Has anyone had their Larrivee bracing scalloped ?

[Scott van Linge]

flatlander:
   
"I've always enjoyed craftsman who didn't have the need to tell you that they know more than you. Confident enough that the peons of ignorance are no more annoying than knocking an ant off your shoe, with a smile."

Looks like you don't appreciate my sense of humor.  Given with a smile, too...

Jean Larrivee believes that scalloped bracing compromises the structural integrity of a guitar. Larrivee bracing is a hybrid of classic x bracing and symmetrical classical guitar fan bracing. Larrivee's claim to fame is balance not volume. I wouldn't change a thing.

I couldn't agree more.  I've worked on a '89 Martin HD-28 that was so radically scalloped (at the factory) that the bridge had rotated enough to pull the bottom corners loose.  Part of the repair involved adding spruce grafts to the scallops.  However, your description of the "hybrid" is inaccurate.  There is the standard X brace, but nothing resembles classical fan bracing, which runs north and south, with the grain.  The major difference is the tone bars, which run diagonally on most guitars from the treble leg of the X brace (on the right side) to the lower bottom below the bass leg.  Larrivees' tone bars run straight across from one leg to the other, parallel to the bridge--a much stronger design, but with its own balance problems.

Jeremy has given us a summary of the conventional view of scalloped brace peaks, which involves nodes and anti-nodes.  A node is defined as a spot where there is no vibration, such as the middle of a string when it is plucked to make the octave harmonic.  The nodes occur on the soundboard/top where the peaks are located beneath.  You can find the four nodes of the tone bars, the two on the legs of the X, as well as the four finger or side braces, if they are peaked.  (On Larrivees, the finger braces are not peaked, but are flat, thin braces, like wide popsickle sticks.)   You can find all of the peaks by strumming the strings and feeling the top--there will be no vibration over them.  The anti-nodes are the places in between the nodes where the top can vibrate.

It seems to me that implicit in this model/theory is the notion that the braces are what makes the sound.  Dana Bourgeois' lecture at the 2008 Guild of American Luthiers convention was reprinted in one of last years' issues of American Lutherie.  In it, he discusses tuning the braces (including formulas for tuning marimba bars) to make as many different  pitches as possible.  

Having been spared the conventional wisdom by working on my own for over 25 years of brace shaping, I've come to view things differently.  I think that the braces have two functions:  to hold the guitar top together by balancing string tension (which Larrivees do very well) and to transmit/distribute the energy from the strings throughout the soundboard.  And then, get out of the way.  I guess that makes three, in a way.  Only by doing this can the entire soundboard vibrate and contribute to the total balance and volume.  

That last part is where I think most guitar bracing designs fail miserably.  Whether there are peaks or simply braces that are stronger than needed to balance string tension, the pattern(s) on the top where they are glued beneath will not be able to vibrate.  That really adds up to a lot of surface area taken out of commission that can add balance and volume if the braces are shaped to allow only enough strength to balance string tension.  

For example, on most guitars, both tone bars are the same height and strength.  However, the lower tone bar is obviously further away from the bridge, so why does it need to be as strong as the upper one?

By arranging peaks/dead spots to deaden the sound spectrum evenly, a better balance can be attained than if they impact one string or range more than another.  But this is still at the expense of limiting the total volume possible.

Out of deference to M. Zohn, I will spare the rest of you an outline of my Sound is Round model of how I think soundboards operate.  It's on my website.  Since I have used it to analyze why any string, or even note(s) are quieter than the rest, and to subsequently reshape the brace(s) to bring even balance thousands of times, I have concluded it is at least valuable to me.  And possibly an accurate description of how it all works.  Can't argue with success?  Many do.

However, I've been entering forum discussions for about five years now, and have yet to find anyone who can answer, using the node/anti-node model, or any other one, the question of which braces one might reshape to bring up the volume of a quiet D string.  Or any string.  Never an answer.  Of course, this assumes that the brace(s) actually could cause a dead string, an assumption I take for granted.

In outlining my theories, I have tried to explain why I believe and how I've arrived at these beliefs, and this seems to have come across the grain of those content with their knowledge.  My apologies to those unwilling to think inside the box.  

In reference to Seagull guitars, I have to agree that they are very well built.  Several years ago, I ordered two of them so that I could re-voice one to have a before and after example of my work.  They were both so well balanced that I gave up the project and sold them.  Although I could have given more volume, especially up the neck, more sustain and a feeling of being alive in your hands, the "before" one would still have been too good.  I should have bought two D-18s, but didn't want to tie up that much money.

The major difference I saw in Seagull bracing was not the pattern (like most with diagonal tone bars) but in the shaping.  The tone bars were what I've seen described in an article as "tapered".  They had a peak at the end toward the X brace junction, but none at the far end.  Gasp, no peak there?  No node??  Nothing to dampen the area I think responsible for much of the bottom end?  No, just like a triangle with the high point to one end.

In fact, I once peered inside a 1912 Martin parlor guitar and the lower tone bar had a peak at the X brace end, but the far end was shaped into a half parabola!  That missing peak allowed, IMO, for an incredible low E string to make its presence known.  But I'd have to explain Sound is Round to discuss why, and I imagine I've worn you all out by now...

BTW, if anyone has access to the American Lutherie article on Dana's lecture, it has a picture of the top of a classical guitar subjected to a glitter test, where the top is sprinkled evenly with glitter and then placed under a loud speaker.  The glitter moves away from areas that are vibrating.  The photo shows a nearly perfect circle (flattened a little towards the sound hole by the transverse brace below the sound hole).  Thanks for the conformation!  No nodes in view...

If this sounds like a know-it-all, my apologies, again.  My goal is to pass on what I view as valuable, useful information.  Some have even used it to improve the sound of their guitars.  It has seemed to me at times that my critics are the ones who think they know it all and are threatened by something that challenges what they think they know.  

Scott

[GA-ME]

I meant no malice with anything I posted here. I don't know Larry personally, but via the Forum he seems like a decent guy trying to learn about an instrument he obviously loves. From reading quite a few of his posts I have just drawn the conclusion he really doesn't know what he wants in guitar because what he is after is actually in the guitarist. I think he is chasing his tail and will never catch it until he figures out what he really wants regarding guitars and his playing.. I offered the anecdote about Junior's OM because it was a defining moment for me. I realized that the difference between true pro level players like Junior and myself was not an equipment issue. Sure it stung, but I am better for having come to terms with the facts.

If I offended Larry or anyone else, I apologize as that was not my intention. However, I'd also like to remind everyone that this is an open Forum and posting things here is likely to draw antithetical positions and opinions. I don't think anything I said in this thread was mean spirited at all.I'll leave a couple of things here that perhaps can articulate what I'm trying to say more eloquently than I was able:

"A good player can make any guitar sound good" Michael Bloomfield

Chet Atkins was in a Nashville studio warming up for a session with his Gretsch. A young technician came into the studio and stood watching open-mouthed until Chet finished. "Gee, Mr Atkins, that guitar sure sounds fabulous!" Chet placed the guitar on its stand, smiled at the tech and said, "Well, son, how does it sound now?"

[flatlander]

flatlander:
   
"I've always enjoyed craftsman who didn't have the need to tell you that they know more than you. Confident enough that the peons of ignorance are no more annoying than knocking an ant off your shoe, with a smile."

Looks like you don't appreciate my sense of humor.  Given with a smile, too...

Well not knowing exactly where that all was coming from, it sounded kinda defensive and blunt. If I was out of it I'm sorry.
Thanks for taking the time for long post.

[BluesMan1]

   Now that all is clear, it seems we have a new friend with lots of knowledge we can squeeze out of him?   FL, I took it the same way, as did most here. Just phrased in a confrontational way, but not meant to? Personally, I wouldn't touch any braces myself. Those that have the knowledge & b***s, God bless you. That Leo Kotke story keeps popping up in my head. Scary.
   I liked the link showing how each brace was actually "tuned" to a certain string. Good article also. I've had friends sand their braces lightly to shape them, with pretty good results. Asked my luthier first before they went & did it. Can't be shy here.
   I really don't think it's a matter of questioning Jean's bracing pattern or methods, but, as Larry asked, has anyone done this. Some have here, with apparently good results. Think that's the bottom line of this thread? All of us that own Larrivees know the sweet, balance sound this bracing pattern results in. Others have their own way, many more traditional, as in early Martin bracing. The Holy Grail of bracing! Been copied so much. Like Duck says, I think Mr. Larrivee knows when he has a good thing. No need to play with anything?
     Jeff

[Scott van Linge]

Well not knowing exactly where that all was coming from, it sounded kinda defensive and blunt. If I was out of it I'm sorry.
Thanks for taking the time for long post.

As is said far too often these days, "no problem".  I would say it was hostile and blunt.  A response in kind to an unnecessarily rude comment.  I should better learn to ignore such things.  But, typed with a smile I hoped would show...

And yes, the Leo Kotke story bothers me, too.  Knowing how the slightest shaping anomaly can cause trouble, it's hard to imagine a good result.  Maybe Leo has a cool knife?   

Scott

[lw216316]

I'm on honeymoon with my newly acquired Larrivee 000-60,
so I did not have time to follow this thread once it drifted away from the question I asked.

Mr. Linge  (or is Mr. Van Linge ? )
When I saw your name on a recent reply I decided to take time from my honeymoon with my OOO-60
to see what you had to say. I did not know you were a member here.

I have a great deal of respect for you Sir and enjoyed reading the link to your information
that was provided early in this thread. I was unaware of your work until this time.

The person who told me about having their Larrivee SD-50 modified by you
sounded like they were happy with the results.

I'm still fasinated by the fact someone could use tools and mirrors etc to
accomplish the scalloping AFTER  a guitar has been built.

- I wish you well

- Larry in Nashville

===========================================

( back to the honeymoon - I sat on the deck and played from the time I got home until dark last night -
then came inside and played until bedtime
so you guys may not hear from me for a while )

best wishes to all

Larry
======================

[Scott van Linge]

The person who told me about having their Larrivee SD-50 modified by you
sounded like they were happy with the results.

I'm still fasinated by the fact someone could use tools and mirrors etc to
accomplish the scalloping AFTER  a guitar has been built.


It's actually van Linge.  Dutch for "from the Linge" --a river in South Holland.  Polluted, no doubt.

Glad to hear of positive feedback on my work on one of only a dozen Larrivees I've re-voiced.  My appraisal of them all was that the low E and D strings were louder than the A and G, a result, IMO, of the tone bars positioning.  But all here seem quite satisfied with the balance (and it certainly is better than most Martins, Taylors, etc. I've played.)

And yes, it is quite a task to work on the inside, and can cost some sore skin.  Very slow, too, and hard on the wrists and fingers.  Which is why I charge so much for it.

Scott

[Zohn]

"Mr Roundness" was meant as a compliment - it seems however that it might have hit a nerve.
If I have it right, you might be surprised to know that I was indeed the one that quoted your Roundness theory with a link to your web-site and in so doing "introduced" you to the folks out here, specifically because of your reference to and what seems affection for working on Larrivees. I have thought highly of your theories and articles, I still do.

I don't need any of the light on your stage Scott, I never will.
I do admire your experience and knowledge and that's the truth.
To me it is mostly about the music and I trust that it always will be.

Finally Larry - this was never meant to crash your thread either, sorry about that mate!!  

[gitnoob]

However, I've been entering forum discussions for about five years now, and have yet to find anyone who can answer, using the node/anti-node model, or any other one, the question of which braces one might reshape to bring up the volume of a quiet D string.  Or any string.  Never an answer.  Of course, this assumes that the brace(s) actually could cause a dead string, an assumption I take for granted.

I'm considering revoicing an inexpensive Silver Creek, so I've been looking into the art a bit.    I'm still a complete noob, but my impression is that most luthiers attempt to voice the top, back, and the Helmholtz frequency of the air cavity such that the main resonance frequencies are slightly different from the string frequencies.   Supposedly, this prevents wolf tones and dead string frequencies.

Some of them also attempt to tune the top such that the Chladni pattern of the primary mode is round (i.e., a circular nodal pattern).    I think Alan Carruth has published some material on this subject.

[ducktrapper]

Well sure but never underestimate the "hocus pocus" element to all of this. That's the element that takes the price of a few pieces of wood, some steel and other bits into the stratosphere. Mr. Larrivée does not get enough credit for his ability to build and sell a guitar which will do everything the "magic" guitar will do for a lot less. 

[lw216316]

My appraisal of them all was that the low E and D strings were louder than the A and G, a result, IMO, of the tone bars positioning.  But all here seem quite satisfied with the balance (and it certainly is better than most Martins, Taylors, etc. I've played.) 

Mr Van Linge - I have a question for you sir.
You have shared this insightful information about BALANCE
and your work certainly could make improvements in that area -

...would the scalloping you do also make the guitar more RESPONSIVE
because it would allow the top to vibrate more freely ?

I'm very happy with the balance of my OOO-60.
My ear is not as well trained as yours to hear imperfections.

As an exclusive finger style player - a guitar's responsiveness is of interest to me  as well as balance.
So my curiosity about  ' after-the build scalloping ' has as much to do with response as balance.

  ( I once owned a very lightly braced Huss & Dalton OO-SP that responded to a very light touch. )

- Larry

[flatlander]

Well sure but never underestimate the "hocus pocus" element to all of this. That's the element that takes the price of a few pieces of wood, some steel and other bits into the stratosphere. Mr. Larrivée does not get enough credit for his ability to build and sell a guitar which will do everything the "magic" guitar will do for a lot less. 

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that shaping braces makes no difference? Hence hocus pocus.  Or are you saying it takes the cost to the stratoshere, Or Both. Hence the guitar will do "everything" a "magic" guitar will?  That's why it's be nice to here what Larrivee thinks. We all pretty much know about the symetrical bracing, but what about the shape of braces them selves? To me it's just as hocus pocus to believe Larrivee's braces are optimal without an explanation, than it is to believe bracing would make a difference with an explanation of why. Larrivees are sturdy. What else went into thought a brace shapes?

[ducktrapper]

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying that shaping braces makes no difference? Hence hocus pocus.  Or are you saying it takes the cost to the stratoshere, Or Both. Hence the guitar will do "everything" a "magic" guitar will?  That's why it's be nice to here what Larrivee thinks. We all pretty much know about the symetrical bracing, but what about the shape of braces them selves? To me it's just as hocus pocus to believe Larrivee's braces are optimal without an explanation, than it is to believe bracing would make a difference with an explanation of why. Larrivees are sturdy. What else went into thought a brace shapes?

I know what JCL thinks, or at least thought, on the subject. I suggest to anyone who has doubts about it, track the video down, if possible.
As for hocus pocus, something other than the materials and the way the guitar plays and sounds has to explain why someone would believe he can sell a new guitar for 12K or why anyone would pay for it.  YMMV.   

[BenF]

I think in light of this discussion, my point becomes even more valid. I wish I could pick up a guitar and play/sound like John Martyn. Yeah there is a signiture John Martyn Martin D28, with £5500 of hocus pocus. Bottom line is that the tunes I respect and admire were played on a £45 Yamaha fg, with no frets left and a soundboard worn almost through. All the money in the world won't make me sound like John Martyn. Nor will hocus pocus. Or shaving braces.

If you are a talented enough player to feel and hear the benefits, knock yourself out. For the forseeable longterm future, of daily practice and learning, I will happily trust that Mr Larrivee knows better than me.

[gitnoob]

As for hocus pocus, something other than the materials and the way the guitar plays and sounds has to explain why someone would believe he can sell a new guitar for 12K or why anyone would pay for it.  YMMV.  

Price is a function of supply and demand.    All boutique builders have low supply, so they need to do something to establish high demand.

As far as I can tell, they do four things to differentiate themselves: material selection, aesthetics, quality, and voicing.

Voicing is the interesting thing to me.    It means that the plates aren't a uniform thickness, and it means the bracing is somewhat unique for each guitar.    My understanding is that most factory guitars, including Larrivee, go for uniformity in plate thickness and bracing rather than uniformity in voicing.

[ducktrapper]

Price is a function of supply and demand.    All boutique builders have low supply, so they need to do something to establish high demand.

As far as I can tell, they do four things to differentiate themselves: material selection, aesthetics, quality, and voicing.

Voicing is the interesting thing to me.    It means that the plates aren't a uniform thickness, and it means the bracing is somewhat unique for each guitar.    My understanding is that most factory guitars, including Larrivee, go for uniformity in plate thickness and bracing rather than uniformity in voicing.

Price that someone is willing to pay for things one really needs may indeed be a function of supply and demand but that fact does not eliminate the hocus pocus factor in the guitar market. Like Ben says, all you need is a decent workable guitar and really good player. All else is ... 

[Scott van Linge]

Gitnoob,

Do I assume correctly that there is a question in your post?  I sat next to Al Carruth at the 2000 ASIA convention in Nashville, but neither of us could understand what the other was saying.  He is one of the main proponents of the node/anti-node coalition.  The Chladni lines do not show my Sound is Round idea at all.  I  think this is because the guitars he tested had scalloped bracing, which would destroy any attempt by the top to vibrate in a ring pattern.  I would like to have one of my guitars or one I've re-voiced tested in this manner.

I've also had to ignore the concept of the Helmholtz resonance frequency.  Mike Doolan told me that he shoots to have it about an F# to get the most bass.  However, when I was voicing my next build (back in 2001) I noticed that the Helmholtz frequency was an F# to start with.  But I knew I could get more reinforcement from the lower bout of the back by working those bottom two braces lower, while maintaining the parabolic length and cross section I'd given them before assembly.  When I got the low E to come alive, the Helmholtz frequency had risen to a G#.  


Mr Van Linge - I have a question for you sir.
You have shared this insightful information about BALANCE
and your work certainly could make improvements in that area -

...would the scalloping you do also make the guitar more RESPONSIVE
because it would allow the top to vibrate more freely ?


Dear lw2...,

First of all, I do not scallop a guitar's braces.  I agree with Mr. Larrivee that it is not a good idea, and, as I've said, I don't like peaks, which also double for dead spots where the top can't vibrate.  My philosophy is to shape the braces so that they are just as strong as they need to be to balance string tension--and no more.  When I've achieved that, close to the entire top (and back) are free to vibrate.

And yes, when that is achieved, the guitar is much more responsive.  Typically, I remove enough shavings and sanding dust to fill a quart size ziploc bag.  I also streamline and feather the bridge to remove mass and to allow its vibrations to flow smoothly into the top, to provide as little interruption of the flow of the top's surface.  (I believe that vibrational energy travels on the surface of the various parts, and that corners, edges, etc., absorb energy instead of allowing it to make music.)  This helps make the guitar even more responsive due to a significant amount of mass not needing to get moving (think inertia) with each strum or pick.  

When I begin a re-voicing job, I can barely stand to play it with my bare fingers, as I use picks, finger and flat when I perform or practice.  When I am finished, I can play it all I want with bare fingers because it takes a significantly less amount of energy to get sound, and just a little more for dynamics.  It feels alive.

In the past few years, I've also started to gradually cut the X brace legs down to give more bounce and headroom.  A partial scallop in the legs, just below the X cross point, flowing into a taper to the end, no peak.  When I can play Peggy Sue as hard as I want, I know I'm there.  Maximum volume and punch, as well as a light touch.  Best of both worlds.

Happy trails,

Scott

[cke]

I just played a 000-50, and it quite one of the best guitars I ever played.  Great warm sound, responsive and a delight to play.

Modify such a guitar? Why?
These are quality instruments designed and built by a master. I fully respect his choices.  Tweaks are one thing, but I wouldn't want to make such a fundamental change.

If you want a Martin sound, buy a Martin. Martin's need scallops IMO  because of how they are designed. Otherwise it is an urban legend that a guitar must have scallops to be good. It just isn't true across the board.

[tadol]

Isn't so much of all this hocus pocus? I believe the reason so many people ask about shaving or scalloping braces, or modifying factory built guitars, like Larrivees, is that we all know that there are a number of steps that are standardized to keep costs down. The boutique makers adjust their builds to accomodate the specific pieces of wood that are being used in a specific instrument, and that is a luxury that Larrivee cannot afford while maintaining their volume and price point.

So - you have one of the most beautiful,  and very well made, solid wood guitars available for a fantastic price - but is there any way to make it a little better? Bone saddles, nuts, pins, tuners, thats about all you can easily do - but I think alot of us have wondered if a little more time spent on shaping and tweaking the braces, or maybe thinning the top, could add more volume, tone, balance, ???

You think about this, understanding that Jean/John/Matthew need to think about shipping around the world, minimizing warranty claims, and other business decisions that may not be geared 100% towards making each individual guitar as perfect as it could possibly be. When they build, they don't know if that guitar is off to the mountains or the desert, or to a musician living on a houseboat. But YOU know about humidification, and understand that thinning the top or braces means that you have to be more careful about string tension, and will keep a close eye on these things, and so you wonder -

Like race car builders willing to blow an engine or two just to get a little extra horsepower or a few more MPH - the interest in tweaking these wonderful instruments will always tempt some - And I'm sure we hear far more about the successes than the failures -

Tad

[Mr_LV19E]

the interest in tweaking these wonderful instruments will always tempt some - And I'm sure we hear far more about the successes than the failures -

Tad

It's the failures that end up on e-Bay that scares me.