X bracing vs Tone bars

[CWRoyds]

I see a Gilchrist in the classifieds that is X braced, and the owner wants to trade for one with tone bars. My question is, what is the characteristics of the sound of an X braced mando as compared to the traditional tone bars?
Is there a big difference?

[William Smith]

I see a Gilchrist in the classifieds that is X braced, and the owner wants to trade for one with tone bars. My question is, what is the characteristics of the sound of an X braced mando as compared to the traditional tone bars?
Is there a big difference?

I have a 82 Gil F-5 thats X-braced and a few tone bar Gibsons, the X bracing to me gives a rounded fat bassier sound, think Ronnie McCoury's Gil, listen to him play that then his Loar, videos on youtube. Tone bar is the classic mid range sometimes bell like tone.

[CWRoyds]

Thanks for the explanation.
Love his Gilchrist tone.

[fscotte]

I wouldn't get too caught up in the type of bracing. I haven't seen evidence to indicate one type of bracing sounds any different than any other type of bracing. Gilchrist has a more robust low end because that's what he aims for. The bracing, whether it X, Y, or Z, simply adds stiffness to the top while making it lighter.

[sblock]

I wouldn't get too caught up in the type of bracing. I haven't seen evidence to indicate one type of bracing sounds any different than any other type of bracing. Gilchrist has a more robust low end because that's what he aims for. The bracing, whether it X, Y, or Z, simply adds stiffness to the top while making it lighter.

Tone bars add stiffness to the top? Yes, certainly! But they are long and thin pieces of wood, and they therefore add stiffness in specific directions. They don't add significant stiffness, for example, in the direction that is transverse (perpendicular) to the bar orientation, that is, in their "thin" direction. They add significant stiffness in their "thick" (long direction).

If you accept this, then the tone bar pattern that's used will tend to favor some of the (many) modes of vibration of the top, and to disfavor other modes. And this would be expected to affect the tone color, particularly for the lower-order modes that involve large segment of the top moving in concert. At least, this is the traditional explanation, purely from a physics perspective.

So I don't understand why you have come to believe that any "one type of bracing sounds any different than any other type of bracing." Is it possible that the favored/disfavored modes in tone bar bracing and X-bracing wind up being similar? Or could it be that the modes of interest for tone color are all so high in frequency (and so short in wavelength) that they are relatively insensitive to the bracing pattern, being much shorter than the bracing spacing?

Do the bracing patterns actually make a difference after all? Northfield is now experimenting with even more exotic forms of bracing, with 5 or so tone bars at various locations and angles. Is this just marketing hype, or is this a route to new forms of tone color?

I don't really know. What do the experts here think?

[fscotte]

These discussions have come up in the past, and nothing has changed since. The good Dr Cohen has explained the somewhat insignificance of bracing on more than one occassion, even has gone as far as building a mando or two with wickedly oriented bracing patterns. The result, it sounds like a mando.

From what I understand, when making adjustments to the top, you affect the entire top, not just a section here or there. If you add a brace, you stiffen the plate, which then affects all the normal frequencies of the plate at once.

I trust the past discussions, and my own observations, unless something new comes along.


So what kind of tone does this pattern give?

[HoGo]

I've played hundreds mandolins and definately there is slight difference in tone between X and tonebars... Most folks probably wouldnt call it pattern but I've played quite a few instruments from the same maker some with X and some with tonebars and then the difference is audible. If ou compare builds from different builders the difference in other aspects of build may completely cover the differences caused by bracing.
The mandolins I have played had the wide X crossing under bridge and that gives somewhat rounder tone with less sustain especially on higher strings. Tonebars in my experience give "broader" tone with more sustain.
I once made madolin with less wide x crossing almost 2" in front of bridge and bracing going roughly under bridge posts and is was somewhere half between X and tonebars but that mandolin had some really floppy Engelmann on top so it's hard to tell how that would sound with tonebars.

[pops1]

I have a tone bar braced mandolin that has a nice deep response, very un Gibson like.

[bernabe]

... the X bracing to me gives a rounded fat bassier sound, think Ronnie McCoury's Gil, listen to him play that then his Loar, videos on youtube. Tone bar is the classic mid range sometimes bell like tone.

To add to what Wes posted, you can achieve a "rounded fat bassier" sound with tone bars as well and vice versa. Loars having less bass and sound more mid-range is mostly due to the thickness of the back near the head block area. Thinning that adds bass and will sound less mid-range basically. And the back has to pair well with the top which is braced and graduated to a particular stiffness. So, the exact same top may work differently with tone bars than x-bracing, or not, depending on how its graduated and how thick or thin the tone bars or the braces are carved.

[CWRoyds]

I find this stuff fascinating.
I would love to have the skills to build mandos to experiment with this kind of thing.
I was really interested in the difference between the tone of the Northfield Artist models with tone bars vs 5 tone bar designs.
I really like the tone of the 5 bar one, but I would probably end up with the regular two tone bar version.

[Stephen Perry]

My general experience with bracing in all kinds of things, especially violins, is that it's easier to make holes in response and otherwise screw things up a bit with bars than it is to make substantial changes in overall character. I suspect arching is given too little attention as compared to bars.

On X bracing, I simply do not like the riser at the crossing point and the structural difficulties there. Non-interesting braces seem more clean to me.

[fscotte]

Something more to consider, the human factor. If a builder wants to build a mando which is a little bassier, and he believes that X bracing makes mandos bassier, then its logical that his X braced mando will be bassier. And vice versa, tone bars are midrangey, I want a midrangey mando, therefore I'll build with tonebars.

I think we are all subject to that human "error". Belief blossoms reality.

[Austin Clark]

Something more to consider, the human factor. If a builder wants to build a mando which is a little bassier, and he believes that X bracing makes mandos bassier, then its logical that his X braced mando will be bassier.

SOOO, then if you believe you are building a Griffith Loar, Gil, et al, then of course you must be!

Back to the point regarding the x braced Gilchrists, there are many measurable differences in his x braced series that are more significant than the bracing. Since the real sound differences are not universally quantifiable, use what you can actually measure. Arching, recurve, body depth, graduations, etc.

Not to get on a soap box, but having built more than 175 mandolins, repaired hundreds and closely measured countless others, I am convinced that the "magic" or underlying feature of what makes one mandolin sound "better" than another has little or nothing to do with where the braces are placed or what configuration they are in. (Unless there is no bracing - ala "The Loar (just a bad idea))

As in the violin world, where the bass bar (and often top grads) is almost considered a standard in size and placement, the profound differences come in arching, recurve, body depth, regional stiffness and geometry.

Ok, 'nuff said. I'll get off my high horse.

[Tom Haywood]

Obviously there are many factors in addition to bracing which affect the overall sound. But the shape, size, placement and pattern of braces do make an audible difference. It's fairly easy to see and hear with a larger instrument such as a guitar. One can hear a noticeable difference in Martin guitars where the same design may incorporate the same brace pattern shifted forward or not, or where the individual braces within the pattern are scalloped or not, or where the brace pattern is their traditional pattern or their "modern" pattern. It's harder to discern in a small, carved top mandolin, but folks with decent ears can hear the differences and many have their preferences for the particular sound they are looking for.

[Austin Clark]

I agree that guitars are different and bracing makes a big difference. But the fact is, they are a flat sided box and without bracing they have no structural integrity under string tension. As Erwin Somyogi points out, making a metaphor of the guitar without bracing is much like a sail in the wind with no mast.

A mandolin's arch (top AND back) and it's regional stiffness is the primary structure supporting the strings, not the bracing. The bracing may help it move in a more specific fashion, and I do believe they are necessary. Unless they are way too big or non-existent, moving them around changes little. Now, I'm not saying it changes nothing, but it is much less significant as a factor of overall sound compared to other factors. Generalizing that one type of bracing or another makes a particular sound in a mandolin is just a guess. People are notoriously unable to pick out instruments in blind tests and sound is too subjective to be very quantifiable in a large scale sampling.

[fscotte]

Right, I'm agreeing with you Austin. Gilchrist likes a little bass, so one thing he has done is deepen the rim height, and I'm sure countless other things as well.

The problem like you say, is people see an X braced Gilchrist, hear the bassy tone, then conclude that x bracing equals bassier tone.

[Stephen Perry]

As in the violin world, where the bass bar (and often top grads) is almost considered a standard in size and placement, the profound differences come in arching, recurve, body depth, regional stiffness and geometry. "

Austin has it. So let's have a detailed arching discussion!

[GProulx]

Right, I'm agreeing with you Austin. Gilchrist likes a little bass, so one thing he has done is deepen the rim height, and I'm sure countless other things as well.

The problem like you say, is people see an X braced Gilchrist, hear the bassy tone, then conclude that x bracing equals bassier tone.

I don't conclude that. I think X braced mandolins typically have a more open and lively sounding bass(not more) and a less dry, less midrange honk. I think of the bass on a tone bar braced mandolin as being tighter. It's always been my experience, but that's just playing em' and not building em'. It obviously differs from builder to builder.

[Bill McCall]

So what do 'less dry' and 'tighter' mean? Can that be defined in terms of actual sound/frequencies/overtone series? Are there corresponding 'wet' or 'looser' sounds? And what would they mean?

[GProulx]

Less dry=more overtones
tighter=more focused

In the previous post i meant that the tone bar stuff was drier sounding with more midrange.

[Austin Clark]

So what do 'less dry' and 'tighter' mean? Can that be defined in terms of actual sound/frequencies/overtone series? Are there corresponding 'wet' or 'looser' sounds? And what would they mean?

So true.
I think we can all agree that there are characteristics of any instrument's sound that we can define as having a bass, a treble and a midrange. However, people's definitions of these terms and the way that they hear and interpret them vary so widely, that it is difficult to define a "sound".

Sure, sitting in a jam we all compare how a particular instrument may sound played by one person. But, pass that instrument around, and everyone will play it differently and it will sound different in everyone's hands. Maybe the player has a strong right hand, maybe the next player has a tendency to pull on strings when they fret.... So to the OP, we can try to describe how a Gil sounds, or an x braced mandolin vs a tone bar braced one, or a Whatever but it is sort of meaningless. Ya gotta play it yourself. If you like it, buy it.

Incidentally, this is totally accepted in the violin world. The player has to find the right instrument to work with the way they play, bow and hear what they get out of it. This is often entirely without regard to maker.

[Homer Savard]

I have two Gils both from the 80's only 11 numbers apart. One tone bar one X brace. Definitely sound different. The X is more balanced across the strings. Tone bar is classic BG tone

[sblock]

less dry=more overtones
tighter=more focused
In the previous post i meant that the tone bar stuff was drier sounding with more midrange.

Aaaaagh! Really?!? This use of sonic vocabulary seems to be going from bad to worse.

Here, you seem to be defining something in a vague way, using a word for which there is little common consensus about any possible musical meaning ("tighter") in terms of some other words that are equally -- or perhaps even more! -- vague, and for which there is equally little consensus about any real musical meaning ("more focused").

Silly me. And here I thought that the word "focused" referred to the dispersion of sound. A "focused" beam of sound -- or light, for that matter -- spreads out less rapidly in space than a diffuse one. Evidently, however, you are not using "focused" in this traditional sense. You are using it in some other sonic sense, completely unrelated to how the sound might be collimated or otherwise aimed. In fact, I could find no dictionary definition that came anywhere near to defining what you seem to have in mind. You are using the word "focused" in an entirely new way, it would seem! And I truly have no idea what you mean by a "focused sound" in this other sense. YOU might have a very clear idea of what you mean, but the words you're using, sadly, don't convey that meaning to the rest of us.

As for the words "less dry" meaning "more overtones", it would logically follow that "more dry" meant "fewer overtones." However, by that definition, a tuning fork -- which emits a (nearly) pure sine wave, with almost no overtones -- would logically be the "driest" possible sounding instrument. Nah, I don't think that's what you meant, either.

Since we can't even agree on -- or, perhaps more accurately -- understand -- the terms, I don't see how we will ever describe the differences.

[GProulx]

I was just trying to explain my opinion as best I could although it may not be the easiest subject to delve into while not in the same room with a bunch of mandolins. Patronizing folks from behind a keyboard is a pretty easy stuff. Hope that made your day better.

[mandobouy]

just have to offer my perspective as i believe there are some terms that are good for describing a tone, although that is a task which is inherently difficult.

your fingers can tell coarse from fine texture, your eyes see violet different than purple. ears are equally talented in my view. assigning the word to your perception seems to be the crux of the apostrophe...(thanks frank).

i'm totally on board w/ what GProulx is saying. i'd bet many experienced players know exactly what a "dry" mando is, or what one with a "focused" bottom end sounds like. it might be hard to explain but they know that characteristic. e.g. - for me, dry means strong on the fundamental note with, surprise, less overtones. pretty much what was said above.

i've used the the terms dry or focused many times, certainly for my instruments. there are likely a few other terms that are used and "understood", at least by some. "dark", "bright" instruments, "fat" for a good tube amp, are just a few that come to mind- i understand what those mean. you also see/hear it all the time for describing electric guitars and amps too.

my northfield is notably drier than my newson.
my newson clearly has a more focused low end than the northfield.
don julin's prior nugget had a much drier tone than my red diamond; he knew exactly what i meant when i expressed that.

A/B lots of mando's, play lots of mando's. be open to finding some word(s) of auditory categorization, if you have the need. although it could be lacking, there are some words that seem to fill the bill for tone descriptives in a general sense. its the best we've got for an admittedly non-quantal subject. kind of an immiscible mixed media mess.