Custom Build: tap tone vs. looks

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I don't think so. It all comes down to what the particular builder sees as "better." Or maybe, what tap tone does the builder prefer, or think may make a more appropriate choice for a client's playing or music style. Other than that, I totally agree with the latter!

Yeah, I think my point is really to understand what the luthier means. If he thinks one set will make a better guitar for the intended purpose, I'd lean toward that set. Best to go with their judgement as they will know best. Lots of different builders have lots of different philosophies about how to pick woods for optimal tone and how important one aspect is vs the other. Always best to rely on the judgement of your builder.

[colins]

I recently went through the same exercise, also with three sets of maddie. The builder and I talked about what tone I wanted, then the maddie came out! One set had a demonstrably different tap tone that the builder said would contribute to the sound I sought. End of story. I would rather listen to an even slightly better sound for every single note I play than admire the back on the odd occasion I turn the guitar over. And I can still get some eye candy as for the front of the guitar we are going for some really nice inlay.

So IMHO, go for tone

Col

[ChuckS]

What would be the anwer if the builder was asked to build the best possible guitar for you? Second, would you be 100% comfortable and satisfied with whatever he chose? Maybe the answers to these questions would help you answer your question.

[iim7V7IM7]

A couple thoughts here...

• The conversation is focusing on one aspect of a build (back/side sets) as if it absolutely dictates the sound of the guitar. A builder can select an alternative top, thickness it appropriately, brace it differently to work in coordination with the back differently. Guitars are complex acoustical systems that those with mastery can manipulate to achieve a goal.
  
• Depending on the player's tonal preference, a more or less acoustically lively back could be preferred for a build. Both can make a superlative guitar. Start here....
  
• Talk with your luthier about your goals and let them present appropriate options. With dense, glassy hardwoods such as rosewoods see if their are differences in their level of seasoning or their opinion on the future stability based on how well on quarter the sets are. Perhaps there are distinctions here?

My $.02

[JoeCharter]

A "better sounding guitar" means nothing to me.

Unless the luthier tells you that there would be a significant difference in tone if he used the "pretty" set and that difference were undesirable to you, I would go with the set that I find most visually attractive.

Obviously a player does not see the back of a guitar while playing. And FWIW a player isn't supposed to look at the top either -- or any part of the guitar for that matter (except for fret markers perhaps).

But that's beside the point. If looks weren't important luthiers wouldn't spend so much time and effort to make their instruments pretty.

Obviously if the OP started a thread on this topic, looks are important to him -- and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

FWIW if the luthier had to take two stabs at it before deciding that one set wasn't as "good" as the others (whatever that means), I'd vote that the difference in the end result would be barely noticeable (not that this could ever be verified).

So I would go with the pretty set -- or follow the advice below:

Originally Posted by justonwo

Alternatively, have your luthier keep looking for wood until you can get the best of both worlds. Don't compromise.

[jessupe]

Based on my time spent studying the violin, going over all the "science" , I have come to the conclusion, as have many others, that trying to incorporate "taptones" into a final conclusion is futile at best and has been quite proven to be pseudo-science, particularly when talking about individual components and how they will work in the mix.

Around the year 2006 a very interesting thing happened in the world of violin, a man by the name of Don Noon entered the scene. Don Noon was a NASA rocket scientist who was one of the lead team members who put the rovers on mars. Now beyond being a very skilled craftsman and wood worker, Don is quite the authority on not only understanding the science of what it is we are doing, but also doing the science tests with rock solid methodology that leaves very little wiggle room for error. Many others, Joseph Curtain, Martin Schleske, Don, myself and others have pretty much determined that individual tap tones of individual components determine only what that individual piece of woods numbers are and will only be a variable in the mix.

HOW you build an instrument, its structure, based on component weights, stiffness/elasticity based on dimensions and inherent properties, radiation, dampening etc. have much more to do with the final outcome than do the "numbers" of individual pieces of wood.

If we examine "tapping" wood we must ask, what is it we are hearing?, what is it about this piece I like, and that one I don't?

1. volume
2. rate of decay
3.clarity and or qaulity of the "ring"

Now as nice as these things are when choosing a piece of wood, they really have no tangible determination of what the final outcome would be, and can even cause confusion or lead to a bad outcome. For example lets say I choose a back that has very high radiation with no dampening, I tap the wood and rings forever, like Permbuco for example, and then I chose a top material that was similar, rang forever, this could be a recipe for disaster in that with very little dampening we could end up with an instrument that "interferes" with itself, the desire to have sustain within the instrument could be killed by having too much sustain in the individual components, as an example.

I think as players of guitars, we want the following characteristics, sustain, long ringing notes that sustain both as individual notes {lead guitar/fingerstyle plucking} as well as chords that ring and sustain for long periods of time. We look for an "evenness" across the spectrum in that no particular area comes across as louder or quieter than other pitch areas. And we look for pleasant overtones within any given spectrum of playing. There are many ways to get there, and while individual pieces and their properties may lead to some intuition of the final outcome, they are by no means a reliable method for achieving good sound.

I'm sure there are many guitar makers who have "routines" that they go through when choosing wood and building, and they may believe that these rituals have a determining factor in the final outcome, but really when you start really throwing these ideas against a wall and let them get processed with NASA like mathematics and scientific study, they generally show themselves for what they are, rituals, wives tales, things I've heard, that have NO bearing on the final outcome.

I think it's Symogi who empathizes "stiffness" in the final instrument, this to me is the most "right on" methodology when thinking about things. We want an instrument that is just strong enough to structurally hold together, yet quite weak. The superball test is a good way to determine overall "instrument stiffness", but by no means a way to determine if "it" sounds good or not. That is subjective, some like bright, a higher frequency spectrum, some like warm, a lower frequency spectrum. Either way, I'm not suggesting people disregard their intuitions about taps of individual boards, just don't read too much into it, because in the long run, after all is said and done, it generally has no bearing on the final outcome. It's much more about the builder and wat he does with the wood, than the wood itself, even though the wood is very important.

[LouieAtienza]

While the "tap tone" of the back sets are not the only factor determining the guitar's voice, this is only one of two variables we are presented. Actually both tap tone and looks can be pretty subjective.

There also may be other factors to consider here. It's possible the plainer, though tighter and straight grained plates, are likely denser and stiffer, and might be able to be worked thinner. It's possible the difference is minimal, or maybe nil. As mentioned before by myself and others, it maybe that nicely figured plate that works better with the top plate for the particular guitar design, or even the OP's particular style of play.

I think one of the goals of the individual luthier is to utilize the potential of every part of his/her guitar to its fullest. And since only a small percentage of the energy put into the strings comes out as sound, even minimal differences could make a significant difference. It's possible it may not. You won't know for sure until the guitar is built.

[printer2]

So that is why Don Noon seemed like such an informed guy.

As far as I would think your luthier probably did not include a stinker in the wood offer and he could build a good guitar from any of the sets. Nothing wrong with a good looking guitar.

[TomB'sox]

I said before, the back contributes far less than the builder and the top so I would take the looker....

I also don't seek out plain guitars that cost this much money, I want a beautiful guitar that sounds fantastic as well when paying 4 and 5 figures for a guitar. It is completely possible to get both so why not? I will always spend more time not playing than playing, that is true for all of us unless we are making a living at guitar, so when not playing, my guitars are works of art that I want to enjoy for that aspect as much as the playing.

IMHO

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

I said before, the back contributes far less than the builder and the top so I would take the looker....

I also don't seek out plain guitars that cost this much money, I want a beautiful guitar that sounds fantastic as well when paying 4 and 5 figures for a guitar. It is completely possible to get both so why not? I will always spend more time not playing than playing, that is true for all of us unless we are making a living at guitar, so when not playing, my guitars are works of art that I want to enjoy for that aspect as much as the playing.

IMHO

I don't think we know the builder, or the price level of the guitar. Aside from EIR, it's pretty difficult, even rare, to get perfectly quartered rosewood sets in a size large enough for guitars in today's world. The crazier figuring seems to be the current trend - and partially because of the rarity of perfectly-quartered rosewood (outside EIR where perfectly quartered sets are abundant). So, I suppose, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As there are many ways to "skin a cat," there are many ways to brace a back of a guitar. But it boils down to two theories - bracing the back solidly (or using an extreme dome) to stiffen the back and make it act more like a reflector, or give the bracings more flex (or use less doming) to allow the back to move. For the builder seeking a more "active" back, that "little bit" can make a big difference, since we're dealing with a finite amount of energy. For the builder making a more reflective/passive back, the difference may be negligible since the back isn't intended to be active.

So for the OP, I don't think it's as easy an answer as you'd like. It really boils down to having a discussion with your builder, about what YOU REALLY WANT out of the guitar. Any builder can make a beautiful guitar out of crazy-figured woods.

[Cocobolo Kid]

Since the luthier said all three meet his standards, I would go with the most visually appealing piece of wood, especially if it is noticeable better looking than the other two choices. The top and how the luthier builds the guitar will contribute far more to the sound of the guitar. I look at, and admire the backs of my guitars, EVERY time I take them out to play. Having a unique back and sides will make your guitar special.

Just my two cents after going through two custom builds. If you could post photos of the wood choices, it would greatly help.

Cheers.

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by EverettWilliams

am I foolish to opt for the more attractive back and sides despite the fact that the less attractive stuff taps out a little better?

I'll appreciate your reactions!

No you're not foolish.

[TomB'sox]

Originally Posted by Cocobolo Kid

Since the luthier said all three meet his standards, I would go with the most visually appealing piece of wood, especially if it is noticeable better looking than the other two choices. The top and how the luthier builds the guitar will contribute far more to the sound of the guitar. I look at, and admire the backs of my guitars, EVERY time I take them out to play. Having a unique back and sides will make your guitar special.

Just my two cents after going through two custom builds. If you could post photos of the wood choices, it would greatly help.

Cheers.

AND, that is exactly what I have been trying to say in my two posts on this thread. You and I think very much alike in this situation.

And, no we don't know the builder or price, but I do know that any custom build is in the four figures and the high ends are five. I want looks and sound in that situation.

And, we can talk eloquently about small differences here and there which is exactly correct and technically accurate, however, I would still bet very good money that two identical guitars, built from the looker and then the better tapper would be impossible to distinguish in a blind sound test...

We see this all the time on the general forum, someone will AB a cheaper laminate guitar against an expensive solid guitar and it will be a 50-50 split between the two for sound and one time, the cheaper guitar won out like 75-25. So it is nice to discuss small differences in tap tone and flexed back vs stiff back etc, but really, especially in this case where the looker was still considered good, no way are you going to tell in the end product....again IMO

[Beau Hannam]

If you have ever built with Tasmanian tiger myrtle, you realise that....sometimes.....there is little correlation between a good taptone and a good sounding instrument.

Said another way, there is little correlation between a bad taptone and a good sounding instrument.

Tasmanian tiger myrtle has the tap tone of a wet fart, but for some reason, every guitar I've ever built with it (All while at Gilet guitars) sounded great.

So, go for looks for back/sides and let the top do its only job, ie to generate 90% of the tone of what we hear.

ps- When I say "top", I don't simply mean the species, but everything about a top thickness, bracing, voicing etc. So don't get toooooo caught up, like some people, worrying about the tonal subtleties of certain top species (mostly spruces).

Just a suggestion to make your decision easier.

[Cocobolo Kid]

Again, please post photos of the three wood choices and let us know your final choice.

Thanks.