Official Luthiers Forum!

We are looking for luthiers to try a revolutionary bracing system for acoustic guitars. It is called the Omega Brace because of its cross sectional shape. It is a carbon fiber "X" shaped brace that is very light and stiff, and replaces most if not all wood bracing under the soundboard. It is easy to bond and can accomodate a variety of soundboard curvatures.

We are willing to provide free samples in exchange for honest feedback.

Please contact us at http://www.fibersonixx.com if you are interested.

Or contact me direct at stevedavis@fibersonoxx.com

Beurk

While I am very much a traditionalist, I also realize that most of the great wood is gone and that when you can get guitars made out of it the price is more than the average consumer may bear. I won't turn my back on alternative materials yet... we may be out of great wood in my lifetime.

The best way to market this kind of thing might be to show an improved guitar made with these materials & components....till you can show that it is better, you'll probably have a lot of resistance to change...especially from those folks who have years invested in current designs & production techniques.

Just my $.02

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

I highly doubt that we'll be out of "great wood" in the foreseeable future. The simple fact is that there are so many different types of wood that are probably quite comparable to many of the traditional woods we use today, but just haven't been pursued or considered since we always tend to go with what we know. While I do see the choice of wood evolving as great pieces of traditional woods become scarce due too endangerment or extinction, I don't see a significant amount of luthiers turning away from wood completely. There is just too much traditional and sentiment in it. There's still plenty of wood out there... We'll just have to start looking in other places and into other species. So long as we keep an open mind, I'm sure we'll always be able to find great wood.

This is not to say that I don't believe technological progress has its applications. I just don't believe something so far out as graphite or other composites can or will ever replace wood due to the fact that you're ultimately comparing something organic to something that's not. I would, however, be interested in seeing how well graphite can be integrated into some of the structural aspects of lutherie and what effect it will have on the overall instrument. If anyone does give this a try, I would definitely be interested in hearing about it. ^^

The brace weighs only 30 grams (one ounce) yet is 2X stiffer than wood bracing. It is wide (about 1 inch) so it distributes its stiffness well, meaning that other bracing may not be needed. It is very simple to bond and takes the place of the existing brace. It also prevents the soundboard from splitting.

Check it out:

http://fibersonixx.com/omega_brace.htm

I don't want my bracing any stiffer than it is now.

Lighter, yeah, but not stiffer...

I don't understand why wider bracing is better. The asymtote of widening braces is surely a thicker top.
If these new braces were half the width and half the weight, with the same stiffness as a traditional brace, then it'd make more sense to me.

Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

No one will argue about the merits of carbon composites in terms of strength to weight ratio. From your claims however, it does seem that in spite of your knowledge of composite technology and engineering, you may have much to learn about the real world results (very subjective results) in acoustic instruments. I suppose that's why you're here looking for people to test and offer feedback though.

You may find a few, but certainly not many luthiers willing to commit their time and resources to uncertain experiments for a third party. Perhaps some hobbyists, but certainly not many professionals. If you really want your product to be well demonstrated, you may be better to either build the instruments yourself, or contract other small builders to produce a few demos with it. I would anticipate a good number of builds before you could refine the sound to a point you like. Take the completed instruments to trade shows and put them on the market, and that's where you'll find how they're received.

There may be some market for your product and I'm sure it has it's strong points. Might I say however, that I think you're being a bit overambitious in stating your claims of superiority so boldly and absolute. It's a mistake to assume that because something is stiffer, stronger, lighter, etc., on paper, that the end product will sound better to ears conditioned to more traditional tones.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I tried to contact Steve via the email address and the email is undeliveriable.

I also tried the contact on their web site and got no reply.

My X-brace weighs a lot less than 30 grams. Probably a lot less stiff but it's as stiff as I want it.

CF does have outstanding stiffness/weight properties but, compared by volume to wood, it is quite heavy. So to sub out an entire wood brace with one made of CF and acheive the same stiffness becomes problematic when a certain width is needed for glue surface and lateral brace stability.

As for using a stiffer X-brace in order to eliminate other braces, that doesn't fit my concept of what bracing does. In my world view, the other braces are there to control top movement more than to provide structure.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

I think composite braces as well as composites in general are a really good idea. I don't understand why most people are objective to them. If i had more experience as a builder and time i would definatly give this a try

I agree with David and I am not convinced that regardless the weight, stiffness, etc. that it means that it will sound better than wood. In fact the sound that I like is produced by wood - at least so far.

I also agree that this does not fit my concept of what bracing does either - I see braces as meridians that distribute and encourage vibration.

I would really hate to see what happens to my planes and chisels if I tried to voice a CF brace..........

David is right in that a builder putting out their own product on pro basis isn't (or suggest vast majority) are not going to pay to test someones product. What would be their return in that investment of money and time and time is money here, no way around that. I would think if trying to get this product out there you would want known pro shops using it for endorsement. Again what would the benefit to that shop in building an experiment. As suggested contact builders and see if they will build a commission guitar for the company at your companies expense of the material (here bracing) like any other commission. May get some here who are experiment type folks pro, hobbiest or just starting up. Still think would be a commission thing though.

It isn't just a matter of gluing the braces on the top and back. There are design issues of that build and using something like this as a test may take several builds to get it down if it works at all. Heck, it is that way with woods and this isn't well known. This may be the best thing since Wheaties, but not proven yet. Why should a pro shop take the risk in many ways at their cost for your benefit.

I am not up on a lot of things, so I may be wrong, but have folks already use carbon fiber braces and bracing systems, either fully or in conjunction with wood braces? Again not suggesting this is a bad product and it may well be the wave of the future, but who is jumping in the water first on their own dime?

Here's one tiny example (among more than I'm sure I've imagined so far) to potential complications with this approach.

Make two guitars identical. Use the same brace wood on each, one with taller narrow braces, other with shorter and wider, but both measuring out to the same stiffness in the end. When they are done, they will sound different. Whether you scallop or taper with minimal end difference of stiffness of the top, they sound different. All sorts of other changes with shape and areas of scalloping, things sound different. Change the X angle or position a bit, things sound different. Now change all that to a molded graphite system where everything structurally and in terms of transmitting and controlling vibrations is changed, and it is reasonable to expect the sound to be very different.

I'm not saying this would be bad, but as you are trying to shape the tone of an instrument now you are stuck having to redesign the mold or whatever is used to make the X-braces. I've been through development stages of some radical design instruments, I know with one of the brands there were at least a few hundred prototypes built before something truly fine came out. Maybe you would get lucky with this design on the 50th or 20th or even 1st try, but who's going to bet their money on it?

In the end, what would have been gained over a well built conventional instrument. Maybe you could actually achieve a new sound that someone is looking for, but don't plan on just popping in a newly engineered piece of graphite and solve all your problems. It's not going to eliminate the need for other braces - this shows a gross ignorance of their purpose. The primary objective in much of a flat top's bracing is control of the top for tonal purposes, structural concerns arguably being secondary. You're not going to make the top less likely to crack - the vast majority of cracks occur from environmental conditions, not stress, and locking the top to a stiffer and unforgiving brace system is not going to help that at all.

I'm not a traditionalist in the least - quite the opposite in terms of accepting innovations I see sense to. This I would be interested to hear if it was set before me, but would have no ambition to bear the R&D costs. I just see no immediate advantages or necessities that would encourage me to a new pre-cast system, and a lot of inconveniences that would come in the process of development. If someone else decides to build with it and comes up with something fantastic maybe I'll show interest then. Most shops will not be interested in hitting all the speed bumps and potholes on the path to development of another company's product, on their own dime though.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Me too.

_________________
"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." G. K. Chesterton.

Once again I see the idea that bracing can be reduced to nothing more than a structural necessity. This does not address the fact that bracing literally voices the top. Bracing affects the distribution of stiffness, and therefore helps to control the location and strength of nodal response. Engineers who are not experienced luthiers almost always get this stuff wrong...they think that stiffness and strength are in and of themselves desirable properties with no regard to the fact that how a top vibrates...in and out of phase with itself at different frequencies...which vibrational modes establish the very voice of the instrument. The reductionist theories that it is all about one thing or another totally miss how complex all this stuff really is.

Rick Turner

bingo! well said

All of you have great points about the risks of R&D. All great ideas start with a theory, followed by testing the theory.

The guitar is very complex, not doubt about that. We could fill a room with experts on how it works, or how some new technology might effect its performance.

In my opinion the Omega Brace is worth trying. Yes, it is different, and will produce different results. The current brace is only the start. We can change the weight, stiffness, width, etc., of the brace to enhance other aspects. It can take many different shapes. It can do things wood cannot, and vice versa.

I appreciate all the comments. They are very helpful.

I apologize for the email typo. It should be: stevedavis@fibersonixx.com

We do our best to answer all inquiries to the website.

Great points as always Rick..

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

First Steve, I wanted to say thank you for the offer !!

Many are probably wary, perhaps hostile, of new tech offerings as most have a real hard time measuring up. That notwithstanding it's an interesting concept and I hope it works out for you.

Most are used to the particular nuance of all wood and it's difficult to come up with an alternative that, "improves", subjective as that is, to convention, let alone personal taste.

Perhaps, if I get an experimental guitar going, I might take you up on your offer. Again thanks for your kind offer and wish you the best. I mean, I really like to see/hear improvements and that only happens throught faith and experimentation! Your to be commended!

Billy Dean Thomas

_________________
Billy Dean Thomas
Covina, CA

"Multi famam, conscientiam, pauci verentur."
(Many fear their reputation, few their conscience)

I hope I'm not seen as hostile to new tech offerings! Far from it...I've got two US patents on using carbon fiber in instrument construction, and as you may see in the upcoming issue of Fretboard Journal, my building techniques are not exactly 1864...

But I've learned that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the way to go in instrument design. I've also learned that the nice thing about wood is that you can easily take some away if you've got too much here or there... I sure wouldn't want to go in and try to shave braces in a CF braced guitar that I didn't like the sound of...

Rick Turner

You would definitely not want to shave carbon fiber in voicing the top. Maybe the way to approach this is to build with a thicker top thickness and then sand down the top (especially around the edges) in order to get that nice drum head effect (i.e. voicing the top) that it seems like most of us shoot for.

Kent C - Carbon fiber may have a higher density than wood, but it is much more efficient. It's stiffness per pound is higher than wood. You don't need as much carbon fiber as you would wood in order to get a sufficiently strong top.

With that said, the answer might be that the stiffness & mass ratio that results in the best "tone" for the most people may be a ratio that is achievable with traditional materials. Building a lighter and stronger guitar would probably result in a guitar that accentuated the higher frequencies and might cause some of the bass to drop out.

Great comments all around..

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

Yes but...what I was getting at is that, given the stiffness I want in an X-brace, solid carbon fiber (solid as opposed to a wood/cf laminate) is SO stiff and dense that it becomes difficult to gain a weight advantage. Using solid wood bracing, I can take full advantage of the "cubed rule" and shape a relatively tall, narrow, stiff brace that has plenty of glue surface and lateral stability. I would not feel comfortable with a narrower brace with less glue surface and lateral stability. So in order to acheive the same stiffness, I'd have to make a cf brace much shorter and therefore less efficient from a stiffness/weight standpoint.

Using a thin molded layer of cf with a glue flange (as the fibersonixx appears to be) may be a good way around that but I'd be suprised if you could end up with a weight advantage that was worth the loss in adjustablility (brace shaving). As is, it's way heavier than my current solid wood X.

The main advantage I see with cf is that it doesn't cold creep like wood so maybe you could build closer to the edge and end up with a guitar that was less likely to cave over time.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com