D4 vs Dv4 bracing and tone

[CHC19672024]

Hi All
I have recently gotten back into playing after a decade off and pulled out my 94 D4 and Taylor 314. After putting on new strings each guitar needed some playing before they woke back up but even after a few months the Guild is noticeably dull compared with others. The mids are the best especially A, D and G strings but the low E, B and high E sound a little dull.
So this was a great opportunity to go down a geeky tone rabbit hole and it has been a fun and educational. I am going to meet with a Luther to adjust the set up and talk about the tone. I discovered that some luthiers and non Luthiers shave a guitars braces to increase the sensitivity of the top which sounds interesting and I am also looking into Tusq pins and saddle.
Then, yesterday I googled, what is a Guild DV4 and realized Guild, to paraphrase many descriptions, seems to have modified the D4 with scalloped braces and a flat mahogany back to make it sound vintage and boomy. I have watched some videos and I really like the tone of the DV.
Ok, thanks for making it this far. Now I am wondering how close I can get to the DV type tone with my D4. I am open to lightly scalloping the braces, if a professional luthier thinks it will not ruin the guitar. I cannot change the arch back but maybe that has advantages over the flat back that will be different but not worse that the flat back.
Does anyone here have relevant info that might help me? A photo of DV bracing could be useful, I assume it is the same pattern as the D4 just scalloped but I could be wrong. Has anyone here experimented with a D4/D25 tone and had success?
thanks
Heath
P.S yes, I am considering buying a Dv4 if I find a good one.

 

[chazmo]

Welcome aboard, CHC...

Your D-4 has an arched (laminated) mahogany back, right?

Yeah, there's little resemblance between that and the DV-4 and DV-6 that were introduced later.

There are some "Henkogram" pictures of the bracing of various dreads that have been posted by our members. You can search around for them as there might be some of the DV models.

 

[CHC19672024]

Thanks Chazmo, my research continues. Looks like it was first released in 96 but might have been re-released at a later date.

 

[GGJaguar]

The contouring of the scalloping braces in my D-26 is not very deep, but makes a big difference in overall tone compared to my D-4 (basically the same guitar, but straight braced). Sometimes less is more. Here's a pic of the D-26 bracing.

 

[CHC19672024]

GGJaguar, Thank you!! This helps me have more confidence that the basic brace design is not radically different and have a visual of how much scalloping has been done.
Thanks again
Heath

 

[plaidseason]

GGJaguar, Thank you!! This helps me have more confidence that the basic brace design is not radically different and have a visual of how much scalloping has been done.
Thanks again
Heath

I think the bracing on the D4/D25/DV4/DV25 is all straight. The D26, DV6 and DV52 are a different story.

From my own experience with two different DCE1s (close enough to a D4/D25). My current 1993 version is fairly loud - but it came to me very played in. The two string sets I've been happy with are DR Rare PB 12s and (recently discovered) Cleartone Everly Acoustic Sessions, also 12.

If you're still not happy . . .

1) it's possible to have the braces shaved, which will help.
2) This is even tempting me . . .

Guild D26-NT Dreadnought Acoustic, 1995, Mint | Reverb

This is a 1995 Guild D26-NT in mint condition. I am the original owner. I can't believe it's almost 30 years old. It has a few pick marks on the pick guard but that's it. I believe that they only made these for one year. Just like a D25 only with gold hardware. It is a very loud acoustic with a ...

reverb.com

 

[chazmo]

Here's a link to some of Dave's "Henkogram" pictures. No DV-4 in there but some of the other DVs are there.

DV-52 history and reasoning for making

I did a search here and came up short on links for this info. Is it on this site or only in a book somewhere. Curious if this was a Fender idea or before. Since I have one I wanted to get a little history. Thanks

letstalkguild.com

 

[davenumber2]

I think the bracing on the D4/D25/DV4/DV25 is all straight. The D26, DV6 and DV52 are a different story.

From my own experience with two different DCE1s (close enough to a D4/D25). My current 1993 version is fairly loud - but it came to me very played in. The two string sets I've been happy with are DR Rare PB 12s and (recently discovered) Cleartone Everly Acoustic Sessions, also 12.

If you're still not happy . . .

1) it's possible to have the braces shaved, which will help.
2) This is even tempting me . . .

Guild D26-NT Dreadnought Acoustic, 1995, Mint | Reverb

This is a 1995 Guild D26-NT in mint condition. I am the original owner. I can't believe it's almost 30 years old. It has a few pick marks on the pick guard but that's it. I believe that they only made these for one year. Just like a D25 only with gold hardware. It is a very loud acoustic with a ...

reverb.com

The DV4 and DV6’s that were made in Tacoma had scalloped bracing. I can’t speak to earlier versions.

 

[CHC19672024]

I think the bracing on the D4/D25/DV4/DV25 is all straight. The D26, DV6 and DV52 are a different story.

From my own experience with two different DCE1s (close enough to a D4/D25). My current 1993 version is fairly loud - but it came to me very played in. The two string sets I've been happy with are DR Rare PB 12s and (recently discovered) Cleartone Everly Acoustic Sessions, also 12.

If you're still not happy . . .

1) it's possible to have the braces shaved, which will help.
2) This is even tempting me . . .

Guild D26-NT Dreadnought Acoustic, 1995, Mint | Reverb

This is a 1995 Guild D26-NT in mint condition. I am the original owner. I can't believe it's almost 30 years old. It has a few pick marks on the pick guard but that's it. I believe that they only made these for one year. Just like a D25 only with gold hardware. It is a very loud acoustic with a ...

reverb.com

Volume is not very important to me but clarity, balance, and bass response are what I am looking for. One thing that I first noticed is that my Taylor 314 has a deeper, fuller, and more sustained low E than my Guild D4. Apparently bass is the first thing that comes alive when you shave the braces.

 

[CHC19672024]

The DV4 and DV6’s that were made in Tacoma had scalloped bracing. I can’t speak to earlier versions.

I think the first ones were in 96 at Westerly, that would be my target if I were to try to buy one and that is the model I am researching.

 

[chazmo]

I think the first ones were in 96 at Westerly, that would be my target if I were to try to buy one and that is the model I am researching.

By the way, CHC, just so you know... The DV-4 and DV-6 starting in Tacoma and then making the transition to Ensenada during the New Hartford-era were spec'd differently than the Westerly-era. The DV-4 from this timeframe was mahogany-backed, and the DV-6 was rosewood.

I can't remember what the Westerly DV-4 and DV-6 were, but make sure you're really clear if you go to buy.

One thing that was common across all of the DVs was they were all solid woods. No arched-backs among them.

 

[chazmo]

I can't remember what the Westerly DV-4 and DV-6 were, but make sure you're really clear if you go to buy.

I just checked the 1996 - '98 catalogs (thank you, GAD!!!) and it looks like -- in Westerly -- there was no DV-4 model. The DV-6 was the solid mahogany-backed DV model. It looks like if you wanted a rosewood DV, it was the DV-52 that was your rosebud. It looks to me like the DV-4 was invented in Tacoma, and the DV-6 was re-spec'd as a rosewood model.

There's tremendous love for the DV-52 on LTG, but not a ton of mention of the Westerly DV-6. Maybe there just weren't many.

 

[CHC19672024]

Thanks for that research. The solid back probably made a difference in tone. I heard an explanation that a solid back bounces like a top affecting the sound but I doubt the arch back bounces much. Are there 2 models in the Guild history that are identical except for the arch vs solid back? If so what is the affect on sound? This might be a question for another thread, I'll search first. Assuming I have success with shaving the braces I still might want the solid back DV-6 if I can find a Westerly. We will see.

 

[chazmo]

Are there 2 models in the Guild history that are identical except for the arch vs solid back?

Guild's arched-back models are some of the finest guitars you'll ever find, CHC. They just knew/know how to build them right. They are sonic powerhouses, not slouches.

I can't answer your question exactly, but the sound of the arched back models is different in some ways to the solid-back models. Your closest comparison is probably an F-50 (arched maple, with some notable exceptions) to an F-50R (solid rosewood, with some notable exceptions). I'm not sure if there's any close comparison in the dreadnought size guitars.

Good luck in the hunt!

 

[adorshki]

I just checked the 1996 - '98 catalogs (thank you, GAD!!!) and it looks like -- in Westerly -- there was no DV-4 model. The DV-6 was the solid mahogany-backed DV model. It looks like if you wanted a rosewood DV, it was the DV-52 that was your rosebud. It looks to me like the DV-4 was invented in Tacoma, and the DV-6 was re-spec'd as a rosewood model.

There's tremendous love for the DV-52 on LTG, but not a ton of mention of the Westerly DV-6. Maybe there just weren't many.

The DV was introduced in Westerly in '99:

Note I dispute the verbiage claiming a flatback will be lighter than an archback. For one thing, the flatback has bracing, and for another, the glue doesn't weigh more than the bracing when constructing a laminated back. And the back itself isn't that much thicker than a solid.
Note also they dup'd the blurb for the D4 under the DV-4, but the '00 catalog corrected it:

Note they also introduced the 1-year only DV-25 in '00, and that neither of those catalogs say anything about scalloped bracing on those DV's, although the '97 catalog stated shaved braces for the DV-6 and scalloped for the DV52:

@CHC19672024 :
Simply shaving the braces of a D4 won't bring it into the tonal realm of a flatback, the flatback itself emphasizes fundamentals, yields a crisper tone, while archbacks tend to amplify everything. Great for chords, maybe not so great for fingerpicking, and at volume can muddy up.

Took me ten years to hear the diff between my D40 flatback and my D25 archback, 2 essentially identical guitars except the D40's a flatback and I've grown to prefer it over the last couple of years.

Best suggestion is to look for a DV6 or D40. You won't be disappointed. Modding a D4 is a crap shoot.

 

[GardMan]

Are there 2 models in the Guild history that are identical except for the arch vs solid back?

There are a number of dread models that have similar, if not identical, specs, except one has a flat (braced) solid back and one an arched (un-braced) laminated back. Examples include:

All mahogany, flat-backed (1972 and earlier D-25) and all mahogany arched back (D-25M from 1973-74, D-15, D-16, or D-17);

Spruce topped, arched back (D-25 from 1974 on, D-4, D-5) and spruce-topped flat back (D-35, D-6, D-7);

Spruce-topped arched maple back G-37 (1972 on) and spruce-topped flat maple back D-44M (about 1971 on).

There are probably other pairings... you might look thru this blog...

 

[midnightright]

I can only say that I have owned two examples of the DV-6, from the mid '90s. Both of which were stellar examples of everything I would ever want out of a guitar. Even though the D-4/or more specifically, D-25 is my favorite all-time model by Guild ("Probably?..")~* I, in fact, had both a D-4 which I had been playing exclusively until I'd gotten the second DV-6. Now this was AT LEAST My 3rd D-4/D-25, at that time (there have since, been 'others!' ). Once I got the DV-6. The D-4 went nearly untouched until first selling the D-4, followed by the DV-6 sometime afterwards (this was all over a decade ago). Good luck!

 

[midnightright]

Guild's arched-back models are some of the finest guitars you'll ever find, CHC. They just knew/know how to build them right. They are sonic powerhouses, not slouches.

I can't answer your question exactly, but the sound of the arched back models is different in some ways to the solid-back models. Your closest comparison is probably an F-50 (arched maple, with some notable exceptions) to an F-50R (solid rosewood, with some notable exceptions). I'm not sure if there's any close comparison in the dreadnought size guitars.

Good luck in the hunt!

I would concur. Even if, you found, in theory... two identical examples (which is nearly impossible to do, in my opinion) ~ then when taking into account the difference in backs only (neglecting for now the sake of difference in bracing; which is no slouch, or insignificant, as well!) . . . then to me, & my ear anyway--it almost makes them completely different guitars, in a way. But that may not be the same experience for/or with you, and yours (ears, that is).

 

[midnightright]

but not a ton of mention of the Westerly DV-6.

Oh, they're insane... as in, "out of this world" good! (if that's your thing, that is) :^)

 

[midnightright]

Volume is not very important to me but clarity, balance, and bass response are what I am looking for. One thing that I first noticed is that my Taylor 314 has a deeper, fuller, and more sustained low E than my Guild D4. Apparently bass is the first thing that comes alive when you shave the braces.

Another thing worth maybe keeping in mind, or considering, is apart from them being from two different makers, that the body sizes themselves may be different as well. I'm not super well-versed in Taylor's & their terminology, but is that something more of the Grand Auditorium, variety (as opposed to Dreadnaught)?