|
RobF -> RE: Lateral tautness (Dec. 16 2025 14:00:25)
|
When I look at a bracing pattern the first thing I check is how well it couples to the bridge. Then I look at how it's supporting the area between the bridge and soundhole and then how it's behaving structurally in general.
I don't know why people focus so heavily on bracing patterns. I find all the X-ray pictures that tend to show up on threads a bit tedious. Not because they aren't relevant but because they are giving far too much credence to one single aspect of what makes a guitar work.
I mean, ask yourself, why do people ascribe certain sonic characteristics to a maker? Do the instruments actually have a commonality? If so, why? Santos famously experimented with bracing, so did Bellido, so did many others over the space of their careers. On the other hand, Torres appeared to adopt a fairly consistent approach. As did others. To me, this suggests the bracing pattern isn't the overarching ingredient in determining the defining characteristic of a maker's work. On the other hand, could it be a maker's instruments actually have lots of different characteristics and it's just the label that biases the listener? If that is the case, what does that tell us about patterns?
If you want to copy a maker, I think start with their plantilla. Then try to understand how they approached the top, side and back thicknesses. Then adjust the bracing to the wood of the top. I think it all matters. But I think the bracing pattern itself, as long as it's intelligently executed, matters far less than it's often given credit for.
|
|
|
|
