The maple thread

[Johan Madsen]

Some more questions about maple here (I know the importance of the top wood, builder, bracings and so on, it's just a pure theoretic question):

1. I was wondering what mechanical aspect had to do with european maple's (Acer Pseudoplatanus) tendency to dampen some frequencies, does it have to do with the wood hardness/softness, or stiffness, density...?

2. I am also wondering why some describes european maple as sounding "loud", when this tonewood is just damping some frequencies? On Martin's website, european maple's description is:

"Also called Fiddleback or Tiger Maple. Traditional tonewood for violins. Highly dense and reflective, wood yielding a loud, projective, and sustained tone"

3. The fact that maple is said to have a quick response, isn't it antagonist to having a slow velocity?

[Howard Emerson]

Johan,
The sooner you start ignoring most of those things you've read, the better.

Seriously.

Violins have as much sustain as the bow is long.

:-)

HE

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Johan,
The sooner you start ignoring most of those things you've read, the better.

Seriously.

Violins have as much sustain as the bow is long.

:-)

HE

Haha, this could have been the fourth question, why violins and cellos are made of maple
Just trying to get some better theoretic understanding

[jpbat]

The bowed family use -mainly- maple for back & side because at the time (end of 17th/beginning of 18th century), maple was, among the locally available woods, the one which fitted the bill the best. Guys like Guarnerius or Stradivarius tested just about everything for top, side and back, and for the bow, too. They settled on spruce, maple, and pernambouc, respectively, then tradition came, and in that field, the tradition is *strong*.
When I was 20, I was an apprentice in Mirecourt, and I was going to be the next Stradivarius, I tell ya... It didn't take long (like a few days) for me to back up solid. Don't take lightly 3 centuries of experimentation.
A lot of people tried to built a better violin, specially the french school in the 19th century. And they were mighty good. Not enough to change anything, tho.
It's a case of : if it don't break, don't fix it.

Now, I'm sure you can build violin with, say, mahogany. Or oak, or walnut. Actually it has been done.
Problem is, the classical music players (the big violin market) don't feel a urge to use *that* sound or look, whatever it is. So...

And, BTW, find a guitar you like, and play it.
Or, better yet, find *several* guitars you like. Have fun.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by jpbat

The bowed family use -mainly- maple for back & side because at the time (end of 17th/beginning of 18th century), maple was, among the locally available woods, the one which fitted the bill the best. Guys like Guarnerius or Stradivarius tested just about everything for top, side and back, and for the bow, too. They settled on spruce, maple, and pernambouc, respectively, then tradition came, and in that field, the tradition is *strong*.
When I was 20, I was an apprentice in Mirecourt, and I was going to be the next Stradivarius, I tell ya... It didn't take long (like a few days) for me to back up solid. Don't take lightly 3 centuries of experimentation.
A lot of people tried to built a better violin, specially the french school in the 19th century. And they were mighty good. Not enough to change anything, tho.
It's a case of : if it don't break, don't fix it.

Now, I'm sure you can build violin with, say, mahogany. Or oak, or walnut. Actually it has been done.
Problem is, the classical music players (the big violin market) don't feel a urge to use *that* sound or look, whatever it is. So...

And, BTW, find a guitar you like, and play it.
Or, better yet, find *several* guitars you like. Have fun.

Sure the tradition is strong in the classical world! But I guess some maple's tonal properties also work well with those instruments

[ilovepokemon]

As far as I know, all wood should have dampening qualities when it comes to sound, it's the degree of dampening and which specific frequencies of sound that a wood dampens more in comparison to other ones that makes tonewoods different from each other. So maple is "loud" because it is compared to other guitars built with other tonewoods, and more often than not it DOES make a louder guitar relative to most other tonewoods

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Johan,
The sooner you start ignoring most of those things you've read, the better.

Seriously.

Violins have as much sustain as the bow is long.

:-)

HE

+1! But what about under a Blue Moon at >32.04 inHg with Relative Humidity steady at 45% and an ambient temperature at 72 degrees Fahrenheit?

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by jpbat

The bowed family use -mainly- maple for back & side because at the time (end of 17th/beginning of 18th century), maple was, among the locally available woods, the one which fitted the bill the best. Guys like Guarnerius or Stradivarius tested just about everything for top, side and back, and for the bow, too. They settled on spruce, maple, and pernambouc, respectively, then tradition came, and in that field, the tradition is *strong*.
When I was 20, I was an apprentice in Mirecourt, and I was going to be the next Stradivarius, I tell ya... It didn't take long (like a few days) for me to back up solid. Don't take lightly 3 centuries of experimentation.
A lot of people tried to built a better violin, specially the french school in the 19th century. And they were mighty good. Not enough to change anything, tho.
It's a case of : if it don't break, don't fix it.

Now, I'm sure you can build violin with, say, mahogany. Or oak, or walnut. Actually it has been done.
Problem is, the classical music players (the big violin market) don't feel a urge to use *that* sound or look, whatever it is. So...

And, BTW, find a guitar you like, and play it.
Or, better yet, find *several* guitars you like. Have fun.

... and then builders can go rogue and craft with carbon fiber, which in some recent blind-listening tests subjects preferred the tone of compared to 250-year-old violins from the masters.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by ilovepokemon

As far as I know, all wood should have dampening qualities when it comes to sound, it's the degree of dampening and which specific frequencies of sound that a wood dampens more in comparison to other ones that makes tonewoods different from each other. So maple is "loud" because it is compared to other guitars built with other tonewoods, and more often than not it DOES make a louder guitar relative to most other tonewoods

But shouldn't a "less" dampening tonewood as mahogany or rosewood sound louder, all things being equal of course?

[PTC Bernie]

This may or may not be a related question, but here it is.

Why should damping or sustain be an issue on a bowed instrument? There's a constant source of energy input, the bow, unlike guitar, where the string is momentarily struck and left to ring.

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by PTC Bernie

This may or may not be a related question, but here it is.

Why should damping or sustain be an issue on a bowed instrument? There's a constant source of energy input, the bow, unlike guitar, where the string is momentarily struck and left to ring.

This is perfectly right concerning the sustain, but damping certain frequencies affects the tone directly, even with a bow, doesn't it?

[PTC Bernie]

Originally Posted by Johan Madsen

This is perfectly right concerning the sustain, but damping certain frequencies affects the tone directly, even with a bow, doesn't it?

So I guess we're talking about frequency response rather than damping?

[Johan Madsen]

Originally Posted by PTC Bernie

So I guess we're talking about frequency response rather than damping?

Isn't that related? As the frequency response will be impacted of the tonewood damping properties?