adirondack vs sitka spruce

[rhythmslave]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

min7b5,

Whoa! For once I was actually correct! I have several with Sitka tops, one with an Adi top, and your recording does stay true to my memory of the difference in sound.

Bottom line -- when a couple of well-made guitars are played side-by-side, the difference between Sitka and Adi is audible but subtle.

Again, nicely done -- Thank You!

- Glenn

Glenn,

I have the other guitar which was used to make this recording -- it's the Sitka/EIR SCGC 00.

I want to reiterate what Eric said above -- in person the guitars sound more alike than they do in this recording. Eric's guitar definitely hit the mics (I think he used a pair of Josephson C42s in x-y) harder and differently than mine did.

And just to throw a little more spice into the discussion, I should mention that Eric's guitar also features all hide glue construction. It's an astonishing guitar.

And his playing -- oy, don't get me started!

-- mark mcp

[690MBCOMMANDO]

Thought this may be of interest from a place that supplies a number of the builders....

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by rhythmslave

Glenn,

I have the other guitar which was used to make this recording -- it's the Sitka/EIR SCGC 00.

I want to reiterate what Eric said above -- in person the guitars sound more alike than they do in this recording. Eric's guitar definitely hit the mics (I think he used a pair of Josephson C42s in x-y) harder and differently than mine did.

And just to throw a little more spice into the discussion, I should mention that Eric's guitar also features all hide glue construction. It's an astonishing guitar.

And his playing -- oy, don't get me started!

-- mark mcp

Mark,

Thanks for that feedback. Great experiment and great sounding guitars. As you've said, too -- very nice playing as well!

Regards, Glenn

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

min7b5,

Whoa! For once I was actually correct! I have several with Sitka tops, one with an Adi top, and your recording does stay true to my memory of the difference in sound.

Bottom line -- when a couple of well-made guitars are played side-by-side, the difference between Sitka and Adi is audible but subtle.

Again, nicely done -- Thank You!

It is subtle, and hard to control for. But I do still prefer adi. It's a small difference, but on I can feel as a player. You just have a sense that the guitar can do more. It's like good old tube amp, if I dig in it just gets better. On the other hand, for someone that has a really light touch something like cedar might make more sense. It's all very subjective. If I was going to do just one "upgrade" money-wise on a new guitar, to me personally red spruce would be it.

[valleyguy]

I recently bought a Guild D50 with an adi top. The D55 is supposedly identlcally built with Sitka top and more bling. I played both of these together in several stores, and the difference is quite noticeable. There's a reason the D50 is called a bluegrass special, it;s a great flatpicking guitar, and LOUD. The D55 is warmer and each string is less defined.

One is not better than the other, they're just different. Ideally you'd want one of each.

Oh, the D50 is less costly the the D55, which of course has more bling.

Viva la difference

[El Conquistador]

Originally Posted by 690MBCOMMANDO

Thought this may be of interest from a place that supplies a number of the builders....

Well, this is an informative piece.

I was especially interested in the description of the Common Grade as being the "acoustic equal to the higher grades". There are always folks on these forums posturing about how they don't give a hoot about what the appearance of a guitar since it is "all about tone", and, "you don't play the guitar with your eyes". I wonder how many of those folks would settle for a common grade top?

I also think it is interesting that, it would appear, most of the expense of this wood comes simply from the difficulty in securing it rather than any superior acoustic properties.

My read on this topic is, is Adi worth paying more for? Since most would agree with the statement made several times throughout this thread that it is the builder that makes the difference, where does that leave consumers of factory built guitars? Since this thread has cast a great deal of doubt on whether or not you are even getting an "Adi" top when you shell out extra for it, and, even if it is "Adi", is it a good piece of "Adi", or, as described above, a disapointing piece, and a factory built guitar is going to marry the next body coming down the line to the next top on the stack, the answer to the OP question of "Is Adi better" has got to be, for a factory built guitar, probably not. For a handbuilt guitar, probably yes given that your builder knows what she/he is doing.
LC

[valleyguy]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

"Is Adi better" has got to be, for a factory built guitar, probably not. For a handbuilt guitar, probably yes given that your builder knows what she/he is doing.
LC

I'd invite you to play Guild's D50 and D55 side by side to make that comparison. I hear quite a bit of difference.

[690MBCOMMANDO]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Well, this is an informative piece.

I was especially interested in the description of the Common Grade as being the "acoustic equal to the higher grades". There are always folks on these forums posturing about how they don't give a hoot about what the appearance of a guitar since it is "all about tone", and, "you don't play the guitar with your eyes". I wonder how many of those folks would settle for a common grade top?

I also think it is interesting that, it would appear, most of the expense of this wood comes simply from the difficulty in securing it rather than any superior acoustic properties.

My read on this topic is, is Adi worth paying more for? Since most would agree with the statement made several times throughout this thread that it is the builder that makes the difference, where does that leave consumers of factory built guitars? Since this thread has cast a great deal of doubt on whether or not you are even getting an "Adi" top when you shell out extra for it, and, even if it is "Adi", is it a good piece of "Adi", or, as described above, a disapointing piece, and a factory built guitar is going to marry the next body coming down the line to the next top on the stack, the answer to the OP question of "Is Adi better" has got to be, for a factory built guitar, probably not. For a handbuilt guitar, probably yes given that your builder knows what she/he is doing.
LC

I agree with you man. Price is driven by rarity (often cosmetic) and when I select a piece of wood with the builder it's tone first and everything else is secondary. Not surprising that there is better looking tops out there but they just don't sound as "ideal".

[John Arnold]

If someone likes the sound of a Sitka topped guitar best, I may suggest (after some conversation and clarification) that he or she seek a different builder, because our ideas about sound are not in synch.

I have never built with Sitka, and I have never been asked to. Before I started cutting red spruce, I primarily used Engelmann, with an occasional Euro spruce top when I decided to spend more money.
Due to the kindness of Ted Davis, I now have a lifetime supply of red spruce. But if red spruce had not been available, I would be seeking all the Carpathian, Austrian Alpine, and Italian spruce I could find, as well as using more of the Engelmann I acquired in the 1980's. Sitka is, and will continue to be, near the bottom of my list of top woods.

I also think it is interesting that, it would appear, most of the expense of this wood comes simply from the difficulty in securing it rather than any superior acoustic properties.

Not entirely. If nobody thought it had more of that prewar Martin and Gibson sound than other topwoods, there would be no demand, and the price would be less than Sitka. I have cut over 3500 red spruce guitar tops, but I could not sell the first one if the market didn't support the price I asked.
Red spruce is very much like the other non-Sitka spruces, in that the trees are small, with many defects. The cost of cutting it the correct way (from split billets) is much the same as Euro, Engelmann, or Carpathian. And the cost of 'bringing the logs home' is miniscule, when compared with the price of the tops obtained from an average log. The nearest red spruce to Fulton, Missouri is probably 500 miles, and much of Old Standard's red spruce comes from twice that far away. Even so, their pricing is 'right in the middle' of the market, because they are in the business of supplying a lot of red spruce to all the guitar makers. The only thing I would disagree with in their writeup is the market for red spruce mandolin tops, which I have found to be very, very strong.

Since this thread has cast a great deal of doubt on whether or not you are even getting an "Adi" top when you shell out extra for it

I haven't seen proof that there is much fraud occurring.

[sfden1]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Well, this is an informative piece.

I was especially interested in the description of the Common Grade as being the "acoustic equal to the higher grades". There are always folks on these forums posturing about how they don't give a hoot about what the appearance of a guitar since it is "all about tone", and, "you don't play the guitar with your eyes". I wonder how many of those folks would settle for a common grade top?
LC

Hey, I resemble that remark

Seriously though, there are some of us who have nothing invested in having a guitar with the tightest grain lines on the block, or the purest white, or whatever. Personally, I'm not very interested in spectacular woods. Oh, on a voyueuristic level, it's fun to look at, but honestly, I'm too cheap to pay for it, especially when it has nothing to do with how a guitar sounds. I'd much rather have someone like John Arnold or Tim McKNight or John Mayes or any one of the other great builders who post here pick out what they think is the best wood from a tonal perspective, no matter what it looks like.

Good design doesn't rely on perfect materials to be successful. Anyone of them will build a beautiful guitar regardless of the cosmetic grade of the top or back woods used. Honestly, I think people do themselves and the luthiers involved a disservice by obsessing so much over the visual aspects of woods.

On the other hand, if you want to pay for it, more power to ya.

D.

[Rank Stranger]

You can read everywhere that sitka is warmer in tone compared to adirondack which is said to be brighter and crisper. I recently took the chance and bought a used OM-18V. A friend of mine owns a 000-18GE with adi top of which I thought is the best Martin OM/000 I've ever heard. So, I couldn't wait to compare the two. And to my (and my friend's) surprise the OM-18V with its sitka top sounded much brighter than the the adi topped 000-18GE which sounded dark and bassy in comparison. Although I liked the full and warm tone of the GE better for strumming the 18V excelled for picking - at least for my taste.

Does anybody have similar experiences? What could be the reason for this phenomena?

Ta,
Rank

[RP]

I'm not going to compare my Silver Creek T-160 to the higher grade of guitars discussed here, but I've wondered how, if at all, the graininess of its top contributes to what I really find appealing about its tone. I'm awful at describing tone, but this one sounds fuller, more open, and less boxy than the several others I've owned/played....

[Jeff M]

Zombie thread back from the dead.

Originally Posted by Rank Stranger

You can read everywhere that sitka is warmer in tone compared to adirondack which is said to be brighter and crisper. I recently took the chance and bought a used OM-18V. A friend of mine owns a 000-18GE with adi top of which I thought is the best Martin OM/000 I've ever heard. So, I couldn't wait to compare the two. And to my (and my friend's) surprise the OM-18V with its sitka top sounded much brighter than the the adi topped 000-18GE which sounded dark and bassy in comparison. Although I liked the full and warm tone of the GE better for strumming the 18V excelled for picking - at least for my taste.

Does anybody have similar experiences? What could be the reason for this phenomena?

Ta,
Rank

Here. Discussion about Adi vs Sitka from the Acoustic Guitar Magazine Forum from some time back with input from several builders;

http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi...1;t=029843;p=1

I am of the same opinion as luthier Rick Turner;

"Once again, don't ascribe particular qualities only to certain wood species. As Al has noted, there is tremendous overlap from one species of spruce to another in terms of the measureable qualities...stiffness along or across the grain, density, damping characteristics, etc. Yes, the average for one type may be a bit this way or that way from the others, and hence we wind up with all this Adirondack vs. Sitka vs. Englemann, etc. debate, but it's about each individual piece of wood. But all this happens with side and back wood, too. I've seen a lot of pretty spongy Indian rosewood...stuff that had higher damping that a lot of mahogany or maple, yet it was "rosewood"...ooooooh!

Non-luthiers (and more than a few luthiers...) want definitive definitions for these various woods; they want to buy into a belief system that is rigidly compartmentalized with regard to names and wood species.

Sorry...it's all very fuzzy borders with lots of overlap. The rest is marketing..."

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Matt Mustapick

Given the overlap, I think it may be even more useful to think of it more as the difference between a pizza from Rome or pizza from Bologna. Generally perhaps there are differences...but asking which pizza will be be "better" without knowing anything about the particular restaurants is extremely speculative. In this case, I could appreciate someone saying "I generally seem to like the pizza in Bologna better." But if someone were to say that any pizza slice in Bologna is more than likely to be better than any slice in Rome, then that doesn't make sense to me.

But we agree Jeff...and both are very good, when they're very good.

I lived in Rome for 4 years in the 90s. I would sometimes go out with Italians that insisted on walking the length of the city because the pizzas in X pizzeria were just the best. After traipsing the streets for 30 minutes, I'd invariably get a pizza that tasted virtually identical to the one at the end of the street from which we started.

I'm wondering if there's a parallel with the very fine and sometimes obsessive distinctions and pronouncements we make on small differences between some guitars!

[RP]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

Zombie thread back from the dead.



Here. Discussion about Adi vs Sitka from the Acoustic Guitar Magazine Forum from some time back with input from several builders;

http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi...1;t=029843;p=1

I am of the same opinion as luthier Rick Turner;

"Once again, don't ascribe particular qualities only to certain wood species. As Al has noted, there is tremendous overlap from one species of spruce to another in terms of the measureable qualities...stiffness along or across the grain, density, damping characteristics, etc. Yes, the average for one type may be a bit this way or that way from the others, and hence we wind up with all this Adirondack vs. Sitka vs. Englemann, etc. debate, but it's about each individual piece of wood...

Sorry...it's all very fuzzy borders with lots of overlap. The rest is marketing..."

In other words, the odd piece of spruce used on a less expensive guitar, such as my SC T-160, may in fact echo some characteristics of the top on a more expensive guitar. Yes???