I recently received the following inquiry from a reader: "Mr. Cumpiano, ... It would seem that the overwhelming majority of luthiers tend to favor the x-brace pattern attributed to C.F. Martin for their soundboards. There are, of course, variations on it from luthier to luthier, but the x-brace concept seems to stay pretty consistent.
Now, Taylor guitars is introducing guitars with what they call “v-brace technology.” From what I’ve seen in their promotional videos, it looks as simple in concept as it sounds: moving the intersection of the two largest diagonal cross members from roughly the center of the soundboard to the bottom-center of the soundboard, so that, instead of an “x,” they form a “v.” Taylor is boasting more volume and more sustain from this movement. I’m not trying to cast aspersions or judgment on Taylor Guitars one way or the other; I was just wondering if there really was as much benefit to the v-bracing as they would boast?
My initial concern would be that moving the intersection down to the bottom would take away from the structural integrity of the soundboard by putting more stress on the center seam. However, the braces on most archtop guitars are in more of an “A” shape, with the braces not even connecting, and archtops can be sound cannons, so I could very well be mistaken in my concern.
I was simply wondering if you had any opinion on it? Thank you."
I've been thinking a lot lately about this topic, so I responded: I haven’t heard the v-braced guitar, or have I seen how one looks five years after it’s first strung up. The main question to ask about it is (other than how it makes the guitar sound), how efficiently does it limit the bridge’s rotation under string tension? By "efficiently" I mean, can it succeed in permanently limiting rotation with minimally-adequate stiffness? Two veed baseball bats would do the job of limiting just fine. But what is the minimal cross-section and mass that will accomplish the same thing? After all, the soundboard needs to respond to the signal and it won't if it is rigid. The hard part: how to be sure it is minimally adequate!
As far as the impact of moving the intersection, that doesn't trouble me as it seems to trouble you: I don’t see the intersection as the most rigid part of the x: after all, its made of two deeply-notched beams. The up-notch x arm is ridiculously weak right at the intersection. It’s the brace arms that predominately carry the load, at least in my perception.
A lot can be said for the v-scheme in theory: It supports the load in a manner more aligned with its source. I’m actually thrilled that Taylor has invested in a new way of thinking about how stresses are resolved on the guitar and their certainty that a new way is viable frees the luthier community to dare explore new ways of solving the sound vs. structure paradigm. I for one intend to start exploring right away.
The X was only one, early solution to the problem of how to just adequately support 180 lbs. of tension dumped onto an eighth-inch sheet of spruce. To say it’s the only solution possible is akin to believing your religion is the only possible one.