contrary to some opinions, I think they sustain well, but the fast attack confuses some ears.

The x-bracing is often associated with more modern builders like Beneddetto and D'Aquisto, but it was also used by D'Angelico in the 30's, and on some late 30's L-5s. The have less bark and less attack, but they have a little more bass and a smoother sustain. IMO they sound almost like a hybrid of a parallel braced archtop and a great flat top. Some might say they're a little more versatile, they may respond better to a light touch, fingerstyle, etc.

**Bill C** · 08-15-2010, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by kamlapati

I'll second Wes' comments plus add some more. I have a couple of old parallel braced L-5s, and I have a modern Grimes with x-bracing.

The parallel braces have the traditional 30's and 40's sounds, they bark, they cut through the horn section in a band, they are loud in the attack with quick drop in volume afterwards. Contrary to some opinions, I think they sustain well, but the fast attack confuses some ears.

The x-bracing is often associated with more modern builders like Beneddetto and D'Aquisto, but it was also used by D'Angelico in the 30's, and on some late 30's L-5s. The have less bark and less attack, but they have a little more bass and a smoother sustain. IMO they sound almost like a hybrid of a parallel braced archtop and a great flat top. Some might say they're a little more versatile, they may respond better to a light touch, fingerstyle, etc.

going from my own experience this is a very good explanation of the difference - thanks!

**marshall** · 08-15-2010, 12:17 PM

Man You Guys are Great! Thanks for the time and informative replies.

**hot ford coupe** · 03-12-2011, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by kamlapati

The parallel braces have the traditional 30's and 40's sounds, they bark, they cut through the horn section in a band, they are loud in the attack with quick drop in volume afterwards. Contrary to some opinions, I think they sustain well, but the fast attack confuses some ears.

.

Bark. That's the best way I've ever heard to describe that sound for the archtops of that era. I have never been able to put that sound to words myself and you just described it perfectly. My 39 D'A is parallel braced and that's the exact sound it makes. I love that sound. Thanks for the help.

**caravan** · 03-12-2011, 05:54 PM

I suggest going to the luthiers forum here
Welcome to the Official Luthiers Forum

If the X bracing isn't spread apart too much it will sound better. I'm talking about having an elongated, tightly squeezed X pattern. Some guitar builders feel that if the ends of the braces extend all the way to very edge of the top, then the sound will be compromised. The neck pickup must still be able to fit in there (unless You have a floating pickup). There are other factors, such as how thin the topwood is around the surround perimeter, that is, near the binding and how tall the braces are.

I believe that the F holes should be pushed out closer toward the edges of the top, for more of a vibrating membrane effect.

Quite often, hand made instruments have tops that are thinner on one side than the other. Factory made guitars have a uniform thickness all the way across.

Here's a pic of the inside of an Ibanez Artcore. Notice how fat the two braces are.

**fws6** · 03-13-2011, 06:30 AM

know that Stromberg guitars (the original ones made by Elmer Stromberg) have a single diagonal brace, but I thought they were the only ones. I didn't know Levin guitars also used a single brace. Interesting! Do you happen to know if that applies to all the Levin archtops or only to some models / years?

Careful !!! Only the last 100 or so Strombergs do have this type of bracing ! The earlier ones arent that special at all, many were of plywood construction, and merely sell for big $$$ on basis of the reputation of his later models....

Most the current Sromberg copies (like the ones that Triggs is making) do not make use of that bracing system. Although the single brace sounds fantastic, it isnt as versatile. The single brace makes for an enourmously powerful mid (I always compare to the 'chop' you hear in a good bluegrass mando). Most people today in the end choose for a parrallel braced guitar as this is the most versatile (rythm, soloing and works well with a pickup).

It is important to understand that the bracing is not the sole factor. Each type of bracing requires a different carve in the top. It is not so that the top can be carved and then the luthier can choose to make it parrallel or x braced. Stromberg also adjusted his carving to the intended bracing which is just as great a part of his signature sound.

Several well known builders have experimented with the single brace like contemporary builder Rodier and Levin, Carl Albanus in the 60s, Bill Barker in the 70s, and Bill Hollenbeck in the 1990s. But none have 'the' stromberg sound precisely. As said above, it is not so that the brace is all determining, and these builders were also very capable of building their own sound into an instrument, using single, parrallel and/or x bracing.

**oldane** · 03-13-2011, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by fws6

Careful !!! Only the last 100 or so Strombergs do have this type of bracing ! The earlier ones arent that special at all, many were of plywood construction, and merely sell for big $$$ on basis of the reputation of his later models....

Most the current Sromberg copies (like the ones that Triggs is making) do not make use of that bracing system. Although the single brace sounds fantastic, it isnt as versatile. The single brace makes for an enourmously powerful mid (I always compare to the 'chop' you hear in a good bluegrass mando). Most people today in the end choose for a parrallel braced guitar as this is the most versatile (rythm, soloing and works well with a pickup).

It is important to understand that the bracing is not the sole factor. Each type of bracing requires a different carve in the top. It is not so that the top can be carved and then the luthier can choose to make it parrallel or x braced. Stromberg also adjusted his carving to the intended bracing which is just as great a part of his signature sound.

Several well known builders have experimented with the single brace like contemporary builder Rodier and Levin, Carl Albanus in the 60s, Bill Barker in the 70s, and Bill Hollenbeck in the 1990s. But none have 'the' stromberg sound precisely. As said above, it is not so that the brace is all determining, and these builders were also very capable of building their own sound into an instrument, using single, parrallel and/or x bracing.

Thank you for the information and the nice picture of the Stromberg guitar (one of the G-series? - it's smaller than a Master 300/400). I didn't know that some recent makers also experimented with the single brace.

I also read about the earlier Strombergs having plywood construction and ordinary bracing. I think Gruhn has had one of those for sale for quite some time. The switch to the later building method must have happened sometime around 1939 when Elmer Stromberg began building the now famous Master 300 and 400 guitars. There is a picture of a group of Basie and Goodman musicians playing together in 1939 and here Freddie Green is playing his blonde Master 400 (later he was mostly photographed with a sunburst Master 300). It must have been one of the first ones made. I wonder if he was an endorser for Stromberg like he later became for Gretsch. Before going with Stromberg, he played an Epiphone Emperor (which he likely kept as a backup as there is a photo from around 1950 of him plying it in Basies small band).

George Gruhn is quoted saying that the later Stromberg guitars had fairly thickly carved tops which needed powerful strumming to have them sound best. Not exacly instruments for fingerpicking - but then they ware also intended as rhythm guitars in big jazz bands and as such they were great.

Yes, Triggs Master 400 copies has parallel braces. I happen to own one which Jim Triggs made for me last year, and it has parallel braces too. As I understood Jim, he uses parallel bracing for all his archtops as opposed to many contemporary luthiers who uses x-bracing. I also own an x-braced Benedetto guitar. Judging from those two guitars, I can agree about what is said about differencies in tone. The x-braced Benedetto has a more intimate quality and the role as an acoustic rhythm guitar is not its strongest. The Triggs Master 400 is all about volume, depth and a powerful attack and it works very well for acoustic rhythm work.

**hot ford coupe** · 03-13-2011, 02:10 PM

I can definitely agree about the later Strombergs. I was fortunate enough to have played a 41 G3 at Gruhn's about a year ago. It came in the day before and hadn't even been listed yet. It was gone the next day. Used as a fingerpicked guitar it wasn't bad at all but when I started doing Freddie Green rhythm chords, that thing had a pulse like a cannon. You could really feel it as well as hear it.

**fws6** · 03-13-2011, 02:10 PM

>one of the G-series

Yup; it is my 1949 G-3

**hot ford coupe** · 03-14-2011, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by fws6

>one of the G-series

Yup; it is my 1949 G-3

You nailed that piece? What a fantastic find. I wasn't able to afford it though. I'm glad it went to someone who could really appreciate it.

**fws6** · 03-14-2011, 01:40 PM

>which may be one of the reasons for the warm and buttery tone of that guitar

As I said above; that is my point exactly. The bracing determines for a part how the top must be carved. But it is the carving that results in the tone. A luthier can also make two similar parrallel - braced instruments sound completely different by applying a different carve. Thicker in the middle equals more 'chunck'. The same goes for wider grained (lighter) wood. And loud (usually) is atrade-off against balance.

My wife cannot tell the difference between my 2 blonde 17" wide 1953 Epiphones and I can imagine why. They do look pretty much the same ;-) One is a Triumph which is very loud and very chunky, the other is a Deluxe which is very clear and balanced. I like em both.

>You nailed that piece?

It wasnt the same one as you played, and luckily for me I paid way less than what Gruhn were asking (and I also bought that L5 I was after - I am guessing I am making all your expensive mistakes over again !!!! ;-) )