#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
James |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Good desciption Derek! JW
__________________
Resident Driver of the Drama Bus. Yes, I can beat a horse to death with just my right wing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
maple is less dense than rosewood... but not by much!! Maybe the maple is harder? Check it out at: http://www.cocobolo.net/hardwood_density.htm
__________________
Tom "Experience is something you get just after you needed it!" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The only reason for a three piece back that seems to make any sense to me is to accomodate the reality that good tone wood is getting harder to buy and more expensive every day and so companies that use a lot of wood in manufacturing their guitars are having to use small bits and pieces and make the most of what they can get. I'm sure there will come a day when we or our kids will see 4 piece backs (and tops even) and then we can all start wondering about how 4 piece backs compare to 3 piece backs and "the holy grail 2 piece backs from way back in the dinosaur days". It's already happened with strats where everyone wishes for the good old days of two piece bodies and not the current production of 3 to 9 piece bodies.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NdaBoonies,
Interesting link. I had always correlated 'density' with the major factor in the reflective quality of the back/sides. I stand corrected on my terminology. The list seems about right for what bit I know about what different woods weigh so maybe 'hardness' is more applicable. Derek |