Ovangkol: closer to rosewood or closer to mahogany?
 

I decided (for myself) that ovangkol is my favorite "back and sides" tonewood. I know some people love it and some hate it. But regardless of the group you're in, would you say that ovangkol is closer to mahogany or rosewood? Or closer to both?

I have often referred to ovangkol as "rose-hogany". It has elements of both tone woods, but is closer to rosewood, IMO. I own a Taylor 414 and a 410, both in ovangkol, and like them a lot. That warm golden honey colored wood is really pretty, and tone ain't bad either. My T5 classic also has ovangkol as a top.

Recent scuttlebutt says that Taylor is moving away from ovangkol because of issues with ethically sourcing it from Africa. That is allegedly why this year's 414's are rosewood.

I have a '99 415 in excellent-plus condition...

Pre-NT 1-11/16" neck, jumbo body, ovangkol back/sides...

Nope - this one's not going anywhere... :guitar:

Guitarplayer PR, this is one of those comparisons where it's hard to be specific, but in terms of tone I've found ovangkol to be fairly close to the sound of denser koa or Australian blackwood. It seems to be a medium density wood.

I like the sound of ovangkol a lot, even though I haven't yet had a chance to own any instruments made from it. But one of my all-time favorite limited edition Martin guitars was the EMP-1, which had ovangkol sides, outer back panels and a middle back panel of rosewood:


If you ever get a chance to play one of those, they're excellent-sounding guitars.


Wade Hampton Miller

Loosely I'd say closer to rosewood as a good generalization.

This back/side tonewood frequency response chart (from Taylor) makes Ovangkol look like "expanded, souped-up Mahogany".

https://i.imgur.com/QxQfNIP.png

Even though the frequency chart equates more to the souped up Mahogany analogy the GC4 I had seemed to lean a bit more towards Rosewood for me.

I hate it. Beautiful wood, hate the tone. Looks at the chart. The polar opposite of rosewood.

When I have played Ovangkol guitars side by side with equivalent rosewood models, I have always thought that Ovangkol sounded like "Rosewood but brighter/trebblier"

Actually, it appears to have the frequency range or rosewood with the punchy mids of mahogany - to my ears a dash of Gibson in that Taylor tone, and IME more projective to the audience than it would seem to the player...

I had a 98 Taylor 415 jumbo ( same as the one Steve Derosa has)... It was described as having a "Mahogany on steroids" tone. I would have to agree. It didn't have the deep bottom end of rosewood but had a very balanced and lively sound that no matter how hard I strummed that jumbo... It would sound great. To my ears it didn't have the Low end dominance that I love in big guitars. Sadly... I could not bond with the 1 11/16 nut width and super slim neck either, so I sold it to someone who could really appreciate it as it was designed to be.

Hi David
That generic "chart" only works on generic guitars.

Different builder...different tone. And with the top contributing most to the tone, it is often hard to attribute specifics to back/side woods.




^

OK, I'm on someone's "short list" for this but I am one of those folks who don't like Ovangkol. Just a personal preference and no offense to those who love it. It's like loving/hating a certain ice cream flavor - just personal preference.

I've had limited experience with it but I had a Taylor 410 in Ovangkol which (for my preferences) was the "worst" Taylor I ever briefly had. Again, no criticism - just totally not for me.

OK, that disclaimer said, I found it to be much more like mahogany with a very thick middle section but I also noticed a very brittle sound with rapid attack and decay. A total lack of "lushness".

It reminded me of a birch archtop in that regard.

The one I had was closer to Plastic.

rct

Years ago I had a pretty nice slope shoulder Washburn with a solid spruce top and laminate ovangkol back and sides. The laminate was very convincingly made to look solid and rang like a bell. Great sounding guitar for what it was, very three dimensional (if that makes any sense) a little less midrange than I generally prefer but it recorded well. I do wish I'd never dealt it, in spite of the great guitars I've bought since.

The only ovangkol instrument I currently own is a Kala concert ukulele. Superb sounding for a middle of the road uke. All solid too. I prefer the tenor size so it doesn't get the use it deserves, but it does sound sweet and compares favourably to much pricier instruments. There's a sort of lush tone that's often missing from small bodies.