Sipo vs Mahogany

[StephenHD35]

I have 15 series guitars in mahogany as well as one in sipo. The sipo, which is the custom D-15S offered by LAGS, is, to my ears, the best 15 series guitar I've ever played. Could that be because of the tone wood? I suppose that is possible. Or is it the fact that it also has the simple dovetail neck joint, and the others do not? Or is it because I just generally prefer the sound of a 12 fret dread to everything else? Probably all of the above. I've never owned one of the sapele models, so I don't have a sense of what those were like.

[merlin666]

Is this thread about top or back/side wood?

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by TBman

I agree. I have three sitka spruce over hog guitars, a Martin, a Gibson and a Larrivee and the difference is like night and day between the three of them.

FINALLY......!

Thank you.

[Mr Fingers]

Decades ago, when I began building, mahogany was the preferred wood of all those listed here. In fact, sapele was in virtually every instance, including laminated wood not intended for instruments, considered as inferior. I believe that this was more related to physical stability and maybe appearance/finishing quality, and since that was the case, it was rarely used and so perhaps did not every establish a known tonal signature. It didn't look as good, and since it was marketed as a cheaper wood that no one really used, we stayed away from it. Now that great mahogany has become rare, whatever gap there may have been is probably closing. That Martin tries to treat them all as being effectively similar seems to me to suggest that the days of great mahogany are over and that what the factories like Martin get, now, is pretty close to sapele. I see this as a step down, though maybe not a big one? and surely unavoidable anyway. Kind of a repeat of the BRE--> EIRW transition.

[email4eric]

The thing about the whole Sipo vs Honduran Mahogany vs Sapele thing is that there is sort of a popular default belief that the tonal standard is Honduran Mahogany and these other woods might be imposters. At least that's what I've noticed over time. I think that this is perpetuated by these other woods being used as surrogates within a particular guitar model, thereby being viewed suspiciously as less worthy substitutes.

After all, aren't these other "mahoganies" simply substitutes due to a shortage of the real-deal Honduran Mahogany?

The problem with this idea is that the number of wood types used for guitars is quite slim compared to the breadth of possibilities available -- there are a LOT of different woods out there, some discovered, some not yet -- that are, or may be, tonally excellent guitar woods.

If one ascribes to the idea that Honduran Mahogany is a standard, Sipo, Sapele, Khaya (and others), will be evaluated with suspicion. They should, however, be evaluated entirely independently regardless of showing up as a replacement wood in a guitar series that traditionally used Honduran Mahogany.

I concur that it is unfortunate that these woods usually show-up within a guitar series without disclosure or discussion by the manufacturer. After all, many of us like to understand the details of what makes our guitars what they are. But I think it's wise to evaluate these other woods entirely independently and wholly with an open mind.

I suspect there are woods, not yet known to guitar builders, that will become legendary and iconic in the coming years.

I find it interesting is that there are at least three different species used as Honduran Mahogany surrogates but only East Indian Rosewood as a surrogate to Brazilian.

I have guitars with Sipo, Sapele, Honduran Mahogay, and Khaya. I appreciate them all.

Originally Posted by email4eric

They should, however, be evaluated entirely independently regardless of showing up as a replacement wood in a guitar series that traditionally used Honduran Mahogany.

Couldn't agree more. Excellent post.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

How does Sipo sound verses mahogany? Really. Has anyone here A B'd them? I know all about how they are similar and how they are different but I'm curious about any sound differences.

The only Sipo guitar I’ve played was a Martin 00015, and it was the best sounding 00015 I’ve played

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by DrewStrummer

From everything I’ve read about Sipo (not Mahogany) it’s a fine replacement... cabinet makers are having the same problem with Hondours Mahogany, and find sipo is just as easy to cut, sand and stain, where as African Mahogany is hard and difficult to work with.

My thoughts are, just because a wood is easy to cut and stain, doesn’t necessarily make it tonely the same.

I also think it’s wrong for Martin to call sipo - Mahogany... in 2013 they introduce the highly praised CEO 7, which was widely reviewed ... after 1000 guitars, they decide to use sipo ( less expensive) instead of Mahogany.... I think the CEO7 line should’ve stopped being produce, or name changed to CEO7-S instead of still saying it’s made of Mahogany. After 1000, it’s not the same Guitar.

IMO... you can’t change over 50% of the wood on a Guitar, and because it stains and looks like Mahogany, don’t make it sound like Mahogany... if sipo is so excellent... why not put it on your new John Mayer guitars?

Everybody knows over time how Real Mahogany opens up over time and sounds wonderful... nobody knows how sipo will mature... I just just think it’s wrong to take a successful line, change the wood with no warning, a less expensive wood, a tonally unproven wood, charge the same price, then call the wood something it is not. Who knows, maybe 20 years from sipo is like Brazilian and everybody’s over paying for it, or in 20 years it’s a clunk... who knows... but to slip it in on a popular pricey line, selling 2000 more without anybody knowing is BS.

It's all about marketing and perception of quality. To today's serial guitar buyer, 'mahogany' instantly sounds like 'expensive, therefore good'. But sipo? 'What the heck is that; I need mahogany!' You're dead right in your prediction-and let's not forget that Brazilian rosewood was once cheap and plentiful; it is scarcity, and to a great extent hype and 'holy grail' imposed status (don't shoot me!), which is driving prices and desirability.

[Ed-in-Ohio]

Excellent post indeed!...

Originally Posted by email4eric

The thing about the whole Sipo vs Honduran Mahogany vs Sapele thing is that there is sort of a popular default belief that the tonal standard is Honduran Mahogany and these other woods might be imposters. At least that's what I've noticed over time. I think that this is perpetuated by these other woods being used as surrogates within a particular guitar model, thereby being viewed suspiciously as less worthy substitutes.

After all, aren't these other "mahoganies" simply substitutes due to a shortage of the real-deal Honduran Mahogany?

And Martin has certainly perpetuated this belief by actually saying they "use Mahogany when the supply is available, but use the 'surrogate' woods when its not".

Originally Posted by email4eric

...snip...I suspect there are woods, not yet known to guitar builders, that will become legendary and iconic in the coming years. ...snip...

I wish this were true, but I have my doubts. Let's face it, the acoustic guitar market is a slave to tradition. We have wonderful domestic hard tonewoods like Cherry and Walnut that are grossly underused and underappreciated simply because they are not mahogany or rosewood.

[tubetone74]

My CEO7 w/ cipo sounds fantastic. It's a attractive looking wood too.

[Swamp Yankee]

Transparency by the makers might help a lot in dispelling traditional biases in favor of mahogany.

For example, if Martin called their sipo guitars "sipo" instead of "mahogany" then, maybe, buyers might become more accepting of "alternative mahogany-like woods" such as sipo.

My hunch is, however, that Martin fears buyers will more often pass by their guitars if they tell them what they're really made from - so they persist in calling them "mahogany" and "genuine mahogany".

I don't really know why Taylor feels free to list their woods accurately - but maybe it's because they believe Taylor buyers are inherently less concerned with tradition?

It really comes down to those who only accept Sweitenia Whatever as the one and only "mahogany," vs those who include its cousins in that term.

Yes, it would be great if Martin called each wood exactly what it is, but because supplies ebb and flow, they may not be able to consistently source a given wood for every production run, and so they use substitutes. I imagine that changing the spec sheet whenever that happens would only muddy the waters.

Calling it all mahogany at least distinguishes it from rosewood, which is about as much as the average consumer probably understands or wants to.

[Mr. Jelly]

Is there such a thing as cousins as far as wood is concerned? Or is it just different wood?

[Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Yes, it would be great if Martin called each wood exactly what it is, but because supplies ebb and flow, they may not be able to consistently source a given wood for every production run, and so they use substitutes. I imagine that changing the spec sheet whenever that happens would only muddy the waters.

Calling it all mahogany at least distinguishes it from rosewood, which is about as much as the average consumer probably understands or wants to.

Naah, I'm gonna go with cheesy marketing ploy.

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

Is there such a thing as cousins as far as wood is concerned? Or is it just different wood?

The natural world is divided into genus, species, family, etc. This explains how the various mahoganies are related.

If Swietenia is the principal genus for mahogany, then Khaya is its sister, and Meliaceae (sipo) would be a more distant relative, hence my use of the word "cousin."