Guild Bracing and Construction Questions...
Jeb
over-bracing question come up on the recent M-20 thread, so here it is
again!
I ask this question from a totally biased perspective and long time Guild
player.
The initial comments I usually hear regarding Guild guitars is they are
"heavy and over-braced" which presumably leads to a duller 'thumpy' sound.
My F-40 is certainly a beast of an acoustic guitar, all maple body with
pressed, arched back, huge maple neck/headstock and such, but all this mass
is combined with a rather nice, thin, tight grained, spruce sound board, and
yes, it is well braced.
My question, would it not be beneficial, or at least neutral, to combine a
heavy instrument with a thin, resonant, soundboard? Are their advantages to
thin back/sides/ neck? There is often talk of adding mass to a guitar in
the form of brass bridge pins or a brass headstock 'clip-on' which helps the
transfer of string vibration to the soundboard, the result of which then
reflects off of your favorite tone wood.
Also, the Guild owners manual (1979) says that it is important to keep the
guitar tuned to concert pitch
as the bridge/top/bracing requires a pre-determined amount of stress to
achieve optimal resonance of the soundboard, is this a common
recommendation?
I recently played my nieces Martin D-16GT, an extremely (to me) light
guitar. It had wonderful action and tone, but just felt unsubstantial and I
was not about to drive it very hard with a flatpick. Comparing it to my
F-40 was like comparing a wind-chime to a fog-horn 8^)
Just curious for input from others.
Jeb
Daniel Finegan
I would say that the braces on the M-20 I'm talking about in the other
thread seem awfully big! Maybe that's one reason the guitar seems a bit
dull.
It just so happens that I played my sister's Guild over the weekend.
Don't know the model number, D-sized, arched back, Even with light gauge
strings, the thing was a complete cannon!!!
Reagrds!
Dan
: This is a repost from a week ago, had limited response, but I saw the Guild
Bill Chandler
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>This is a repost from a week ago, had limited response, but I saw the Guild
>over-bracing question come up on the recent M-20 thread, so here it is
>again!
>
>I ask this question from a totally biased perspective and long time Guild
>player.
Cool...Long time Guild player/lover here, too...
>The initial comments I usually hear regarding Guild guitars is they are
>"heavy and over-braced" which presumably leads to a duller 'thumpy' sound.
>My F-40 is certainly a beast of an acoustic guitar, all maple body with
>pressed, arched back, huge maple neck/headstock and such, but all this mass
>is combined with a rather nice, thin, tight grained, spruce sound board, and
>yes, it is well braced.
Both of my Guilds are tanks. The D16-M is an all-mahogany
dread--front & sides are solid, back is 4-ply arched. The D25-12 (or
D225-NT, depending on if you believe the factory or the label...) is
solid mahogany sides, arched laminated back, and solid spruce front.
I have never heard or played a Guild that sounded "over-braced" to me.
Of course, there are thousands that I haven't played (dammit), but I
have never heard a dull or "thumpy" sound out of a Guild. This is
just my experience, though.
>My question, would it not be beneficial, or at least neutral, to combine a
>heavy instrument with a thin, resonant, soundboard? Are their advantages to
>thin back/sides/ neck? There is often talk of adding mass to a guitar in
>the form of brass bridge pins or a brass headstock 'clip-on' which helps the
>transfer of string vibration to the soundboard, the result of which then
>reflects off of your favorite tone wood.
I can't imagine any need to add mass to a Guild--at least either of
mine. I'm not a luthier, and I don't play one on TV (or Usenet),
though. I'd love to hear the opinions of the luthiers on this one.
>Also, the Guild owners manual (1979) says that it is important to keep the
>guitar tuned to concert pitch
>as the bridge/top/bracing requires a pre-determined amount of stress to
>achieve optimal resonance of the soundboard, is this a common
>recommendation?
I don't have the owner's manual for my 1985 D16-M, but the info with
my new D25-12 says to tune her up to concert. I don't, but that's
mainly because I like the 12-string tuned down a step. The D16-M goes
back and forth. I have been leaving her in concert for the last few
months, with the 12 down a step. I do know, though, that Guilds are
DESIGNED to take that stress, and to shine under it.
It seems to work.
>I recently played my nieces Martin D-16GT, an extremely (to me) light
>guitar. It had wonderful action and tone, but just felt unsubstantial and I
>was not about to drive it very hard with a flatpick. Comparing it to my
>F-40 was like comparing a wind-chime to a fog-horn 8^)
I have felt that way about several guitars I've played. I always keep
coming back to my Guilds.
>Just curious for input from others.
Well, I was hoping for more on this thread earlier, too--I really
don't have too much of technical import to add, and I was kinda
waiting for someone who did to do so.
But what the heck...$0.02, adjusted for inflation, indexed to the
prime rate, and worth every penny you paid for it...
-------
"Remember when the music came from wooden boxes
Strung with silver wire" --Harry Chapin
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
Bill Chandler
...bc...
David Drucker
perspective of a Guild fan who's had a few of them over the years. Given
reasonably new strings, they've all sounded huge, with plenty of bass and
treble that leans towards the Martin end of the spectrum rather than the
Taylor. Mind you, they've all been dreadnaught or jumbo models, so would
tend to be bassy by default. My only current Guild is a mid-seventies F412
BLD, maple sides and back. The action is a little too low to allow me to
tune it down to D without just a bit of buzzing. When I tune it down that
low, the sound is incredibly huge -- everything I want in a 12-string. At
concert pitch, the sound is still nicely balanced, but just misses that pipe
organ type of richness that I'd prefer. One day I'll have the action
adjusted...
The only really dead Guild I've encountered was a relatively new DV52 whose
strings were so old as to be rusty.
Just my opinion, though...
dd
Jeb <jcm...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:39ed...@flexnet239.uunt.net...
> This is a repost from a week ago, had limited response, but I saw the
Guild
> over-bracing question come up on the recent M-20 thread, so here it is
> again!
>
> I ask this question from a totally biased perspective and long time Guild
> player.
>
> The initial comments I usually hear regarding Guild guitars is they are
> "heavy and over-braced" which presumably leads to a duller 'thumpy' sound.
> My F-40 is certainly a beast of an acoustic guitar, all maple body with
> pressed, arched back, huge maple neck/headstock and such, but all this
mass
> is combined with a rather nice, thin, tight grained, spruce sound board,
and
> yes, it is well braced.
>
> My question, would it not be beneficial, or at least neutral, to combine a
> heavy instrument with a thin, resonant, soundboard? Are their advantages
to
> thin back/sides/ neck? There is often talk of adding mass to a guitar in
> the form of brass bridge pins or a brass headstock 'clip-on' which helps
the
> transfer of string vibration to the soundboard, the result of which then
> reflects off of your favorite tone wood.
>
> Also, the Guild owners manual (1979) says that it is important to keep the
> guitar tuned to concert pitch
> as the bridge/top/bracing requires a pre-determined amount of stress to
> achieve optimal resonance of the soundboard, is this a common
> recommendation?
>
> I recently played my nieces Martin D-16GT, an extremely (to me) light
> guitar. It had wonderful action and tone, but just felt unsubstantial and
I
> was not about to drive it very hard with a flatpick. Comparing it to my
> F-40 was like comparing a wind-chime to a fog-horn 8^)
>
> Just curious for input from others.
>
> Jeb
>
>
>
>
Tom Gruning
Interesting thread (to me anyway). I have a Guild F50 that I've had since
1977. Joe Jordan has dubbed it the "Franken-guild." A year and a half ago I
had a 7-string baritone neck built for it and yes, the braces are like
clubs. I'm pretty happy about it though, as the top takes the extra stress
of the .076 bass string with no problems. Sounds better as a baritone than
it sounded as a standard 6-string. It was never "thuddy"--it just spent most
of its life as a bari 7 trapped in a standard 6 body.
I also have a 64 (or 65?) M20. The braces on it are very petite (in fact,
one of the back ones is loose) and it sounds very good. It has a bit of the
bulge and dip on the top but as long as it plays and sounds as good as it
does, I can live with that. Anyway...always glad to hear there are other
Guild folks around.
Best,
Tom Gruning
tgru...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
tcs_o...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/tcs_obscure/
Joe Jordan
>Interesting thread (to me anyway). I have a Guild F50 that I've had since
>1977. Joe Jordan has dubbed it the "Franken-guild." A year and a half ago I
>had a 7-string baritone neck built for it and yes, the braces are like
>clubs. I'm pretty happy about it though, as the top takes the extra stress
>of the .076 bass string with no problems. Sounds better as a baritone than
>it sounded as a standard 6-string. It was never "thuddy"--it just spent most
>of its life as a bari 7 trapped in a standard 6 body.
This guitar sounds incredible. Sherman ended up near Tom for part of
the jam Friday night, and I kept seeing Sherman's head jerk around
when Tom would take a run down to the 7th string. Then he'd get this
grin on his face and look over at me.
Tom told more details about the guitar during his performance on
Saturday night. I think he said a 28" scale (?) and 16 frets clear. He
also mentioned the luthier who did the conversion for him, but I can't
remember the name.
I'm certainly no expert (I've never played a 7-string or a baritone),
but it appeared to me that Tom has gotten it pretty well figured out.
He uses it to very good effect.
Oh, and it's purty, too. You can get just a glimpse at
http://mcob.usouthal.edu/jjordan/pictures/TX1/DSC00015.JPG (that's Tom
on your left, accompanying John Sorrell, on the right).
Joe
____________________________
Joe D. Jordan, Ph.D.
Mobile, AL
Al Carruth
to the rest of the design, which in turn depends on what you want to do with
it. Gulids seem to have a fairly heavy top and heavy bracing. They don't really
work well with light strings or a soft touch, IMO, but you can throw on a set
of heavies, put on your fingerpicks, and rock without too much concern that the
top will fly off and kill the cat. I tend to go the other way, using a tapered
top and shaving the braces down to get a good sound with light or med-light
strings. It's a nice sound for fingerstyle, but has a little too much sustain
and sweetness for flatpick styles. Ultimately, IMO, what really counts is the
balance within the instrument. A light top with heavy braces is what sounds
'thumpy' to me: the braces 'quench' the higher resonances. A heavy top with
light braces tends to fold up fairly quickly, since the top alone has very
little resistance to the bridge torque. Note, though, that archtop guitars work
this way, sound fine and last well, since there's no bridge torque to deal
with. There are folks who like the tone of each method, so it's really hard to
say what's 'best'.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com