Laminate vs. Solid Wood

[~j~]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

makes since since the sides don't vibrate significantly regardless of material

no, that doesn't make sense. Just sayin.

[edman]

Laminate is a nice word for plywood. The glue between the layers can break down, therefore creating tonal problems.

Are there excellent sounding laminate guitars? Yes.

However, most laminate guitars sound weak when played next to a solid wood guitar.

I prefer solid wood.

[Sugarlander]

Originally Posted by William63

Before I ever owned a high end guitar, I never cared what the tonewood was, or if it was solid or laminate. Now, as I am becoming knowledgeable about the various tonewoods, there seems to be the attitude that solid wood back and sides are superior to a laminate.

But I'm questioning that theory. My friend owns a Seagull with a cedar top and laminate wild cherry back and sides. In tone and volume that relatively inexpensive guitar rivals my expensive Guild JF55 jumbo in both tone and volume.

Any thoughts?

Your question is subjective with no right or wrong answer. However, most people do claim to hear a difference between laminate guitars (body only lam, and body and top lam). I know I hear a significant difference.

I have owned several Seagulls and compared them to the one I have now. The one I have now definately sounded better than the Seagulls I no longer own. This remaining one I have now is a Seagull M6 Gloss (solid spruce top with lam sapele body). It does not sound as good as any of the solid guitars I own (sold top and sold body) such as Taylors 314ce, 414rce, 710, or Martin D-35 or Collings D2H. The Seagull has a very good sound for the price, but it does not come close to measuring up to my solid body guitars. And, as said, none of the others I owned did either.

For me, the development of my ears occured over years of playing. I did not hear the difference between solid and lam guitars during the first 2 years of my playing so I keep my cheap lam. It took time to really appreciate the difference. My attitude was and is, "if I can't hear or feel an improved difference, then I will not pay more for something just to "keep up with the Joneses" or "be cool." Becuase I can't hear a difference does not mean that there is no difference. It just means 1) there MAY be no difference or 2)there is no difference - and 3) I can't tell which.

Which sounds better? Only you can tell for yourself. Which is less expensive? Everybody knows that objective answer. Why pay more for something if you do not experience an improvement?

[Randal_S]

Is it really logical to compare any Seagull with something like a 710, a D-35, or a Collings?

Compare a new Taylor 110 with a new Taylor 310 someday... the results may surprise you.

Of course, a 110 won't improve over time like a solid guitar will, but it seems like lotsa folks like to buy new guitars every year or so anyway.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by ~j~

no, that doesn't make sense. Just sayin.

Hi...
Michael Bashkin doubles his sides to hold them more rigidly so they don't absorb sound from the top, so vibration is projected directly to the back. He then builds his sides and backs to be more responsive.

Some luthiers use tape or braces to firm the sides up.

http://www.bashkinguitars.com

He doesn't use plywood, he uses two complete sides of the same wood glued together.

[~j~]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi...
Michael Bashkin doubles his sides to hold them more rigidly so they don't absorb sound from the top, so vibration is projected directly to the back. He then builds his sides and backs to be more responsive.

Some luthiers use tape or braces to firm the sides up.

http://www.bashkinguitars.com

He doesn't use plywood, he uses two complete sides of the same wood glued together.

I would have thought the sides would also be a major part of translating the vibration between the top and the back ?? If the rigidity aids it, I guess I don't understand why more major manufacturers like martin and taylor wouldn't adopt that practice for all of their instruments.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by ~j~

I would have thought the sides would also be a major part of translating the vibration between the top and the back ?? If the rigidity aids it, I guess I don't understand why more major manufacturers like martin and taylor wouldn't adopt that practice for all of their instruments.

Hi...
Martin, Taylor, and others do build the sides rigid. The sound waves radiate from the top and the back is a passive radiator. You don't want sound dissipating into the sides.

The rigid sides suspend the top & keep it from twisting or from folding up under 200 pounds of string tension. We do a lot of unnatural things to an acoustic guitar. We take wood which has been wound around a tree trunk, and saw, sand, plane and otherwise straighten, brace and string it up like a tight drum and then strum on the strings causing the top to vibrate in waves which go side to side, up and down and top to bottom (neck to lower bout) simultaneously.

And we expect it to keep this up for a hundred fifty years or so.

You will have to ask Martin, Taylor etc. why they try to build every guitar the same while hand builders try to build every guitar better...

[edman]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi...
Martin, Taylor, and others do build the sides rigid. The sound waves radiate from the top and the back is a passive radiator. You don't want sound dissipating into the sides.

The rigid sides suspend the top & keep it from twisting or from folding up under 200 pounds of string tension. We do a lot of unnatural things to an acoustic guitar. We take wood which has been wound around a tree trunk, and saw, sand, plane and otherwise straighten, brace and string it up like a tight drum and then strum on the strings causing the top to vibrate in waves which go side to side, up and down and top to bottom (neck to lower bout) simultaneously.

And we expect it to keep this up for a hundred fifty years or so.

You will have to ask Martin, Taylor etc. why they try to build every guitar the same while hand builders try to build every guitar better...

Martin, Taylor, etc are in the mass production business. Very simple concept -they can't make changes during production runs.

Another thing to consider is the fact that Martin, Taylor, etc., customers like the products the way they are. People want the Martin sound or the Taylor sound, etc. Besides, most small time builders mimic their designs.

Although, the most important factor determining how good a guitar sounds is the guitarist's ability to play. No one will care whose guitar you are playing if you can't play it well.

[PowerTube]

My Kona K2 Thinbody has a laminated spruce top with nato back and sides. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it sounds better to my ears than several Martins and Taylors I've played in the sub-$1000.00 range. Laugh if you must (and I'm sure that many of you will), but that's my honest opinion. And no, I'm not a beginner. I've played for about 25 years.

[edman]

Originally Posted by PowerTube

My Kona K2 Thinbody has a laminated spruce top with nato back and sides. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it sounds better to my ears than several Martins and Taylors I've played in the sub-$1000.00 range. Laugh if you must (and I'm sure that many of you will), but that's my honest opinion. And no, I'm not a beginner. I've played for about 25 years.

I don't doubt you for a minute. I recently sold a Gibson J-185 style acoustic after buying an imported Washburn WD56SW. The Washburn has solid rosewood sides and back with a solid spruce top. It produced a much louder sound with better tone than the Gibson for a third of the price. I've been playing for 21 years.

[Sugarlander]

[QUOTE=Randal_S]Is it really logical to compare any Seagull with something like a 710, a D-35, or a Collings? [QUOTE]

When you own and play all those guitars in in the same room in your home, can you help but compare them? Is it logical to own and play them all and not compare them? How could you avoid it? Seems that the original subject matter of this thread is a comparrison of laminate guitars to solid wood guitars.

[RL82]

edit: can't delete posts on this forum?

[Randal_S]

[QUOTE=Sugarlander][QUOTE=Randal_S]Is it really logical to compare any Seagull with something like a 710, a D-35, or a Collings?

When you own and play all those guitars in in the same room in your home, can you help but compare them? Is it logical to own and play them all and not compare them? How could you avoid it? Seems that the original subject matter of this thread is a comparrison of laminate guitars to solid wood guitars.

Fair enough, but I'm guessing there are other differences that are much more substantial then the lam-solid debate when comparing a $ Seagull to a $$$$$ Collings. I just don't think it's a fair comparison on any level... but I guess that until we get an all-solid Seagull or a laminated Collings, it's all we have to go on, though.

[~j~]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi...
Martin, Taylor, and others do build the sides rigid. The sound waves radiate from the top and the back is a passive radiator. You don't want sound dissipating into the sides.

So for laminate, you have alternating layers of glue in there, that will definitely dissipate sound into the sides. I'm getting a bit confused as to whether the idea is that laminate sides are better in that case, i.e. more rigid or solid wood would be better. the original post I was questioning by Sandy indicated that she said that laminate sides are more rigid, which I just don't buy from a materials and physics perspective.

[~j~]

Originally Posted by edman

Martin, Taylor, etc are in the mass production business. Very simple concept -they can't make changes during production runs.

Another thing to consider is the fact that Martin, Taylor, etc., customers like the products the way they are. People want the Martin sound or the Taylor sound, etc. Besides, most small time builders mimic their designs.

Although, the most important factor determining how good a guitar sounds is the guitarist's ability to play. No one will care whose guitar you are playing if you can't play it well.

I don't think taylor cares so much if they do something unorthodox just because it's better, like the NT neck. so if laminate was in any way better for anything, it seems like they would have at least either addressed that in wood & steel, website, etc. or taken it into consdieration for building. IMO glue inbetween the layers of wood in a laminate is a damper, there's no other way of looking at it, it's just like a calorimeter where the air will completely disallow temperature gradients.