Taylor V-Class Bracing

jaymenon

While there is an element of advertising/hype involved, does this make sense from a physics/engineering standpoint? I’m personally not that much interested in subjective views (of fanboys or critics), but I’m really curious as to whether the principle is sound.

https://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/v-class-bracing/story

TheMadMick

The very basics look like this: Triangles are strong and rigid, four sided shapes and greater are more flexible.

For a guitar top you need to balance this with keeping the resonating top intact while letting it vibrate.

If you look at the V bracing the shapes are less like triangles than X bracing. May mean the top vibrates more readily but much depends on the rigidity of the braces.

PRS brace their acoustics with hybrid bracing which is supposed to achieve a similar outcome.

To be honest, I've always found Taylors quite bright when I played them. But that might just be my ears and taste.

TTony

jaymenon said:

but I’m really curious as to whether the principle is sound.

I'm not sure that there is a "right or wrong" absolute answer.

It's all about the context and what you're trying to achieve.  

jaymenon

I got this from an intelligent and wise friend - a gentleman I have a lot of time for. I quote below:

'There are a number of assumptions being made that basically amount to supposition.  

The idea that volume and sustain are directly related to flexibility and stiffness.  That’s fundamentally an assumption.  

Many factors will affect sustain and it’s by no means a proven fact that stiffness and sustain are in direct proportion.  It’s a much more complicated equation.  

Soundboards made of tonewoods are naturally stiffer along the grain than across it.   This poses problems for steel string guitars which the traditional X-bracing solves by redistributing crosswise stress.  Fan bracing does something similar.  

When Ovation tried fan bracing, they did so on tops which were four ply laminates.  Top and bottom laminates were straight, the middle two in an X configuration.  This produced a top that was very strong, but was still stiff along the grain and flexible across it.  It could also be made very thin and light.  These guitars had great frequency response and dynamic range. However the moment they switched to solid wood (under pressure from uneducated guitarists who assumed that laminated top = bad) the fan bracing was inadequate.  They had to beef up the tops to cope with the strain and that destroyed the acoustic performance.  

So I guess we’ll find out in a few years if this is just another Taylor experimental gimmick or whether it has any value.  Their track record. of innovation is pretty crap at the moment.

and by no means am I saying that Taylor’s design is flawed, merely that their assumptions are unproven.  

My  problem with Taylor is that their innovations are not necessarily improvement.  The first incarnation of the Expression system was a bloody nightmare, made worse by Taylor’s insistence that they would only supply parts to “authorised” service centres.  

The comb joint they used for their headstocks was a case in point.  Spanish scarf joints have been the perfect solution to this type of joint for hundreds of years.  From a technical standpoint, there was no need to re-invent the wheel, still less to make it a less efficient shape.  

Comb joints have their uses, but not in a joint that is under torsional stress.  Factor in glue starvation, in a joint that complex, and you have a recipe for failure; and many of them did.  Moreover, a cracked headstock volute - a relatively simple job on a conventional guitar - becomes ridiculously complex when it involves the tangled and disrupted grain in the comb joint.  

I notice that they’ve now ditched that construction feature and gone back to the Spanish scarf.  

Taylor overcomplicate everything, and with no need.  Even when they use a generic part, like the flanged endpin jack used by Takamine they complicate it by recessing it into the rib veneer of the endblock.  And it’s for no good reason; it’s just showing off.  

Their build quality is fabulous enough on its own; they don’t need to enhance with stupid features that only complicate things.  

I wonder if the V bracing feature will be quietly dropped in the future when they find many of their guitars returning with distorted soundboards? maybe…'

Tannin

There are two parts to V bracing as Taylor see it. The second part is that it "improves intonation" which is pure virgin bullshit of the very best quality, straight from a deranged marketing department to you. 

The first part, however, is that it is a very practical and sensible way to deal with the great, fundamental structural weakness of the traditional flat top guitar - i.e., that we put a bloody great soundhole in the top under the strings, right where it needs to be strongest. Taylor's V bracing produces a naturally stronger, better-engineered design, which means that the top can be lighter, or stronger, or a bit of both. 

There are, of course, various other modern redesigns of the traditional flattop structure. I have four of them in my little stable of seven: the Mineur uses falcate bracing, while the Thunderhawk moves the soundhole off to the top of the upper bout,  a place where structural strength is not required and where the soundboard is not doing much acoustic work anyway. Both Cole Clarks use a carved top with braces in the usual places but very light, almost token ones. All three different approaches  work: those are four lovely guitars. On the other hand, my Guild and the two Matons are traditionally braced, and they are very fine instruments too. 

I've played and liked X-brace Taylors and V-brace Taylors and nearly bought one or two. Are they "quite bright" TheMadMick? Sure: that's the Taylor sound. X brace or V brace, maybe there is a small difference but they all sound like Taylors to me.

TTony

jaymenon said:

 I’m personally not that much interested in subjective views (of fanboys or critics), 

jaymenon said:

I got this from an intelligent and wise friend - a gentleman I have a lot of time for. I quote below:

<snip>

So I guess we’ll find out in a few years if this is just another Taylor experimental gimmick or whether it has any value.  

Taylor overcomplicate everything, and with no need.  Even when they use a generic part, like the flanged endpin jack used by Takamine they complicate it by recessing it into the rib veneer of the endblock.  And it’s for no good reason; it’s just showing off.  

Your friend may be both intelligent and wise, but from the comments above, I'm not sure he's entirely objective.  


[disclosure]
I have a Taylor guitar and have been very impressed with their customer service and brand support.  It was actually my 2nd choice buy, after I'd bought my first choice buy.  


They research, they invest, and they're not scared to experiment to evolve the practice of guitar building.  It seems to be that it's reasoned evolution rather than some of the sales-chasing marketing-led "innovation" that some other brands aim at (hello big-G).


Fundamentally, probably two things at play here.

Firstly, our attraction (or not) to the perceived ethos and value of an individual brand.  Do we choose to (or implicitly) believe in what they're doing, and accept the face value, or do we take a more sceptical and cynical perspective.

Secondly, guitar building is a balance of art and science.  Physics and engineering typically deal with non-variable materials within scientific rules.  Wood is a variable material, the properties of which vary through time as well.  

jaymenon

In fairness, he's a rather good guitar tech who says that certain brands are a pleasure to work on, and some are the opposite Much like some car mechanics say about certain cars (on an Audi I had a few years ago, in order to change your headlamp - you had to take the front bumper off - crazy...)

He did give credit where it was due:

Their build quality is fabulous enough on its own

and
by no means am I saying that Taylor’s design is flawed, merely that their assumptions are unproven.  

I can understand his criticisms regarding the neck / headstock joint (and Taylor have indeed gone back to the scarf joint).  Also putting in an entirely proprietary electronics package (the latest of which is a lot like the K&K system) pretty much guarantees obsolescence of the electronics, even while the guitar remains 'current / relevant'. Then you have to send it back to Taylor to install the latest pickup system...

Also as @Tannin correctly pointed out - the improved intonation thing is just so obviously bulls**t.

All of which makes me a little sceptical.

TTony

jaymenon said:

All of which makes me a little sceptical.

Sounds like you've answered your own question.

jaymenon

But I'm still fascinated @TTony - and I need to try out one of these new Taylors!

I'm really taken in by their Grand Auditorium shape (the *14ce series), even though I know it's sort of a compromise between the *12 (ideal for finger style) and *10 and *16 (better for strumming).

jaymenon

I must admit, that if I needed to buy an instrument from a retailer on the Internet, I would buy I would pick a Taylor over a Martin because it's pretty much guaranteed I will be buying a well built and set up  instrument (IME)

Martin are a lot more variable in their quality control - but when Martin do get it right, the instruments are something truly special.

DavidR

All acoustics are different. X-braced guitars all sound different. V-braced guitars all sound different. Identical guitars sound different. X-braced will sound different to V-braced. 

Being a bit nihilistic here obviously but I personally do not think V-bracing is a major step forwards. Just different.

Top marks to Taylor for experimenting though. More top marks to them for using sustainable wood too.