CF vs Wood

[d18]

When were carbon fiber guitars introduced to the world, and how to they compare to the traditional wood guitars?

[Doubleneck]

I think Rainsong was the first CF guitar introduced 20 years ago. Carbon can have its own pleasing qualities, but within the last 10 years Carbon guitars starting with CA guitar started sounding pretty close to wood. Emerald with some of their very recent models are very woodlike. Rainsong has added more alternatives that are closer as well. Steve

[tdq]

I've seen this discussion thrown around a lot, given my current ownership of a CA GX. Of course there is the "don't worry about humidity/warping/dropping" stuff, but from a sound perspective, if I really had to generalize, I'd say that CF guitars tend to have more shimmer and sparkle - but there are exceptions! But in the end, I'd say a Rainsong sounds like a Rainsong, a CA sounds like a CA, etc, much like a Martin sounds like a Martin or a Santa Cruz sounds like a Santa Cruz. I've played various models from all of the major CF manufacturers now (although not all models) and they each have their own distinctive voice. The question should really be "how does a Rainsong compare to a Taylor" (for example), rather than "how does CF compare to Wood". IMHO.

[Ed422]

I think it is worth remembering that at one time Taylor was a non-traditional sound. It took some time for them to be accepted into the mainstream guitar scene. Heck, there are some players who still say the Taylor sound is wrong.

I have played very few non wood (carbon fiber embedded in plastic) guitars that I like. I think in my case (as with many others) it isn't that they don't sound like wood, it is that they sound different than what I'm used to. Think of how some people pick up a parlor guitar and play it like they would a dreadnaught and then complain that they don't sound like the dreadnaught. It would be really odd if they did. It doesn't mean that they sound bad. It means that each player needs to decide if that sound is one that is useful, or if it is possible to alter their technique to get out of it a useful sound.

Maybe that'll make sense.

Ed

[Doubleneck]

If plastic isn't ok why would Taylor incase all their guitars in it in? Interesting what words can imply. Lol. It really comes down to if you like the sound. My Emerald Doubleneck will be the last guitar I would sell. Steve

[Ed422]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

If plastic isn't ok why would Taylor incase all their guitars in it in? Interesting what words can imply. Lol. It really comes down to if you like the sound. My Emerald Doubleneck will be the last guitar I would sell. Steve

Actually, they aren't "incased" in it. The outsides are thinly coated. Sorry, but I like to call things what they are. Composites are plastic just like sapele is sapele, not mahogany. Nothing implied, fact.

I'm intrigued by the X7 just on specs. It has all the basic dimensions I find comfortable. If I play one and like it, I'll still call it what it is.

Ed

[jonfields45]

I think in a world where a J-200, D-28, and 0-15 are all considered good guitars, that the current graphite reinforced epoxy guitars are acceptably close in tone to come down to taste, price, and utility. Jon

[Doubleneck]

A lot is always implied by the words we use. Plastic implies cheap because many plastics are. The material cost of a CF guitar is more than a wood one thus using a word that can imply cheap can mislead. I doubt that you describe a Taylor as thinly coated in plastic. Steve.

[Ed422]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

A lot is always implied by the words we use. Plastic implies cheap because many plastics are. The material cost of a CF guitar is more than a wood one thus using a word that can imply cheap can mislead. I doubt that you describe a Taylor as thinly coated in plastic. Steve.

Lol... I get it, you are an Emerald Fan.

That doesn't change the fact they are made of plastic. I call fiberglass boats plastic. There is no implication of cheapness in that description. I'm sorry you read into it something other than what I'm saying.

Ed

[stoney]

These discussions always seem to divide folks into camps; wood people and CF people. Here's my opinion as a CF owner/player since 2004.

Guitars are musical instruments. In my mind the point of a musical instrument is to allow the user to reach their own particular goal. If one's goal is to create a sound that is reminiscent of some standard they have regarding tone then they should choose a guitar that meets that need.

There may be quite different goals; owning a collection of (your brand here) instruments may be one. Or having an instrument with a particular look. Maybe a person is partial to some wood combination that "speaks" to them. It really doesn't matter. Whatever your motivation you need to choose what you need to meet your goals.

The problem comes when folks try to understand opinions of good versus bad from others whose goals are different. I believe this to be true in most of life's choices that revolve around material things. What car is better, what fishing rod, what running shoes, whatever. It is just worse when it is about creativity and art, as with musical instruments.

In 2004 I found and purchased my CF guitar. Why? After 38 years of playing guitars and owning quite a few I found this one to be just what I want. It is tonally versatile and can be sweet, loud, soft, warm, bright and dark as it reacts to my input. It is durable. It fits me. It is ugly. (OK, so some things are not so good...) I am very fortunate that neither materials, manufacturer or popularity make a bit of difference to me. This is the guitar that I kept when the others had to go, and I hope that it will be with me until I shuffle off this mortal coil.

It is very nice to just play and not bother with it any more.

For those who wish to know; 2004 CA Legacy AE with an ebony fret board. The fret board is the part I wish I could change but that really doesn't matter.

Peace!

Stoney

[Long813]

Just a note.

If you look into the build aspects of carbon fiber guitars you'll see that it's not just carbon fiber. I think it was CA that went into depth explaining that pure CF wasn't a good sound, so they made some special cross hatched material in between the layers to give it a tone that they liked. It's this super secret layering material that really gives these guitars their shine.

[MikeB1]

"Super Secret Layering Material"!!!....I love it!

I'm surprised that didn't generate some discussion.

I just started researching CF 2 weeks ago and have been getting a great education here.

Are there any theories out there as to what that secret material might be?

Also, are there any theories as to whether all the companies are using something and are they using the same thing?

Mike

[jonfields45]

At least for CA and RainSong, the two I've looked over most closely, they are constructed like many composite products as a sandwich of graphite cloth and spacers. Looking at the RainSong top and back, their spacer is on the order of 1/10" and their patent says it is closed cell PVC foam (you can see the RainSong spacer if you look up the bridge pin holes with a mirror from inside the guitar) with a single layer of fabric on either side (if you look closely at the sound hole it looks like two layers and the patent says the same). It appears RainSong uses no spacer in the sides of their guitars (but you can infer at least two graphite layers if you note that the inside and outside patterns do not match), and the sides are a bit flexible in the straight portions. CA's back/side/neck is three layers of graphite fabric separated by two spacing layers also of about 1/10". Where they really differ is their top has a very thin spacer (think of a less tall I-beam) and gets some of its strength from bracing, which in the center sound hole models is pretty much straight X bracing (tone bars are fanned and there is no scallopping). It has been a long time since I read the CA patent, but I imagine it will give you a good run down on their secret sauce too. Jon

RainSong's most relevant patent to their current products:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6107552

CA patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6087568

[Doubleneck]

Interesting reading the patent material. A patent lasts for 14 years wonder if some of these have expired yet. Emerald is using some core material on its tops.

[kramster]

Cargo RT top...(Pre Peavey)