Tonewoods: underrated and overrated

[Goodallboy]

I wouldn’t have repeated that...........

[Kettil]

Admittedly, tonewood is one small ingredient in the sound, but the flavors added by particular tonewoods do influence our preferences, so I'll say that I think cocobolo is under-rated. In my experience, its right up there with Brazillian for the finest tonewood available for my preferences in guitar tone.

For over-rated, I am not a fan of the walnut I've heard, but I'll admit that only only comes from 3 or 4 guitars, all of which I thought were otherwise beautiful.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Johan Madsen

I totally agree about rosewood lacking mid frequencies, I personnaly think maple is very underrated, there’s just something special about maple I love, it definitely has presence in the frequency range where rosewood is lacking.

I agree! Maple is a WONDERFUL tonewoods when executed well. With the right strings- OMG! Great midrange without sacrificing highs and lows if the top selection and bracing is right.

BTW- has anyone else noticed that forward shifted bracing has become a trend particularly with Taylor it's Martin guitars?

[Von Beerhofen]

Where do the sinker woods fit in all of this? Now stop looking at me, I haven't any experience with that stuff but I think the community may be as divided on the subject as it is on the previous,

Personally I have no real opinion as I haven't played many guitars with the various tonewoods which would be comparable to eachother, higher end guitars aren't very easy to find where I am and my experience is limited to the woods I have on my guitars only.

Adirondack, not as pretty as nice cross grained Spruce, sounds pretty good
Spruce, looks overall better then Adirondack in my eyes, sounds pretty good
Koa alongside Maple, both look stunning and sound pretty good.
MRW, doesn't look particularly interesting but sounds pretty good
EIR laminated, looks like most EIR I've seen but isn't the same, still it sounds pretty good

That's it for my guitars,

Ludwig

[AHill]

Originally Posted by MrErikJ

Underrated:
Overrated: Adirondack
Sounds great once it breaks in, which takes 55 years.

Seriously? How many of us were around 55 years ago to hear an Adi topped guitar played and remember that well enough to declare that today it's opened up? My 1-year old adi-topped D-28 Marquis sounds amazing and it's every bit as complex and bright as a Sitka spruce dread, but with much more clarity. I've noticed that in the past few months, it's beginning to open up, with more clarity in the lower end.

Guitars "open up" for many reasons. Aging of the tonewoods (resins start to cure and harden), settling in of the structure / construction, etc. If you are claiming it takes Adirondack spruce 55 years to open up, why not include Brazilian rosewood and Cuban mahogany with that claim?

My opinion.

[MrErikJ]

Originally Posted by AHill

Seriously? How many of us were around 55 years ago to hear an Adi topped guitar played and remember that well enough to declare that today it's opened up? My 1-year old adi-topped D-28 Marquis sounds amazing and it's every bit as complex and bright as a Sitka spruce dread, but with much more clarity. I've noticed that in the past few months, it's beginning to open up, with more clarity in the lower end.

Guitars "open up" for many reasons. Aging of the tonewoods (resins start to cure and harden), settling in of the structure / construction, etc. If you are claiming it takes Adirondack spruce 55 years to open up, why not include Brazilian rosewood and Cuban mahogany with that claim?

My opinion.

I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should’ve said “takes a million years.”

[Alan Carruth]

Given the range of variation in properties within any given wood species, picking one species out as 'superior' or 'inferior' is unjustified, particularly if it's done on the basis of a single, or a few, examples. Given that, I'd have to say that any wood species that is considered to be 'magic' in and of itself is over rated. It is distressingly easy to make a poor guitar out of great wood: simply using 'the best' species won't guarantee great sound.

In terms of market acceptance, I'd say that both oak and maple are under rated. Properly used either one can make a great guitar, but you'll never know it if you won't try them.

[ChalkLitIScream]

Originally Posted by Von Beerhofen

Where do the sinker woods fit in all of this?

Sinker redwood seems to be wildly inconsistent in its variation. Or that is what several established luthiers have claimed.
I don't think redwood is widespread enough to get a good idea of how well it works.

Taylor must know what they're doing as they are in the PS guitars.
Thinking of having a redwood guitar built, but the rumoured inconsistencies have led me to shy away from sinker. Probably will go for curly redwood

[Sonics]

Underrated: Maple, Bubinga, Wenge.

Overrated: Brazilian rosewood.

[JeffreyAK]

Just off the top of my head, things that are more important than (or at least as important as) the variety of wood used to build the guitar include:
1) How hard the player picks the strings.
2) What picking instrument (flat pick, nails, fingers) and technique the player uses.
3) How many strings are usually ringing at any one time.
4) The string construction and gauge.
5) Tuning of the guitar (standard vs. alternative, up/down).
6) Whether or not your forearm rests on the top (I only recently discovered how much difference this makes with some guitars, including one of mine).
7) Guitar size, particularly top size.
8) How the guitar is constructed and braced, and by who.
9) Hearing ability of the player, particularly sensitivity to high frequencies that degrades with age.
10) Environment player is in when he plays, like room size and contents, wall proximity and angle, presence or absence of a big cushy couch, etc.

So I really don't think one can pick out a particular wood, particularly on the back and sides, as being either under or over-rated, given all the other variables that are at least as important to determining whether or not you like what you hear when you play.

[zombywoof]

I am one of those who pays little attention to what lumber a guitar is built with. That said, based on guitars in the house the most underrated body wood is birch.

[atticus1019]

Overrated: Brazilian.

I agree with previous posters that it is 100% all about what a luthier can do with the wood. A truly great luthier is going to choose the tonewood to give the voice he/she wants the guitar to have and that can’t be held in high enough regard. Brazilian has become such a trap for people who think it is some kind of magical properties that is instantly going to make you a better player. You can get so much more guitar for the money if you go with something more readily available. And since most guitars with Brazilian on them are 40+ years old, the imagined magical tone probably has more to do with the 40+ years of drying out and being played regularly (and if we’re really being honest probably has more to do with the top-wood anyway).

Underrated: cedar/walnut

I had a cedar top, walnut b/s Martin that I was absolutely smitten with until a stagehand dropped it off a loading dock and walked away without telling anyone. You don’t really see this combo much, but lord of that guitar didn’t sing.

[sdelsolray]

I pretty much enjoy all the different woods, backs and sides and tops, provided the luthier who puts it all together knows what he/she is doing.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

Given the range of variation in properties within any given wood species, picking one species out as 'superior' or 'inferior' is unjustified, particularly if it's done on the basis of a single, or a few, examples. Given that, I'd have to say that any wood species that is considered to be 'magic' in and of itself is over rated. It is distressingly easy to make a poor guitar out of great wood: simply using 'the best' species won't guarantee great sound.

In terms of market acceptance, I'd say that both oak and maple are under rated. Properly used either one can make a great guitar, but you'll never know it if you won't try them.

People will believe what they want to believe because that choice of b&s wood is a feature they can control and highly visible. When I had my guitar built the luthier said to pick what I like the look of because he felt his actions overwhelmed any subtle differences. As I said before, I would go that way or your way of letting you choose the wood that will do the required job, regardless of the species. I will always defer to the luthier's recommendation because I'm paying them to achieve a certain goal.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by David MacNeill

In my experience, Koa is overrated. Stunningly beautiful, of course, but in a blind listening test I would guess it is mahogany. Koa can also be somewhat fragile compared to mahogany and rosewood. I have a solid figured Acacia 8-string uke that could easily pass for Koa both visually and tonally.

Sapele is both overrated and underrated. The tone is not as rich as mahogany, nor is it as beautiful, and in my experience it is more fragile. But it is sustainable and has a mahogany-like resonance at much lower cost, which is good.

I so wanted Walnut to be a great tonewood, but I’ve owned one (a Lowden) and played a few others and none left any kind of lasting impression. If I wanted that lack of resonance, I’d pick Maple, which is beautiful and plentiful. I wanted to buy the Gibson Jackson Brown Roy Smeck, but when I found out it was made of Walnut I pretty much lost interest. For that kind of money I’d want rosewood, like the originals.

Mmmm, do you know that koa IS ACACIA?