What is the most malinged tone wood?

[skinnerb]

Perhaps I missed it, but has the Leonardo Guitar Research Project been mentioned ? True , the test have so far been only classical guitars but it's worth a look see. I think that at times, the discussion and claims about the sound properties of back and sides are self deluding and self serving or just plain misunderstood. Like many firmly held beliefs, there are subliminal forces that direct them to one place or another. Also, it's a dominant human trait to discount that which challenges our preferences.

[Chas Freeborn]

Originally Posted by lizzard

Further - (this just occurred to me).

Consider a painter. They may be romantic, or surrealist or post modern. They have the techniques that they have adopted (but likely explore others). This is the Luthier. Then the question becomes oil, acrylic, water? And the canvas, presentation etc...

So the Luthier (on a good day) drives the variables to which the raw materials contribute.

A little off-the-wall. But perhaps what I meant to say?

Chris

There you go - exactly my point. Two artists using the same materials can arrive at distinctly different results. In guitar building there are definitely families of instruments. The job (or artistry) of the luthier is to coax out what they are striving for. For example If I'm setting out to build a brash punchy box for a ragtime or blues player, I'll probably start with a Gibson design and make my top thinner, braces a little heavier and the X pattern a little more open. A banjo killer D will have similar building specs, but with the Martin type X, perhaps shifted forward a tad. Both would have a rigid top material such as Adirondack or Sitka.
For a fingerstyle player that wants long ringing sustain and is willing to sacrifice some bark for it, you can use a softer top (Engelmann or even Cedar), leave the top thicker and reduce mass in the bracing. My point is that there are certain designs that lend better to certain outcomes. Then break it down further and the influence of the builder comes into play.
It's all good....

[Chas Freeborn]

Originally Posted by skinnerb

Perhaps I missed it, but has the Leonardo Guitar Research Project been mentioned ? True , the test have so far been only classical guitars but it's worth a look see. I think that at times, the discussion and claims about the sound properties of back and sides are self deluding and self serving or just plain misunderstood. Like many firmly held beliefs, there are subliminal forces that direct them to one place or another. Also, it's a dominant human trait to discount that which challenges our preferences.

Yes. I linked to it on page 1
-C

[Alan Carruth]

If I'm building a specific sound for a customer, the first thing I think about is the size and shape of the box. Big boxes tend to be more 'bass balanced' than smaller ones, while the small ones can have more power and 'cut'. A shape with a more pronounced waist, like a Jumbo, will have a different timbre than a Dread. Brace profiling comes in next: 'scalloped' braces tend to have more 'punch' and bass than 'tapered' ones, which favor more sustain and treble. Then I get around to wood. When it comes to top wood I'm thinking about the properties more than the species; density and stiffness along the grain to begin with. Density and damping factor seem to be the most important things in the back wood, but it can be hard to sort those two out. Once I've figured out all of that stuff the job is to make the best guitar I can given those parameters. All of my guitars sound like my guitars, of course, but that still covers a fair range. But for me, wood is pretty far down the list of things that affect the tone.

[alohachris]

Aloha,

From a luthier's perspective (especially repairmen), plywood is the most maligned tonewood.

Since 95% of the acoustic guitars selling in a typical music store are made partially or completely from some kind of plywood or melamine, it can be problematic for some luthiers. They can be a real bear to repair.

Worst of all, some of those plywood suckers can sound really good w/ the right top.

So I vote for plywood as a maligned "tonewood."

alohachris

[psychojohn]

Oak ! Most don't even think of it as tone wood, more for furniture ! But in the hands of the right builder it sounds pretty good IMO.

John

[j. Kinnaird]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

lizzard asked:
"Laminates are often held in low regard. But recently double sides, tops, and backs have all become popular with some very well respected luthiers.

ARE THEY NOT LAMINATES?"

'Laminate' generally equates with 'plywood': an odd number of veneer layers that are laid up with the grain in alternate layers perpendicular.

Double sides usually have the grain in both layers going along the side. These are often done when the face wood is very expensive or hard to bend at full thickness, with 'The Tree' mahogany being a good example. Since the sides don't contribute as much to the sound as the top and back this usually won't have much impact in that respect.

Double tops often refer to some sort of composite structure, such as two thin layers of veneer with Nomex or foam in between. Normally they will use spruce or cedar (sometimes both) for the faces. This essentially makes a 'synthetic wood' that has properties similar to solid wood in terms of stiffness and damping, but with a density that is typically about 40% lower. Reducing the weight of the top that much gives a big boost to output power, with some concomitant changes in tone.

Most of the 'double backs' I've heard of are more along the line of the Selmer Macafferi instruments, with a second back inside or outside of the 'regular' one. The idea is to 'free up' the back by eliminating contact with player's body. It's far from a new idea, and few of the implementations of it have been very successful except for the Macaferri design , and that's a somewhat specialized instrument.

Tim:
I've had my eye out for quartered hickory wide enough for a back for a long time. I've had such good luck with oak that I have to think that hickory would be as good, if not better.

Oak has to be right up there with maple in the 'maligned' ranking. Both are great woods if you do them right.

Alan I have some really big hickory logs that are big enough for a one piece back all heart wood. I'm inspired to cut those up into sets. I'll send you a set if it works out like I'm hoping it does.

[Trevor M]

Originally Posted by psychojohn

Oak ! Most don't even think of it as tone wood, more for furniture ! But in the hands of the right builder it sounds pretty good IMO.

John

I've had three guitars with oak back and sides, Kinnaird, Brentrup and Ken Franklin, all have been spectacular.

[redir]

I can't imagine why anyone would not like Sitka. It's just simply fantastic. I've even built.. you may want to sit down for this one... A classical guitar out of Sitka and it sounds great.

I build mostly with local and reclaimed materials and white oak has become one of my favorite tonewoods to work with. Not only is it beautiful but it's exceptional tonewood.

I'm getting in orders now for my oak parlor guitars so one can only hope that it catches on.

[psychojohn]

Originally Posted by The Acoustic Music Co (TAMCO) UK

I've had three guitars with oak back and sides, Kinnaird, Brentrup and Ken Franklin, all have been spectacular.

Yes ! Although initially skeptical, you're preaching to the choir on this one. Here's my EJ Henderson 12 fret Dread with figured Oak back and sides and Carpathian spruce top played by Paul at Dream Guitars about a month after I took delivery.

[Alan Carruth]

alohachris wrote:
"So I vote for plywood as a maligned "tonewood."

In my mind, something or someone who is maligned is suffering an undeserved hit. Plywood tops deserve it, so I can't really say it's 'maligned' in that use. The B&S wood has a lot less to do with tone, so it's quite possible to make a nice sounding and playing guitar with a solid top and ply B&S. It's still going to be less repairable than an all solid one, I think. So, on the whole, I would noot say that plywood is 'maligned' as a guitar material.

One of my students said that her ex made a solid body entirely out of fir plywood once. As soon as he put on the strings the neck folded up. Some things are simply not meant to be.

[lizzard]

Originally Posted by psychojohn

Yes ! Although initially skeptical, you're preaching to the choir on this one. Here's my EJ Henderson 12 fret Dread with figured Oak back and sides and Carpathian spruce top played by Paul at Dream Guitars about a month after I took delivery.

THIS ^^^^^^^!!!!!!

Wow. Nice!

Chris

[HikariGuitars]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

(...) A shape with a more pronounced waist, like a Jumbo, will have a different timbre than a Dread.(...)

Hello Mr. Carruth, could you please give us some insight on how waist affect tone? Intuitively I'd assume it cut some of the mid and high frequencies, however a lot of things in the guitar world are not intuitive, therefore, it'd be very nice if you could share with us your knowledge.


Thanks.

Regards, Hikari.

[Alan Carruth]

This gets to be a long story, and I don't have much time at the moment. I did some experiments about 15 years ago (!) that looked at internal 'air' resonances and the way the shape of the box, the location of the hole relative to the waist, and the vibration of the top work to change them. It turns out that when you have:
1) a pronounced waist a little above the center of the length of the box,
2) a hole just above the waist, and
3) the top (at least) can respond in the frequency range of the 'A-1' air resonance (about 350 Hz), that resonance gets 'split', occurring at two different frequencies with somewhat different configurations. One of them puts out sound through the hole and the other doesn't. If you relax any of the conditions you don't see that. Thus, those guitars with the sound hole up in the corner of the top don't do this, and you don't usually see it on Dreads because the waist isn't deep enough. I believe this is one of the causes of the 'characteristic' sound of the Dread.

What's interesting to me is that the features that cause this to happen have been very strongly conserved as the design of the guitar has evolved over hundreds of years. If you don't have those things, it doesn't sound like a guitar, or, at least, not a traditional one. The Dread is something of a special case that was designed to fill a particular need, and, perhaps, what this feature set does isn't as important in that case. The same can be said of the f-hole archtop, which doesn't really sound like most other guitars, but fills a performance niche nicely with the sound it has.

I'll try to get a better explanation together when I can, but I've got a busy week coming up.

[lizzard]

Alan,

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience.

Chris