Can we assess this top?

[Dave Bagwill]

Thanks Hans. I may be in touch in a week or so, as I'm working on other parts of the guitar anyway.

[Dave Bagwill]

I'm thinking that this scheme touches the main issues.
The transverse braces are flying buttresses, I think the term is, that allow the x braces to move freely. Thinner lines are just finger braces as split prevention.
Now I need to think about brace height.

[John Parchem]

Why do you want that lower ladder brace so low? Just a question I never made a ladder braced guitar. I would have thought it would be closer to the bridge.

[Dave Bagwill]

Oh, that was a general picture; I've seen the ladder right up against the bridge and sometimes set back a bit. My leaning is to put it back about 2" from the bridge so it doesn't hamper the rocking and rolling of the bridge. I'm certainly open to other views!!

[Hans Mattes]

FWIW, I've taken a cue from nylon-string (classical) bracing when building guitars that don't rely entirely on the braced soundboard to hold the tension of steel strings. Most classical guitars use a transverse brace just south of the soundhole and then some pattern of fan bracing on the lower bout. (I've been using a wide "X", three fans inside the "X" and a short tone bar to either side.) Many classicals also use a light transverse brace across the lower bout, running under the light, short classical bridge.

The second resonance of the lower bout is transverse, so a long, stiff transverse brace may dampen significant harmonics. (I've read that any brace strong enough to be structural will become a node line, separating resonant areas of the top). The steel-string bridge and bridge plate are the stiffest bracing on the top, but, being relatively short, don't quash the lower order resonances. There's a school of thought that all braces, steel-string or classical, not required for structure should be short or made up of a series of short, independent pieces. It makes sense to me, but ???

[Dave Bagwill]

Good point. The Tacoma guitars I've played had a drier, jazzier sound than X braces, and Mattola mentioned on his site that the guitars he built following that Tacoma plan - that have the strong transverse brace below the bridge - also sound that way.

I'm wondering if my idea of allowing the X to be untouched as it passes under the transverse would attenuate the effect of that big brace, to an extent, at least? And in addition, leave the transverse brace short of the kerfing to allow for more side to side rocking - just fade away as it approaches the sides.

Or could it be that no transverse brace is needed -as in the Batson top above? Make the X a little taller, keep it thin, add in a tone bar or two.

Thoughts?

[Hans Mattes]

It's my perspective that structural soundboard braces (which then become node lines for soundboard resonances) serve three purposes -- to prevent the headblock folding into the guitar, to prevent the bridge and bridgeplate from excessively deforming the soundboard, and to strengthen the soundboard against modest impacts. Only the third purpose requires significant transverse bracing if the headblock is reinforced by other bracing clear of the soundboard -- and lighter-weight transverse tone bars can do an adequate job in preventing impact damage, especially if an "X" brace is present.