Tonewood that sounds close to rosewood but with more mediums

[jessupe]

I could take the absolute best recording gear, and say 5 guitars each of several different species of wood and record them all with equal settings and I guarantee that the only thing that anyone would have going for them as far as identifying the species of wood that you are hearing in blind tests would be dumb luck. I am not saying that species can not have certain qualities tonally, but they are very general and very dependent on spectrum within the species, there can be very dramatic characteristics within the same species board to board.

There is the "tone" chart posted, and in that chart after they give their descriptions they go on to say "there is no scientific basis to this"....or in other words its quite subjective, not scientific and really just a bunch of opinions.

Now normally I would not care too much about that one way or another but the problem is that these opinions which then formulate "group think psychology" in the general population, contribute and have contributed to the over usage and misuse of certain species.

The architecture and design, the graduations, how thick or thin and where, the mass, types of adhesives, types of bracing patterns, body flex/or not, on the outer perimeter of the sides, neck rigidity, headstock weight and several other "build" factors contribute much more to steering the tone one direction or another much more so than inherent species qualities of "those" particular pieces of wood of that particular species of wood.

This very much reminds me of the somewhat scientifically proven false benchmark of Stradivarius violins. In blind test after blind test, the Strads fail to jump out over and above other violins. Time after time they fail to picked out of a crowd. Only when it is known that you are hearing one does it suddenly become clear that its a Strad.

I would prefer people classify things in more general realistic terms.

First instruments have levels of over all tone quality, bad, ok, pretty good, good , great, really great, super great and astronomical. Knowing that within all of that it is still YOUR opinion, particularly when we get to "great" sounding guitars, most will agree, "these guitars" sound great, but I may like that one where you like the other.

Second there is a difference in factory made vrs luthier made. Factories can put out some super great guitars, and because they are generally built to spec with target thickness's, that this is where species type will show it self the most as everything is built to the same specs with the materiel being the only real difference.

And third, that any species of wood has the ability to sound astronomical and that much of that is skill, but there is lots of dumb luck involved with many undetermined "scientific" things and interactions that magically create astronomical sounding guitars, some controllable, some just, magic and luck.

No offence to OP or anyone, these are just my opinions based on what I think I know and have learned over the years making instruments.

[island texan]

What jessupe said. And if that's not the answer you want my vote is ziricote.

[mercy]

There is a difference between a D18 and a D28. My Coco guitar sounded different than my mahogany guitar. Woods do make a difference but the builder is king.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

You're correct that koa is not related to mahogany, but I think you're overstating the lack of any similarity to the tone of rosewood. The denser, darker-colored koa can sometimes approach a rosewood-like tonality.

The thing about koa is that its density can be all over the map, so what I've learned the hard way is that trying to make definitive statements about koa does and doesn't sound like can be tricky.

Personally, I prefer the medium-density koa, which is often what you get when you find koa with dramatic color variegation: what one tonewood dealer I spoke to called "the stripey stuff." But the frustrating thing about koa is how some of it sounds magnificent and some is downright terrible.

Anyway, my point is that koa varies more than most other musically viable tonewoods, and on occasion some sets made from denser wood will have a somewhat rosewood-like sound.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

Fair enough. I still stand by my "not terribly similar" wording And yes, I've heard a fair bit of koa that was... disappointing.

[Cas-v86]

Sapele wood

[jessupe]

Originally Posted by mercy

There is a difference between a D18 and a D28. My Coco guitar sounded different than my mahogany guitar. Woods do make a difference but the builder is king.

My opinion is that we could take two or more of each and they would all sound slightly different, Not saying that material characteristics don't make a difference, but there are many,many other small factors that also may or may not contribute to tonal differences, many variables in components. Bridge material as well as brace material will always have variations within species and can have a dramatic effect on the tone for example. Bridge mass can really be a big factor as it pertains to the top thickness and material choice. As stated in one of the post's, while sides and back are contributing factors, a large majority of the instruments voice comes from the top material.

To the best of my knowledge there is no one past or present that constructs guitars the way I do, which is basically "Italian violin" making methods, because of this, just like violin makers do, it is not uncommon for a maker to "change out" a top if they are not happy with the sound or are experimenting around. Because of the way I build my guitars not only are they very easy to repair because I can "pop" off my tops but they also give the luxury of changing out a top if for some reason that were needed, even to just try it out. One of my first builds that became a test guitar of sorts had 4 different tops put on it over the course of time, 1 redwood, 2 spruce and a cedar top, and every top made the same guitar sound quite different each time.

I'm sure someone somewhere has changed out tops on a "regular"/normal built guitar, but pulling a top on a binded body is by no means "easy", so for whatever its worth , having the ability to pulls tops "easy" has made it so I can experiment around with such things, and so I guess all I'm trying to say is the top, both species, and how its done makes huge differences in tone

[jpd]

Bubinga is quickly becoming a favorite wood with custom builders, and may soon find its way into large production shops. This wood, which comes from Africa, has a tremendously rich sound replete with warm even tones, a glassy ring, and a brilliant sparkle across the entire spectrum. It provides a slightly dark and woody overtone content with a low to mid end predominance- much like Indian Rosewood! Lots of volume too. It is plentiful and available in a wide variety of cosmetic appearances. Typically Bubinga has a mottled "bees-wing" appearance under finish that is absolutely gorgeous, and also can be acquired with strong ropey curl.

Stephen Kinnaird is a big fan and says :”I have a growing appreciation for Bubinga. Visually, it can be quite stunning, with deep curl, Pomelle figure, bees’ wing mottle, etc. Even the plainer versions when well quartered are attractive. The pinkish mauve color is off-putting to some, though I find it attractive. It is hard, heavy and dense. The interlocking grain, which makes the wood so attractive, also make for an exciting time at the bending iron. This wood can resist you with a stubborn determination. A good night’s sleep is essential before bending. The sound is so close to rosewood, that Bubinga well earns its nickname of “African Rosewood”. That overtone structure one hears with rosewood is equally present in Bubinga, and yet at a reduced price tag. If one wanted a guitar with a traditional sound, but with more visual drama than Indian rosewood, Bubinga should definitely be considered.”

It has a Janka rating of ~2000-2500 and a specific gravity of approx. 0.9.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by jessupe

I could take the absolute best recording gear, and say 5 guitars each of several different species of wood and record them all with equal settings and I guarantee that the only thing that anyone would have going for them as far as identifying the species of wood that you are hearing in blind tests would be dumb luck. I am not saying that species can not have certain qualities tonally, but they are very general and very dependent on spectrum within the species, there can be very dramatic characteristics within the same species board to board.

There is the "tone" chart posted, and in that chart after they give their descriptions they go on to say "there is no scientific basis to this"....or in other words its quite subjective, not scientific and really just a bunch of opinions.

Now normally I would not care too much about that one way or another but the problem is that these opinions which then formulate "group think psychology" in the general population, contribute and have contributed to the over usage and misuse of certain species.

The architecture and design, the graduations, how thick or thin and where, the mass, types of adhesives, types of bracing patterns, body flex/or not, on the outer perimeter of the sides, neck rigidity, headstock weight and several other "build" factors contribute much more to steering the tone one direction or another much more so than inherent species qualities of "those" particular pieces of wood of that particular species of wood.

This very much reminds me of the somewhat scientifically proven false benchmark of Stradivarius violins. In blind test after blind test, the Strads fail to jump out over and above other violins. Time after time they fail to picked out of a crowd. Only when it is known that you are hearing one does it suddenly become clear that its a Strad.

I would prefer people classify things in more general realistic terms.

First instruments have levels of over all tone quality, bad, ok, pretty good, good , great, really great, super great and astronomical. Knowing that within all of that it is still YOUR opinion, particularly when we get to "great" sounding guitars, most will agree, "these guitars" sound great, but I may like that one where you like the other.

Second there is a difference in factory made vrs luthier made. Factories can put out some super great guitars, and because they are generally built to spec with target thickness's, that this is where species type will show it self the most as everything is built to the same specs with the materiel being the only real difference.

And third, that any species of wood has the ability to sound astronomical and that much of that is skill, but there is lots of dumb luck involved with many undetermined "scientific" things and interactions that magically create astronomical sounding guitars, some controllable, some just, magic and luck.

No offence to OP or anyone, these are just my opinions based on what I think I know and have learned over the years making instruments.

I agree not easy to recognize a tonewood on a recording, but it's more realistic to recognize one playing a guitar, if all the models have similar shape bracings and so on. Saddle, nut, strings, bracings, pick, all those are part of the sound, but I don't choose to play with any pick or any strings, I choose the one which provide me the sound I'm looking for, same with tonewoods. Just as a horn pick make a huge difference with a bone pick (with same shape an size) back and side tonewoods really matters in my experience. Of course you can probably brace a rosewood guitar to make it sound closer to a maple guitar, but we are talking about generalities, and in my experience the "cliches" about tonewoods are often pretty true. And everytime I try a rosewood guitar I have some trouble with the upper register, zinging more or less with some kind of thin metallic tone I dislike, and I noticed that before knowing anything about tonewoods, so I guess it's not just phantasy... But I admit that though I have played many Martin, Gibson, Guild, Taylor, Larrivee, Furch, a few Santa Cruz and so on, I haven't played that many independent luthier models, so maybe I would have a more measured opinion if I had

[The Bard Rocks]

Bubinga has been touted as a BRW substitute. It sounds more toward the middle of the Rosewood/Mahogany continuum to me. But I have only played the one. And, it should be noted, it is on the new CITEs list.

[mercy]

Bubinga might kill the treble zing you are talking about but will move the whole register toward treble, think toward maple. It would be hard to think of a more dramatic looking species though if thats what you might like. I remember my old Stella had no zing, it had no anything for that matter.

[Johan Madsen]

Concerning the builder it will be a Furch, and concerning the shape an OM, unfortunately they doesn't seem to provide bubinga, but they do have ziricote, concerning cocobolo does it always have this kind of red color or is it easy to find some brown sets? Many have also mentionned australian blackwood, isn't it what they use on many Maton guitars?

[ChalkLitIScream]

Originally Posted by Johan Madsen

Concerning the builder it will be a Furch, and concerning the shape an OM, unfortunately they doesn't seem to provide bubinga, but they do have ziricote, concerning cocobolo does it always have this kind of red color or is it easy to find some brown sets? Many have also mentionned australian blackwood, isn't it what they use on many Maton guitars?

Ziricote is gorgeous!
And most cocobolo is characterized by that lovely red color.

[varmonter]

Are you looking for beauty in your back and sides?
The reason I ask no one has mentioned birch as a tonewood.
There were a bazillion prewar guitars made from birch .
Go find and play a prewar regal or silver tone or harmony or supertone.
This could be the tone you like. Just throwing a curve into an already great discussion. Birch has good bass and mid response and isn't overly jangly in the high end. Not sure if furch could get birch set or not. But if you can find an old
Regal you could get an idea of its tonal properties and I am sure furch can build a beauty.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by varmonter

Are you looking for beauty in your back and sides?
The reason I ask no one has mentioned birch as a tonewood.
There were a bazillion prewar guitars made from birch .
Go find and play a prewar regal or silver tone or harmony or supertone.
This could be the tone you like. Just throwing a curve into an already great discussion. Birch has good bass and mid response and isn't overly jangly in the high end. Not sure if furch could get birch set or not. But if you can find an old
Regal you could get an idea of its tonal properties and I am sure furch can build a beauty.

Thanks for the input , I really have no experience with birch but would be happy to give it to try

[Steadfastly]

Forget about the wood so much and look more at the build, IMHO.