[olduvai]

I am trying to get the most sound out of my guitar and was talking to the local luthier that has done some work for me. [I have a Martin SWOMGT] I have lowered the action and changed out the saddle and nut. I also use strings that DADFAD suggested (which sound very sweet).
The Luthier suggested shaving the bracing. The cost was not too bad and he said it would only take a day or two.
The concept makes since but I don't know enough about guitars to even ask any questions about the process. Does anyone have any thoughts, experience (good or bad) with this process? Thanks.

[the_lunatics_are_on_the_grass]

Shaving the braces would help out with the tone color and sound, but might increase the amount of resonace you get while playing.

[dadfad]

It might help. I've shaved the braces on an early-70s Gibson that played and sounded fairly good but had poor projection and resonance (the new owners of Gibson back then (starting mid-69 until the early-80s) used bracing like lumber to avoid the possibility of a guitar coming back under warranty). It did help. It didn't turn it into a vintage-sounding J-45 (it's a J-40), but it did make a noticeable improvement. If you trust your luthier not to take it too far, it might be worth it. (I have another Gibson from the same era, a late '69 J-55, that I plan to eventually do the same thing to.)

[adds]

I can see how it might help the sound but im interested to know what sort of rice he has quoted on it.Shaveing the braces means romoveing the back which is something you only normally do if you really have to.On cheeper instruments with no binding its not so bad but with a guitar with binding its a right pain in the arse.Especialy with newer guitars as they all use bloody tightbond wich is not easy to get apart.Id call shaveing the braces a big job personly and id be doubtfull as to whether the difference would be worth the price of the job.

[dadfad]

I can see how it might help the sound but im interested to know what sort of rice he has quoted on it.Shaveing the braces means romoveing the back which is something you only normally do if you really have to.On cheeper instruments with no binding its not so bad but with a guitar with binding its a right pain in the arse.Especialy with newer guitars as they all use bloody tightbond wich is not easy to get apart.Id call shaveing the braces a big job personly and id be doubtfull as to whether the difference would be worth the price of the job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was a bit surprised too when he said "the cost was not too bad" because it is a lot of work. It is possible to do it from the sound-hole with a Moto-tool flexible tool-extender or something I guess (I've heard it was anyway) but it would still be a lot of tedious work. Normally, as Adam said, the back is removed. Or the top, but (being harder to remove and replace the top) usually as part of another repair which would require top removal or re-gluing anyway. Possibly he plans on doing it through the sound-hole.

[olduvai]

He said that it would run about $100. I assumed that he would be doing it through the sound hole rather than taking it apart. On the other hand, I know little about consturction, so I had no basis to really assume anything. I can afford the $100 for the improvement a lot easier than looking for a second guitar. This seemed to be a good price if it would materially improve the tone.

This post has been edited by olduvai: 25 April 2005 - 03:24 PM

[adds]

I personly dont see how a proper job can really be done through the soundhole.Even with one of those flexy tool things you arnt going to be able to see it even if the tool will reach.And if you cant see what the tool is doing not only is it going to be a bad job but its going to be blody risky.I would not attempt to do it through the sound hole as i dont belive a proffestional job could be possable and id not be happy doing a job that wasnt done properly and giveing back to the customer like that.I belive to do it through the sound hole would be cutting corners and i dont belive in cutting corners.

To do a proper job you would have to take the back off or the front as John said but you would tend to go through the back as not only is that hidden from view so any thing that might occer due to removel is on the side thats not seen but you would also need to either cut the fingerboard at the fret that jions the body ie the 12th or 14th or you would have to completly remove the fingerboard in order to remove the top.So you would tend to go through the back and that is a major job.Your looking at hours of work.

I still dont belive is can be done through the soundhole.Id have to see it to belive it but whatever way you do it you wont get it done for $100.Thats about 65 quid.You couldnt even get a re-fret for that.

[olduvai]

I think that the $100 brace shaving is intended only to address the bracing below and around the saddle and soundhole rather than to address all of the bracing. The luthier indicated that addressing the bracing in this primary area would provide noticable improvement to the sound.
I am still considering it. I can't afford an upgrade to a new guitar.

[dadfad]

Yes, I figured it would only be the bracings above and below the sound-hole. The one nearest the bridge-plate is probably the most important in the scheme of possible sound improvements.

On the one I did, basically all I did was carve off some of the bracing from looking something like this.... U... to something looking more like this... V. (a bit skinnier in the mid-V). Actually, probably half of the mass of the brace was removed maybe. There was a noticeable difference from that ridiculously-massive brace to the more delicate one. It's been a number of years (more than five) and so far no top "bellying" or anything in the bridge area (But of course the top itself was also made a little "sturdier" than I would have liked!).

(That company that first bought Gibson should have stuck to making bowling-balls and hockey-sticks!)

[Mikky04]

Shaving the Braces?

[dadfad]

Shaving the Braces?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inside an acoustic guitar glued against the top are "braces." They provide re-enforcement so that the string tension doesn't pull the top apart, etc. The thicker they are, the "studier" the guitar, but they then generally detract from the power of the guitar. Thinner more delicate bracing usually sounds better, but are less strong. You have to find the "perfect medium" between strength and tone. More expensive guitars often have "carved braces" trying to get as close as possible to that point.

[olduvai]

I dropped off my guitar at the lutheir. He said that he expects this to increase volume a bit and to provide a noticeable improvement of the lows.

[olduvai]

I picked up the guitar today and am thrilled with the sound. The volume is noticibly increased and the low end, where this OM lacked a bit, is bigger and rounder. Even my wife noticed the change.

[dadfad]

I'm glad it worked. If a non-player like your wife can tell the difference then it must be pretty significant. It shows that just a little extra old-school luthier skill and craftsmanship if it was added to the initial construction would contribute greatly to the sound quality of the instrument. This is why I, and many others, value the old vintage instruments so highly. Because more care and craftsmanship was put into their construction by the individual luthier who had a sense of pride in the instrument he was building. Which seems very much lost today. Even the better quality "hand-made" modern instruments are merely hand-made by trained-assemblers with little or no true luthiery skill. I've talked to an old "Gibson-man" pretty extensively on several occassions about what it was like at the old Gibson-Kalamazoo plant. The training, the "pecking order" (from a rougher to a buffer to a shaper to a bracer and tapper) as one learned more and more luthiery skills over a period of years. Similar to the old apprentice-master relationship, but on a slightly larger scale. A person hired into Gibson to learn a trade and a craft, not to "find a job." Adam has mentioned having disagreements with modern luthiers (maybe "assemblers" is a more accurate term!) who want to drown an instrument in glue and lumber to save a bit of time and expense. In any case I've rattled on enough! I'm glad to hear it has helped improve your instrument a great deal.

[olduvai]

It was surprising to me how much extra wood there was. The luthier said that he played it, shaved the braces, played it, shaved, etc. three times and that, if, after a week of playing and allowing the sound board to adjust to the changes, I wanted him to do more, he could and would. Fortuantely, this guitar doesn't seem to have too much extra glue gooping things up.