Spruce top with Mahogany braces?

[Hans Mattes]

What you've noticed is, in fact, the way I've done my last 10 (or so) builds -- no braces touch any other elements (except, of course, the soundboard) other than the two braces that help the bridge and bridgeplate resist rotation. "Excess" stiffness is unnecessary since my soundboards aren't structural. (I use VERY substantial "flying" braces between the headblock and the tailblock, sometimes tying the flying braces into blocks fitted to the waist). I do use a cantilevered neck, allowing the upper bout to become additional radiating surface. That's why I use oval soundholes. ALL braces are radiused (30'), as is the bridge and bridgeplate. The neck cantilever typically clears the top by 0.15" - 0.2" at the neck block, and the cantilever section is tapered so that the clearance diminishes to ~0.1" at the end of the fretboard, which is usually even with the edge of the soundhole.

For some time, I've used a bolt-on neck attachment, with the entire heel (with parallel sides) morticed into the neck block by at least 0.3". When I moved to cantilevered necks it occurred to me that, by a bit of jiggering of the bolt-on mechanism, I could adjust the neck angle (and, thereby, the action) through a small hole in the heel of the neck. The ability to adjust action simply (and without removing the strings) is very convenient. It allows adjustment for varied string weight, for various playing styles, and for any aging. I've found no downside (other than the appearance of the 0.1" hole in the neck heel).

I, and others, find the resulting tone to be pleasing and balanced. Those are subjective views, of course, but I can say, objectively, that the guitars do have what are often considered competing attributes: they are loud AND have significant sustain.

[Dave Bagwill]

Hans - I sent you a private message.