1 piece vs. 2 piece back?

chrisc · #1 01-17-2002, 08:55 PM

I have noticed that Taylor's 300 and 400 series appear to have 1 solid piece of wood making up the back. 500 series on up have a 2 piece back with a center strip of wood on the inside. Does anyone know what difference it makes in either sound or stability?I find I kinda like the 2-piece look better than 1- piece(or 3-piece for that matter). So, anybody know what is up with that?

Yoda · #2 01-17-2002, 09:55 PM

chris,

I'm not an expert (just wait here, sir - one will be along in a moment), but I really doubt there are any one piece backs out there . It's just too hard to find suitable wood wide enough. Try looking really closely, or with a magnifying glass. I bet they are just joined so well that they seem to be seamless. But as I say, others may know better (they frequently do!)

Yoda

teleplyr · #3 01-18-2002, 06:59 AM

Master Yoda is correct.

There are no one piece backs, for the reasons he stated. The guitars you are seeing that look like they have a one piece back are just book matched really well, and have no binding down the center.

JW · #4 01-18-2002, 07:09 AM

Look closely there is a seam. No 1 piece backs. JW

JayGon · #5 01-18-2002, 07:24 AM

Why is attention called to the higher end guitars by the binding down the middle of the back? I had noticed that the 25th Anniversary 410R had a binding yet my 2000 410 did not. I can't be the difference between rosewood and ovangkol, right? Is it a cosmetic enhancement reserved for the higher ends (I assume the laminated/arched backs are one piece)?

Regarding sonic properties of the various backs, I think it is highly subjective from the posts we've had in the past. I think it is generally believed that the three piece backs on the expensive guitars are supposed to sound better, but many have submitted that that is not the case. Sort of like the Brazilizn vs. Indian debate. I personally don't know.

Jay

trombone · #6 01-18-2002, 08:22 AM

No one piece.

Go look at a current 400 series -- (pretend there's a strip down the middle if you have to) -- doesn't the wood look bookmatched? The right half is a mirror image of the left? There's only one way to get that, and that's by taking one piece of wood and making it two. On the 300 series it's harder to tell because of the grain of the wood, but they are most assuredly two piece. (or three!)

As for the binding down the back, I think Taylor just does whatever it feels like at the moment. Just like some of the 3 & 400 series will have the strip down the center seam on the inside, and most won't. My 710bce from '97 has a white strip down the back. But I have seen some from the same series that have red lines. We both have JCSM's and the bindings are different.

teleplyr · #7 01-18-2002, 08:24 AM

I don't think the three piece makes a difference in sound over the two piece. If it does, one would probably have to use a meter to see it. I doubt a person could hear it.

I'm not sure why they use binding on the higher end models, strength? looks? Maybe Bob T can answer this when he returns from NAMM.

#8 01-18-2002, 08:27 AM

The binding down the back costs extra to put in and so is found only on the more expensive guitars. The main reason is aesthetics. When you join two pieces of wood there will always be a seam that you will be able to see, though sometimes it is not very noticeable. The backstrip provides a visual transition that covers up the seam and makes it more pleasing to look at.

Not only are 1-piece bodies impractical because of the size of the tree that would be needed to get a board that wide, but they would have a real tendency not to want to lie flat. The narrower the board, the less its tendency will be to curl up.

I have never heard anyone say that 3 piece backs sound better than 2-piece backs. If anything I've heard the opposite, but to my ear I can't really tell given the natural differences from one guitar to the next. Theoretically, the 3-piece should sound worse since it has an extra glue joint binding up the wood structure and its ability to vibrate freely. Another problem with 3-piece backs is that there is no way to get them to visually match up. With 2-piece backs you take a single board, slice it in two and open it up like a book so you get a pleasing mirror image effect in the grain.

The main reason for 3-piece backs is that the supply and quality of traditional tonewoods these days is declining and it is getting harder to get enough boards big enough to span the width of the back in only 2-pieces. There aren't very many big rosewood or mahogany trees left out there and they are moving to the younger smaller diameter trees. I think that we are going to be seeing a lot more 3-piece backs in the future, and it is likely that at some point some guitar companies may need to go to 4-piece backs. Fender already uses multiple piece bodies with some of their models having 7-piece bodies.

BillM · #9 01-18-2002, 08:51 AM

Jim - Informative post! Thanks.

Bill

GRW3 · #10 01-18-2002, 01:16 PM

Just guessing but I would assume that the lack of binding on the back of the 300/400 series is due to the ability to get really true joints between the pieces. The appropriate glue will render a piece with uniform properties.

Conversely, bindings have to be backed because the binding will not act like wood.

JayGon · #11 01-18-2002, 02:06 PM

Thanks George and Jim for your posts. I just saw an ad for a K14 on the 13th Fret with a 3-piece back. I'm assuming that is due to the scarcity of koa.

But I also remember an eBay ad for a 714 with a 3-piece back that was being used as a strong selling point. I don't know if it was a custom order or what, but it was being touted as special because of it. Maybe it was Brazilian.

Just curious; are the laminated archbacks, like on the Baby and Guild D4 one or or two piece?

Jay

cpmusic · #12 01-18-2002, 02:22 PM

I've read some claims that 3-piece backs sound better, but the primary reason, as noted here, seems to be the scarcity of highly figured wood, especially in pieces wide enough to make a 2-piece back.

On the buyer's end, I think it's a purely aesthetic consideration. Personally, I prefer a 2-piece back, but I wouldn't allow a 3-piece to put me off a guitar I liked. I just hope this never becomes an issue on guitar tops.

Yoda · #13 01-18-2002, 07:25 PM

One of these days, I think I'll ask the custom shop to build me a guitar with a five piece back... BR on the outside, koa on the inner two, and maple in the center!! Ought to sound like anything I want, right?

Actually, it might be an interesting experiment to mix two tonewoods in a guitar back, and see what happens.

Off to play with my 'lobotomy-at-home-' kit some more.

Yoda

Doug L. · #14 01-18-2002, 07:52 PM

I am partial to the 2 piece back. I have looked at the 3 piece backs, but they are not visually appealing. I can tell no noticable difference in sound. I guess it comes down to what looks and sounds good to the potential owner.

Doug

#15 01-18-2002, 11:24 PM

Yoda, A few years ago Martin tried making a dread with half in rosewood (on the EAD side) and half in mahogany (on the GBE side). It was called the MTV model and the idea was that the warm sounding rosewood would accentuate the bass strings side while the brighter sounding mahogany would accentuate the treble strings side. It was pretty much of a failure as it came out sounding kind of muddled and as far as I know they haven't tried that again.