Heavier Bracing And Tonality

[John Lee Walker]

Does heavier bracing in an acoustic guitar effect tonality in a positive or negative way?

 

The reason I ask is because I just had a conversation with someone who, after hearing my J200 MC, remarked that it was the best sounding acoustic guitar he'd ever heard. When discussing the guitar, he asked about the bracing. I remember someone posting here a while back saying that the new J200 MCs had bracing heavy enough that you could probably string it with bicycle chains and it would be okay.

 

I would venture to say it would effect the tone in an adverse way at first thought - the more wood, the heavier the mass, more absorbtion of sound, thus less resonance. I remember sitting with a few acoustics in a playing room at a music store in Austin and comparing J200s a few months ago, and I thought the new j200 MCs sounded much better than some of the J200s I played there. I was so impressed with the deep tone and the highs and lows over the other guitars. So does heavy bracing lend to a bigger sound?

 

Just curious as to why this guitar sounds so damn good:)

[jefleppard]

i have been told that over-braced guitars sound like they're full of socks and the braces should be scalloped to produce better sound. OTOH, some would warn that such an operation would be risky and foolish.

[Modac]

I'm the one who made the smart remark about the bracing. The best Gibsons ever made, had very light bracing, and were very lightly built. Heavy bracing is a outgrowth of mass production and the desire of companies to keep warranty work to a minimum. My own J-185 was quite heavily braced, and sounded great, though......since I thinned out the 2 upper back braces and dremeled down the 2 lower ones, it sounds absolutely phenomenal. So it sounded great with the heavy braces, and it sounds 100 percent better with them thinned out and dremeled down.

[Thermionik]

All other things being equal:

 

Light bracing = higher frequency resonances / less sustain / more punch to a note's start

 

Heavy bracing = lower frequency resonances / more sustain / more even note profile

 

But there is so, so much more to it. For example a heavy brace may have shaved ends and so less rigidity, or thicker ends and thus greater rigidity, for the same weight - thus behaving totally differently. Heavy bracing in and of itself is not enough information. The luthier has cunningly crafted the entire guitar, including the bracing, to give a particular sound.

 

The ears have it.....

[ballcorner]

+1 on Modac's comments.

 

It is not only the weight of braces, though, that impact the top's ability to vibrate - bracing styles, and more importantly bracing positions, are the ultimate sign of potential.

 

The most famous and desired Gibson and Martin guitars from the 1930s have scalloped, forward-shifted X bracing. Most of the world's most sought after guitars follow this pattern.

 

As was previously mentioned, warranty concerns caused major manufacturers to move the braces down toward the lower bout of the guitar by about one inch as the 1930s came to a close and really construction of guitars used that same positioning for the next 60 years. It was probably the surge in vintage markets as we approached the turn of the century that encouraged guitar manufacturers to reconsider the change in bracing position.

 

My wife bought me a new guitar on her trip yesterday, so now I can say I own 34, and of those guitars the five most tonally impressive all have X bracing that is forward shifted and scalloped.

 

As to whether bracing should be heavy or thin, I can only say that I want my guitars built with structural integrity as well as good resonant qualities. If a guitar is properly maintained (humidity and temperature) it is usually possible to live with some pretty thin braces and those do tend to provide that killer tone.

[grampa]

When I got my Gibson F-25 in '82 I thought the bracing was incredibly heavy, especially compared with the Martins I was looking at . But the sound is soooo good that I didn't even think about it. I don't know if the sound would be anybetter if the bracing was lightened up. Gibson did something very right with this guitar.

[zombywoof]

Beginning in the early 1970s, Gibson started using a Double X bracing (not to be confused with the Double X bracing used in the J-200s). Great if ya don't want to have to deal with warranty issues - not the best idea if ya want a top that vibrates.

 

I believe Gibson bracing was originally a bit heavier than say Martins. Their scalloped bracing today is more Martin-like than that they originally used but still seems to be a little heavier which would be keeping with tradition (which I would say is a good thing).

 

Gibson went to straight bracing on all of their guitars in the mid-1950s. But if ya look at the bracing it is different from anything esle that was out there. Their braces had more of a triangular cut rather just being perpendicular.

 

A heavier straight brace does work really well with some body woods. My favorite J-200s remain the straight braced maple back and side guitars from the 1950s. Helps keep the guitar from sounding overly bright. I will say the suckers are heavy though.

[suburude63]

Dont some of the newer Gibsons have Forward X bracing and scalloped bracing? suburude

[John Lee Walker]

As usual, excellent information, guys. I haven't had this particular J200 MC for very long, but I have had the opportunity to sit down with a few acoustic players with a J45, Martin D18, an Ovation something or other, and a girl with a nice Breedlove, and I liked my sound better than any of the others.

 

Whatever they have done with the Modern Classic J200, internally, they've done a damn good job.