Bracing

[oruss]

Hello,

I'm new to this board. I was wondering if anyone has experimented with different guitar braces and positions. I have a background in metal cutting and forming and stresses in materials. Bracing as I see it in guitars really doesn't make a lot of sense for the loads that are applied by the strings. Has it been, "well we've always done it this way, and we'll continue." Has anyone done a scientific study on where the bracing really needs to be?

Edited January 21, 2006 by oruss

[M_A_T_T]

I think there has been a study done, but I'm not sure. There are slight variations of the traditional X brace system in use, one is the Larrivee symetrical bracing pattern, with variations of that in use also.

[Mattia]

Kasha, supposedly, although many folks don't like the science or the sounds that came out of that.

What's wrong with an X-braced system, exactly? It provides more support than 'traditional' ladder bracing, or fan bracing (more cross-grain stiffness increases, anyway) By modifying the angle, you can play with how much stiffness you add (cross-grain stiffness on topwoods is lower than long grain stiffness), the angle of the tone bars does the same, finger braces ditto. It's built fairly stiff above the soundhole (X-brace upper legs, solid upper transverse brace, all left fairly high, and taking the majority of the load). The bridg crosses the lower X-braces, close to the intersection, loading up probably one of the stiffest areas on the entire guitar.

As for brace shaping, that's all about trying to get to the guitar to sound like we want to. Scalloping makes no structural sense at all, but it's done because it leads to the sound bluegrassers are looking for in their dreds. What we have to remember is that a guitar top is not there simply to 'withstand string tension'. That isn't it's primary purpose. It's a requirement for the guitar not to implode, but the purpose of the top is to turn a decent amount of string tension/vibrational energy into sound. Also, change the bracing, change the sound of the instrument somewhat. And people like the sound of the X-braced design. That's defined the isntrument we know of as an acoustic guitar, in part.

All sorts of bracing designs have been tried over the years, and the ones that work are stuck with. The ones that provide results. No experiments with new bracing structures have lead to conclusively 'better' results, although there are a few that have moderate followings (say lattice bracing, Kasha-style, and a few added structural elements such as flying buttresses and CF reinforced braces for better structural memory). Almost everything that anyone can think of in terms of guitar-related 'innovations' has been done at one point or another.

On the other hand, brace mass is relatively negligible in the grand scheme of things (10-20% of the weight of the entire top), but placement of that small amount of mass is what allows 2-3mm thick tops to work at all. So yes, placement is paramount.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'where it needs to be'. For that, we'd need to be able to define what a guitar should sound like (we can't), how the soundboard should be supported (we can't), what kind of vibrations are best, and how to allow them (we can't). The experience of what makes a good isntrument is too subjective, and what works for one builder and/or player may not work for the other. So there's that a priori problem to be dealt with.

Edited January 21, 2006 by mattia

[fryovanni]

Hello,

I'm new to this board. I was wondering if anyone has experimented with different guitar braces and positions. I have a background in metal cutting and forming and stresses in materials. Bracing as I see it in guitars really doesn't make a lot of sense for the loads that are applied by the strings. Has it been, "well we've always done it this way, and we'll continue." Has anyone done a scientific study on where the bracing really needs to be?

You will find many people have tried different systems. I think X-bracing has proved reliable and versatile. Keep in mind you can use different scalloping or profiles, some folks drill out parts of the bracing. I think it is the most used configuration not because people just don't want to improve it. I think people choose to use it because it simply works very well and produces great results. If you want to design a new system. By all means go for it(that is the fun part of building).

Peace,Rich

[SwedishLuthier]

I have no result to share yet, but I’m right now in the process of building a Kasha-inspired dreadnought sized steel string. I have researched this issue (theoretically, reading up on every aspect) for a couple of years and now I feel comfortable enough to try it for real. I would happily exchange information as the build evolve. I might start a “in progress” thread about this.

[shorty]

Hi.

I have a guitar here I made 7 or 8 years ago with a completely unbraced top and no "sound hole" (I call it the Freeboard). I think it sounds great as do others who have played it. I used an external brace to counter the string tension. If anyone would like more details I would be happy to provide them.

[Mattia]

Hi.

I have a guitar here I made 7 or 8 years ago with a completely unbraced top and no "sound hole" (I call it the Freeboard). I think it sounds great as do others who have played it. I used an external brace to counter the string tension. If anyone would like more details I would be happy to provide them.

Pictures AND details, please!

[fryovanni]

Hi.

I have a guitar here I made 7 or 8 years ago with a completely unbraced top and no "sound hole" (I call it the Freeboard). I think it sounds great as do others who have played it. I used an external brace to counter the string tension. If anyone would like more details I would be happy to provide them.

More details and pic's would be great.

Peace,Rich(AKA the guy who keeps 2nd.-ing Mattia's posts )

[Myka Guitars]

I can only add to waht has already been said as it is all valid and good info. Bracing theory is pretty cool. I am starting to get back into thinking about this and will be building a couple acoustics soon. The way I approach it is dependent on the actual soundboard. A stiffer soundboard requires less bracing and a more flexible one will require more for a certain response. I go by the way it sounds as I tap it. I am not looking for any specific range of tone but I am looking for certain qualities: resonance, sustain, even response across the board, etc. There are so many theories and so many guitars being built using them that it is difficult at best to say which is the best way or even the correct way to do it. Some approaces favor even stiffness across the entire soundboard whereas others brace stiffer on the treble side and more flexible on the bass side of the bridge. And most of the guitars out there brace them like Martins because that's tradition.

Here are some links to some different ideas:

Kasha bracing

Interesting truss inspired design

Fred Carlson with his Oracle harp guitar (cool!)

My bracing design (Harry Fleishman inspired)

Ervin Somogyi's article on guitar design. A great read.

Chris Jenkins approach

There is so much more if you dig into Google.

~David

[Pr3Va1L]

What I think is one of the bad points of your regular dreadnought guitar is the sheer quantity of bracing near the sound hole... Since the sound hole is right in the middle of the guitar, scrapping any structural integrity, it needs all the bracing else it wouldn't work...

Then, what about ovations? By placing the soundhole nearer to the sides of the guitar, there's no need to brace them at ALL... Here's one of their bracing patterns:

Also, that's without talking about the Adamas line... Carbon replaces wood for the top leaving with almost NO need for braces while reducing the top's weight and size... Plurists won't like the idea of not having wood, but still... I guess that if poeple actually buy those at their 2k$ price point, they must be at least somewhat good lol

[Mattia]

David: well, honestly, most of those designs (save Kasha, and I've heard very mixed reviews about the results, and very few good stories about the 'science' behind it all; if it had worked, more builders would be using it, is my feeling. I like mah traditional guitar sounds) are pretty much in the Martin school, with slight modifications here and there, but the basic layout (X, various types of tone bars, finger braces) is still pretty much there. You've got various symmetrical designs (the 'larrivee' school, if you will, and double-X designs), but it's still centered around an X, because that's an effective way (little mass for added stiffness) to deal with steel string tension.

Prevail: Well, depends; many folks feel the majority of the sound production is in the lower bout: everything below the soundhole = sound, above the soundhole = structural, also because the torque is trying to collapse that part of the top. Cut a hole in it, and you really, really need to reinforce that part of the top. No, it's not efficient, but then guitars aren't efficient instruments at all. Moving the soundholes and sizes changes the sound, the more you move them, the less like 'guitars' they sound, and I've never read anyone really showing evidence that these guitars are much louder, let alone better tonally. They're modifications, but frankly, almost everything you can think of has been tried many times over, and people gravitate towards certain designs because they work well, and consistently, not solely due to tradition. It plays a part, but not the only part.

Hi tech is fine if you like it, but the wooden guitar's proved its tone generating capacity, its volume, its ability to create sound. I remain unconvinced that a CF top without braces is going to be lighter and easier to move; remember this: mass of a top, with braces, around 250 grams or so. Without the bracing (excluding the bridge, which is another 20-35 grams), all the bracing on an acoustic is maybe 50 of those grams. Give or take. Carbon Fibre? Damn heavy stuff, compared to spruce. Even at half the thickness, I'd think it's going to be pretty heavy stuff. Certainly not a whole lot lighter.

I quite like the aesthetic of CF tops, on rainsongs and the like, but I've yet to meet an Ovation that's either comfortable or that impresses me with how it sounds. I'll stick to wood, which, honestly, is a far more fascinating, magical material than CF. I'll use CF where I feel its appropriate (considering adding some to the X-brace, thin laminate, because it has zero memory effect; less top deformation, and all my necks have it), but dammit, wood's just far more exciting a material to work with. It's inherent variability is part of its charm.

[Myka Guitars]

Mattia: I posted those examples so that people could see the variation of bracing design out there. You bring up good points but it seems you are biased towards old school acoustic guitar design and sounds. Nothing wrong with that at all. These tones are what we all have been hearing for most of our lives and some great music has been played on these guitars. But if you like your traditional guitar sounds you won't like a CF top or Kasha bracing. Let's just agree that everyone's opinion is going to be subjective and that there is not a tone or bracing system that everyone can agree upon.

In my experience talking with other builders the reason that most of these newer designs are not common has little to do with how well they work. It is simply that it is more difficult to sell them. That puts them out of reach of most people because the job is left to the smaller builders. Considering the prices and small batches of guitars made by small builders there simply are not that many good examples out there that people can get their hands on. When they do play them if people expect a dreadnaught tone they will be dissappointed. This is the most likely cause of the bad press with Kasha and the like.

But I must admit that I am biased. I like the newer ideas because they are different. I will test and try out new ideas just because they are new. I love experimentation and the new tones and music that results. The people I look to for inspiration are Linda Manzer, Steve Klein, Rick Turner, Boaz Elkyam, Harry Fleishman, and Fred Carlson (and how about Charles Fox's new Ergo!) All equally different in their approach and all very innovative luthiers. I like new, progressive approaches to just about everything. I also like the charm of my spruce top x-braced design very much.

[Mattia]

Mattia: I posted those examples so that people could see the variation of bracing design out there. You bring up good points but it seems you are biased towards old school acoustic guitar design and sounds. Nothing wrong with that at all. These tones are what we all have been hearing for most of our lives and some great music has been played on these guitars. But if you like your traditional guitar sounds you won't like a CF top or Kasha bracing. Let's just agree that everyone's opinion is going to be subjective and that there is not a tone or bracing system that everyone can agree upon.

Well, yeah, that's certainly true. It's a bit of a circular argument type of deal; I like modern aesthetics, designs (Manzer, Ryan, Turner, all fantastically interesting instruments), but I still think most top bracing (other than Kasha, and some lattice braced stuff; ironically there seem to be more 'adventourous' classical builders out there, with double tops and lattice bracing and the like) doesn't deviate hugely from a standard-ish X-brace layout. There are differences, but they're usually not entire reinventions of the isntrument. I'm not sure I'm all that 'old school' in terms on tone; fairly trad, yes, but more towards the modern sounds (Ryan, Olson) than towards those who build straight Martin copies. For Ovations, well, I just don't like how they sound. Heard a few Rainsongs that were surprisingly nice (maple back/sides, CF top). Interesting. I don't see myself building them for the simple fact a really good quality wood top is much, much cheaper. And dammit, I'm biased towards the aesthetics of wood! I love wood! It's part of the reason I build guitars, y'know ;-)

In my experience talking with other builders the reason that most of these newer designs are not common has little to do with how well they work. It is simply that it is more difficult to sell them. That puts them out of reach of most people because the job is left to the smaller builders. Considering the prices and small batches of guitars made by small builders there simply are not that many good examples out there that people can get their hands on. When they do play them if people expect a dreadnaught tone they will be dissappointed. This is the most likely cause of the bad press with Kasha and the like.

I'm sure, yeah. Although I'm not a big fan of Dreds in any way, shape or form. They're just not curvy enough! I think the main thing I get out of a lot of the innovations is that they look interesting, they work, but they don't necessarily work any better than quite 'traditional' designs. They can have slightly different tonal palettes, but a bit of brace carving and adjust angles of regular braces will also do some of that. I'd jump at the chance to play more different weird guitars, but I'm conservatively adding 'modern' features to my own: CF in the X-braces, maybe a spruce bridge patch with ebony insert a la petros, I've got my first wedge guitar clsoed up, I'll be doing my first sound port on the next build, and I've pretty much settled on X-braced backs, potentially with some CF topping a la Turner. And I'll be trying a Doolin-style adjustable neck joint as well. And when I get the courage, an arm rest.

So, y'know, I'm not exactly a poster child for traditionalism. But the aesthetics have to work together, and I'm not moving far from the 'proven' X-braced designs until I personally feel I've got at least rudimentary understanding of how they all work to create sound.

But I must admit that I am biased. I like the newer ideas because they are different. I will test and try out new ideas just because they are new. I love experimentation and the new tones and music that results. The people I look to for inspiration are Linda Manzer, Steve Klein, Rick Turner, Boaz Elkyam, Harry Fleishman, and Fred Carlson (and how about Charles Fox's new Ergo!) All equally different in their approach and all very innovative luthiers. I like new, progressive approaches to just about everything. I also like the charm of my spruce top x-braced design very much.

As do I. Fascinating stuff. I'm just not prolific enough to get too experimental with the top, not yet, not until I think I understand it a tiny bit better.

Mattia

Edited February 14, 2006 by mattia

[Pr3Va1L]

I guess it's pretty much like talking about what "tone" is for an electric guitar... Everyone will like something different... The problem is there's not much different around to have different sounds in acoustic guitars... Most poeple don't even know what braces are, so big compagnies have no reason to try different things if what's there sells

The bracing is a very big part of an acoustic guitar's sound and so is the top material. I think wood's really great as a top material (then again, not all woods... Though experimentation can yeild really different and nice results) but I also think the current bracing and sound-hole system is simply overbuilt!

Now again, it seems the general concensus that a dreadnought with X-bracing is your "standard" guitar sound... What if you want something else? You can always change the shape of the body (jumbos), but it doesn't change the sound enough for me... The volume is louder and the sound has a little more bass but that's about it.

So I tryed an ovation (korean model with a laminate top, mind you) and fell in love with it. I've had many comments and it seems poeple either really like it or really dislike it, but I don't care... It's the guitar sound *I* like

[fryovanni]

There is a lot of room for new designs and experimentation in acoustics. Acoustics also have a rich history that has produced great sounding instruments. I like to learn from the past and look to the future. I guess I am still trying to better understanding of how things work before I try to change them too much.

The bracing is a very big part of an acoustic guitar's sound and so is the top material. I think wood's really great as a top material (then again, not all woods... Though experimentation can yeild really different and nice results) but I also think the current bracing and sound-hole system is simply overbuilt!

I agree bracing and wood selection are very important to producing sound. When you say "current" bracing and sound hole system is overbuilt . What system are you thinking of? I have found the wood used, how thick the top wood is, really are significant. when it comes time to carve bracing and get the board sounding like it should(at least what I want to hear). I guess you could carve any bracing system to the point of collapse. So I am not sure about over built, but I can totally understand making it more efficient and well balanced. If it sounds good though I would say it is working well.

Peace,Rich

[Mattia]

Admittedly it's a taste thing, but I think body shape has a pretty significant effect on sound; the larger bodied instruments (jumbos) are oftet quieter (because they're too big for the amount of available string energy), but can be great. Honestly, I feel body shape/size has more effect on tone than, say, back/side wood; a dred sounds like a dred, an OM like an OM, a 12-fret 00...you get my drift.

Honestly, I still don't really see the huge amount of extra mass above the soundhole; remember that the fingerboard on non-cantilevered designs hugely restricts the motion of the upper bout (plus, y'know, the waist on the guitar), so yeah, popsicle brace, dual upper transverse braces may be slight overkill. But honestly, based on that shot of the ovation, I doubt it has huge amounts less bracing in the upper bout, when it comes down to mass; the soundhole 'plug' weighs about as much as all the little support braces around it, and the mass of the longtiudinal braces in that shot is still about 2/3-3/4 of the weight in a fairly standard AX setup. In an area that's not terribly acoustically active in terms of vibration because of the big hole right there. Ovation's bracing also does little to increase cross-stiffness, but a lot to increase the already stiff longitudinal stiffness. Most of the weight is in the top itself, and the bridge and bracing account for about equal amounts of the rest (ovations also have very light walnut bridges, which helps the high end, but not the low end).

I don't disagree that we probably overbuild all our guitars, to some point, but it's a fine line between somthing that'll sound great for a short time and something that will do the same for decades, centuries if you're lucky, what with all that tension. And lest we forget, some of the softwoods? Have an unreal stifness to mass ratio. Crazy. But they deform over time, they take a 'set'. Thing is, the difference in measureable output doesn't seem to be that huge between various guitars. What overbuilding affects is the dynamic range, how well it can transition for quiet to loud, how well it reponds to a different 'touch'. Guitars, IMO, are loud enough as they are, and my slightly overbuilt first is a very, very loud guitar in a small room. If I want to play out, that's what amplification is for. I'm after tone, dynamic range, responsiveness.

Ovations have a sort of 'compressed' sound, which makes them cut through the mix well, and the note-separation and compression makes the popular among some fingerpickers (although I generally just think 'great playing, shame about the tone', but that's personal). Good sustain, not separation, but I feel they lack a degree of 'richness'; at least the ones I've played. What exactly that's down to, I don't know, but the bowl back (least. comfortable. guitar. ever), the bracing scheme, and the lightweight bridge probably all contribute.

I guess it's pretty much like talking about what "tone" is for an electric guitar... Everyone will like something different... The problem is there's not much different around to have different sounds in acoustic guitars... Most poeple don't even know what braces are, so big compagnies have no reason to try different things if what's there sells

Also, y'know, it's rarely the big companies that introduce huge breakthroughs. it's smaller builders who go one at a time, that don't require re-tooling everything for a new line of production instruments. Ovation made its name by being different, so their goal is as much marketing a new, modern guitar ideal as it is making a 'better' guitar. They were pioneers in amplifying acoustics for stage use, though, that's for damn sure. There's space in the market for 'different' bracing designs, but there's less acceptable variation when it comes to the tone people are looking for, it would seem.

This said, some folks, like Bob Taylor in particular, are responsible for breaking some big traditional molds; just a few years ago (and still today, in some circles), people looked down on bolt-on neck systems (ignoring the advantages, and the fact the way Taylor does it is more complicated than fitting a dovetail). They've now become generally accepted, and are the method of choice for many high-end hand builders, even.

[Pr3Va1L]

but the bowl back (least. comfortable. guitar. ever)

Ever tryed a super-shallow bowl? Mine is one and i'd change "least" for "most"

And yea, I think you're right, Ovations have that kinda sound that cuts through the mix with lots of mids... Compressed is the right word to explain it lol...

[Mattia]

but the bowl back (least. comfortable. guitar. ever)

Ever tryed a super-shallow bowl? Mine is one and i'd change "least" for "most"

And yea, I think you're right, Ovations have that kinda sound that cuts through the mix with lots of mids... Compressed is the right word to explain it lol...

Hehe...ever tried a wedged guitar body? I'll be making one with an arm rest in the near future, which hopefully should 'deal with' any uncomfortableness. I don't like super-shallow bowlbacks because I think they have even less of a full sound than the full-bowled ones. They're also nightmarish guitars to repair, by all accounts.

[shorty]

Hi.

I have a guitar here I made 7 or 8 years ago with a completely unbraced top and no "sound hole" (I call it the Freeboard). I think it sounds great as do others who have played it. I used an external brace to counter the string tension. If anyone would like more details I would be happy to provide them.

Pictures AND details, please!

It's a very simple design based on a thru-neck which braces the tail block to take the string tension.

The bridge is braced to the tail block by an adjustable rod.

The top was thinned down to about 2mm and the edge thinned even more to free it up - I guess I was thinking Rossmeisel - to get the resonant frequency down so we can get rid of that reflex port mis-named the "soundhole".

The main problem now is bridge rotoation about the long axis which shows as a thump when playing hard. I have a plan......

The other problem is to make it look nice.

I put some theory on my site www.guitarsetc.co.uk if you'ld like more and I'll put some pix up too.

[Mattia]

Hi.

I have a guitar here I made 7 or 8 years ago with a completely unbraced top and no "sound hole" (I call it the Freeboard). I think it sounds great as do others who have played it. I used an external brace to counter the string tension. If anyone would like more details I would be happy to provide them.

Pictures AND details, please!

It's a very simple design based on a thru-neck which braces the tail block to take the string tension.

The bridge is braced to the tail block by an adjustable rod.

The top was thinned down to about 2mm and the edge thinned even more to free it up - I guess I was thinking Rossmeisel - to get the resonant frequency down so we can get rid of that reflex port mis-named the "soundhole".

The main problem now is bridge rotoation about the long axis which shows as a thump when playing hard. I have a plan......

The other problem is to make it look nice.

I put some theory on my site www.guitarsetc.co.uk if you'ld like more and I'll put some pix up too.

Honestly, looking at the diagrams you've got up there, you've got a slightly more complicated, stainless steel version of...a JLD Bridge doctor without a soundhole. Perhaps more beefed up, but the concept (take care of string torque through different means) seems like its pretty much identical.

I've seen a number of guitars without soundholes on various forums over the years, although most do have a side soundhole, reason being, like a speaker, the bass reflex action of the soundhole (even if it's in the side, say) certainly doesn't harm the guitar's sound.

[fryovanni]

You know I was looking at doing something like this, and I still am interested by the concept. My big delima came down to one question. Would I dampen the soundboards abilty to vibrate more with a support means connected directly to the neck/heal blocks when compaired to more traditional bracing that actually vibrates with the soundboard. Removing the soundhole or relocating seems pretty easy to justify.

Peace,Rich

[SwedishLuthier]

Would I dampen the soundboards abilty to vibrate more with a support means connected directly to the neck/heal blocks when compaired to more traditional bracing that actually vibrates with the soundboard.

Yes you will probably do. I have read a book that describes an experiment were a traditional flat top steel string bridge is held in a fixture that is similar to what shorty does. That experiment showed that the volume of the guitar was considerable lower with the “flying brace” (as I think that it should be called) compared to without. The way a fixed bridge is transferring energy into the sound board is by transferring the string energy into a rotating movement of the top with the axis roughly through the bridge. A flying brace is effectively stopping that.

I have done a lot of reading up (I admit that this is only theoretical knowledge) for my first acoustic and I have decided to move the soundhole. Traditionally we put the soundhole in the part of the top that is supposed to carry the string force. To stop the top from collapsing Martin came up with the X-brace. The X-brace allows the top to rotate and many people like the sound of a X-braced guitar. But the X-brace add a lot of mass to the top and a heavy top need more energy to drive it (get it to vibrate). My plan is to move the hole into the cutaway area. This should in theory mean that I don’t have to brace the top as much as traditional. This also means that I can use the braces as tone-shaping devices compared to structural devices to stop the top from collapsing (yeah a lot of Kasha-ideas here…).

But then again, this is only theories. I’m in the process of building the side bender and the mould and the hollow forms and…

It will probably take me a lot of time before I know if my ideas are right or if I’ve wasted my time and some nice wood.

[Mattia]

I have done a lot of reading up (I admit that this is only theoretical knowledge) for my first acoustic and I have decided to move the soundhole. Traditionally we put the soundhole in the part of the top that is supposed to carry the string force. To stop the top from collapsing Martin came up with the X-brace. The X-brace allows the top to rotate and many people like the sound of a X-braced guitar. But the X-brace add a lot of mass to the top and a heavy top need more energy to drive it (get it to vibrate). My plan is to move the hole into the cutaway area. This should in theory mean that I don’t have to brace the top as much as traditional. This also means that I can use the braces as tone-shaping devices compared to structural devices to stop the top from collapsing (yeah a lot of Kasha-ideas here…).

But then again, this is only theories. I’m in the process of building the side bender and the mould and the hollow forms and…

It will probably take me a lot of time before I know if my ideas are right or if I’ve wasted my time and some nice wood.

I'm pretty skeptical about Kasha's theories, to be honest, since they came from a non-builder, and the success seems to have been mixed at best; those builders that build the most successful Kasha instruments are the ones that could probably build fantastic instruments with just about any system. Also, since bracing mass is not a terribly significant element in the weight of the top (maybe 10% of total, not counting the bridge as a brace for the moment), and I like the sound of traditional guitars, I'm building with fairly trad braces. When I understand that, I'll get experimental. If I wanted to reduce bracing weight, I'd probably try a lattice arrangement rather than move the soundhole, per se.

Also, just to nit-pick: Martin came up with the X-brace for their gut-strung instruments. They didn't sound all that great. It's one of those accidents of nature that steel strings came along, and the X-brace was shown to be a very effective way of dealing with the added tension.

[SwedishLuthier]

I never said that I was going to use a Kasha bracing pattern. I'm just picking up a lot of ideas from him (and others). And yes, Kasha is a “non-builder” but Leo Fender was a non-player!

If I can reduce the weight of the top with, let’s say 5% that will in return boost the volume. I cannot say how much, but if will indeed affect the volume.

And I have never walked down the tried and safe path. Why would I? If I want a standard dreadnought or jumbo I can go out and buy one and it will cost me much less then the wood alone. In addition I can try out dozens till’ I find one that is “perfect”. Experiments and people that don’t know exactly what they do is one of the most important things that drive development. The fact that the X-brace was developed for gut-stringed guitars (a flop for those guitars) but proved to be superior to the lattice bracing used on contemporary steel string guitars of that time proves that it pays of to be non-traditional. At the same time I’m very aware of that I might end up with a guitar that sound like no other, and quite possible down right bad, but I am willing to take that chance to be able to create something unique.

[Pr3Va1L]

I saw in a little guitar magasine an acoustic guitar with a very good idea...

He installed 6 little string hoders near the sides of the guitar (around the whole 'butt' of the guitar) so he could remove a LOT of bracing since the whole tension was around the sides (where it's alredy solid) and not all at the same place...

The bridge also then only gave dowards vibrations (like in an archtop)...

It looked pretty bad but the theory is pretty damn much a good idea!