Thoughts on this Van Linge rim and bracing?

[Dave Bagwill]

There are a few features of this that look out-of-the-ordinary. What do you think?

First take a look at this pic:
That upper bout assembly is different: first, notice the upper transverse brace - just a rectangular block all the way across. It seems like there is an unnecessary amount of extra weight in that brace?
Second, the extra wood adjacent to the headblock; it appears to be the same height as the UTB. Is that a headblock-rotation control?
Third, the soundhole is pretty high in the bout, and upper X is way up in there also.
Fourth, all of that together puts the UTB almost right up against the headblock, and the actual 'X' at the waist position - very high.
Lastly - look at the size of those side supports. Just as thick as the kerfing, and two kerfs wide. That is really beefy.

[John Parchem]

Looks pretty beefy, I notice all of the braces are tucked into the linings. I do find the high sound hole odd. I do like the heel block extension down to the UTB. I do that now for most of my guitars. I do try to avoid neck rotation.

angel (189).jpg (104.63 KiB) Viewed 1804 times

[Herman]

Neck rotation? hmm, don't have that. The thing looks over built all the way.
-the upper part of the X looks normal to me.
-the utb is very lumpy. Make it 14mm wide and 19 high, profile it and you're good.
-The kerfed lining is very wide indeed.
In short Dave, I see the same.
Herman

[Hans Mattes]

I view a beefy UTB, positioned close to the heelblock (and glued to it), that is FIRMLY affixed to the guitar sides as a reasonable first step toward relieving the soundboard of traditional structural duties. Those duties require stiff bracing and a dead upper bout. With that relief, moving the soundhole toward the neck increases the active soundboard area, allowing a very slight increase in volume (<2 db) and, more important, greater opportunity for resonances that give character to the instrument's tone. The characteristics of the instruments in both John's and Dave's pictures demonstrates the ambiguity of the term "overbuilt." Overbuilt is certainly a weakness if it refers to excess soundboard bracing to the detriment of tone. But the sturdy build elements in the photos are all related to instrument structure and, if anything, will provide a more solid foundation for richer and more engaging tone. All "overbuilding" is not equivalent. (This perspective on "overbuilding" may only be valid for seated musicians who can rest the guitar on their legs so that instrument weight is not a major concern. Players who stand, using a guitar strap, may be more sensitive to weight and require compromises in their instrument's construction.)

To put my comments into perspective, I have built a couple of guitars along the lines shown in the photos. I've now moved to "flying" braces between the heelblock (headblock?) and the tailblock. (By "flying", I mean that they don't touch either the soundboard or the guitar back.) Coupling this with an elevated fretboard allows the entire upper bout to participate in sound propagation, adding yet more resonant richness. To enhance that opportunity, I've moved to oval soundholes and away from X-bracing. Though not falcate, my bracing patterns now resemble those in John's picture as they are predominately radial, centered on the bridge. The intent is to minimize bracing transverse to the sound propagation, as transverse bracing means a significant change in the soundboard's acoustic impedance which will reflect sound energy back to the bridge rather than passing it on to the upper bout where it can excite the resonances that enrich the output.

[Dave Bagwill]

That's some good insight - thanks to you fellers.
Here's another pic of the lower bout.
It wasn't the kerfing that struck me so much as the wood strip between the kerfing, to help eliminate side splitting - huge?

[Dave Bagwill]

Just for the heck of it - suppose the soundhole was not there, but on the side, like I've done on a few guitars - to free up the entire top? Sound hole protection would not be needed. If the UTB was beefy and up against the headblock, and maybe a couple of 1/4" structural braces between the upper x and the utb, wouldn't you have a pretty stable setup?

[Hans Mattes]

About 2 years ago I tried building two guitars as identical as I could, but with one having a soundhole in the soundboard, as is conventional, and the other having its soundhole in the side, in the middle of a widened tailblock. All guitar dimensions were identical (within +/- 1/16") and the soundholes were of identical size and shape. The top bracing was, again, as similar as I could make it except for the upper bout. In that area I tried to keep the spacing between the braces as similar as practical in order to have similarly resonant structures. And when I was finished -- the two guitars sounded VERY similar. I don't think I could tell one from another without looking. FWIW.