X-Bracing VS. . . . .

Vintage, Modern, V & C Series, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

Post Reply
joeyangel
Junior Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:15 pm

X-Bracing VS. . . . .

Post by joeyangel »

I have read from some of your threads that the older Rickenbackers had X-Bracing. What do the new models have? And what was the advantage of X-Bracing in Rickenbacker guitars?
I love the tech part of Rickenbacker guitars but I cannot find a source or pix of the X-Bracing inside of a Ric.
Thanks,
Joey
Shut Up 'N' Play Yer Guitar!
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37132
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Post by jps »

Here you go:

Image
joeyangel
Junior Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:15 pm

Post by joeyangel »

Wow, Jeffrey, great shot! So what are the pros and cons of X-bracing?
Thanks,
Joey
Shut Up 'N' Play Yer Guitar!
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37132
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Post by jps »

Pros and cons I couldn't tell you about; the photo is from John Williams' site. It is his 4005 being restored before the famous BB finish was applied to it.
BobKat
Advanced Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:18 am

Post by BobKat »

Well, in my opinion, the X-braced guitars have a brighter and louder acoustic tone, which translates to a brighter electric tone. They are just so loud unplugged....really alive.

The big con is structural stability. Some of the older ones ('60s-early '70s) develop sunken tops which pull the neck angle upward. When the guitar's bridge can no longer be adjusted to compensate, you'll see tricks like a sunken bridgeplate, or more commonly, the grommets removed from under the pickups so that the strings can still clear. When that happens, it's neck-set time. Which is a real bear on a Rickenbacker as you have to remove the back.

In the late '70s and early '80s, they still X-braced the guitars (until '84 I am pretty sure), but it seems to me ( I am extrapolating from what I have seen and not really sure of their actual intent) that they hedged themselves somewhat by making the top of the guitar thicker and stronger. The guitars of that era, especially the 12-strings, are heavy due to the thick top.
User avatar
tony_carey
Advanced Member
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:00 am
Contact:

Post by tony_carey »

You are right there Bob. My 1980 330 has x bracing & it is substantially heavier than my others.
'Rickenbacker'...what a name! After all these years, it still thrills me.
oreca
Intermediate Member
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:48 pm

Post by oreca »

From what I can see in the soundhole of my 1979 370 it's built with the X-bracing.

I always found the guitar to be a bit heavy for a hollowbody. Not like a Les Paul or anything like that. Image
36012
Junior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:39 pm

Post by 36012 »

I have 1983 320 which has one brace going across the guitar ,but it is much heavier because it has a 3/8" top vs a 1/4" top.I also have a 66 360/12 with x-bracing and a 1/4" top and it is much lighter than the new 360 ricks.I have played my vintage one side by side with a new one with vintage p/u's and it sounds much different.I think it sounds better.
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37132
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Post by jps »

My '67 4005WB has X bracing and it is quite light and the top and back are nice and straight and parallel.
36012
Junior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:39 pm

Post by 36012 »

According to a prior rick luthier:
"The bracing was 4 for pieces of scrap wood that all met roughly foward of the bridge which caused a weak area where the top could flex.A more effective use would be two solid notched pieces that would fit together in the center and provide better support."
dale_fortune
Intermediate Member
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:00 am

Post by dale_fortune »

I don't know about others, but when i worked at Electro in the early 70's, i was taught to use 2 pieces of Maple for the X braces that were notched in the middle and glued in place where they crossed at the treble pick up for max strength so the top would not collapse.
User avatar
johnhall
RIC
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 11:17 am
Contact:

Post by johnhall »

I can't say I've ever observed a four piece X brace. Most of them are as Dale describes- two pieces interlocked- and some models, like the 4005 above are three piece due to the need for asymmetric bracing.

The X bracing, when combined with a thin top, certainly does have a nice acoustic sound quality but the later carved-in-place bracing guitars sure have a great electric guitar sound- volume, sustain, and presence- that you don't get with the earlier ones. I guess it just depends which sound you're looking for.
36012
Junior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:39 pm

Post by 36012 »

The only x-bracing I have seen is on my own guitars and a few others,so I cannot say they are all that way.I can certainly say that my own guitar from the 60's and the ones I have been able to see in detail have had three and four piece braces.I am sure that isn't a representation of all of them.I would certainly use a newer rick if I was using an aggressive distortion due to the lack of feedback.I own ricks now from the 66,83,88 and 04 and like them all,however my favorite is the one from 66.
User avatar
lewilson
New member
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: X-Bracing VS. . . . .

Post by lewilson »

When did they start putting x bracing in 330s? Would a 1958 have it?
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Guitars: by John Simmons”