Although it was less popular, "Gentleman" is much better:

https://youtu.be/ASO_zypdnsQ



My favourite part is at the 58 second mark.

That is too awesome! Ha ha. What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, Brazilian for sure!

I was joking of course, but I still think that, one view for a clown act like this guy, is 3 minutes that only help his popularity and make other (actual artists) less known and more poor).

That being said, so I can be on topic again, I have two pieces of Madagascar rosewood and three pieces of padauk and one zebrawood and one astounding pau ferro back and sides set.
I am no luthier, but I like the padauk better.

Does it make much difference on the quality sonically where it comes from or do you just judge each set? Is Burmese likely to be better on average?

I honestly dont know. In fact I just distinguish padouk by smell. The one I am most familiar with smells like cotton candy when worked. The latest one I have smells like something else. But they both sound great when tapped. I didnt know there were three kinds of padouk so I'm getting schooled here.

I think most buyers of guitars are pretty stuck in their ways and will chose a traditional wood because that accords with what their sense of "what's right" (i.e. been normalised through their exposure). That's not a criticism (indeed, going traditional is very sensible if you're concerned about resale value), but I don't think that means traditional woods are the best choice (tonally, ethically, environmentally, visually or however else you might want to measure it). EIR is, I'd guess, perhaps the most frequently used wood for back and sides. I wouldn't say it's "the best" (whatever that means) any more than Kenny G is! Although if we do value consensus for high end instruments, properly quartersawn Braz would be hard to displace from the top spot.

I can't really vote in this poll because, whilst the padouk and pau ferror guitars I've played have been excellent, my understanding is than ovankol and zebra wood are quite different. So I'd second comments that suggest you sit down and discuss what you're after with the luthier in question. As Mau said, it's like saying red is better than blue. Pick your favourite colour and then get the luthier to chose the ingredients to blend to get there.

FWIW, I'm a big fan of the less traditional woods. And whilst I've loved a lot of Braz instruments, I'm generally not a fan of the more vitreous woods and find the look of most rosewoods a bit boring and tonally they don't usually work for my style. My Kostal MD, for example, is claro walnut (which I much prefer to all the other MDs I've played, which were The Tree, two in wenge and one in African Blackwood) - but this is very subjective and I was hoping to a particular tonality. I'm also considering ovangkol for a build... I kinda like the idea that it might offer a bit of RW flavour without being a fully fledged vitreous wood. But, admittedly, I may just be entertaining it because of how pretty the particular set is ... !

Tradition can be quite flexible. Western Red Cedar was virtually never used
as a soundboard material until its introduction by Jose Ramirez III in the early 60s, for instance; not a long time ago.

Hey Prizen, have you decided on a builder?

My experience with back and side woods is that the woods differences are highly nuanced when compared to the difference between builders. I've played guitars by Mike Baranik that use all kinds of woods I've never heard of and are way out of the mainstream. Same with Laurent Brondel. In my experience, they always sound like Baraniks or Brondels and the back and sides are nuanced shades on the fundamental sound the builder produces.

That being said, unless I've sampled a large body of the builders work, the commissioning process is already risky to begin with. I would never commission a guitar from a builder for whom I haven't played at least a couple of samples, but that's another story. I like to use woods I know well, as I've had bad experiences with builders who insist that their "killer set of Bolivian wheatgrass wood" sounds exactly like Brazilian. I know what to expect from rosewood, mahogany, maple, and koa. I always think about the fact that I may not bond with the guitar and may have to sell the guitar down the road. Using an obscure tonewood guarantees this process will be harder and more costly.

About the only circumstance in which I'd be willing to use an alternative tonewood would be if I'd actually played an example of it and knew I was going to love it forever. The guitar would have to really blow my socks off for that to happen. Or I'd have to have extreme confidence in the builder with a lot of experience with their work. There are very few people that qualify for that in my little slice of the luthier world.

So if you have never played these woods or don't have a ton of experience with the builder - if it were me - I would shy away from anything out of the mainstream.

The Builder
 

Sure have, Sergei de Jonge. I note Justonwo's comments - fully understand but if somebody of Sergei's stature is claiming this, it holds weight.

What did Sergei claim? There is no claim mentioned in your original post.

+1, I missed it if you said it.

Sorry, thought I had mentioned. Sergei is really saying that the back and sides are not so relevant and that he can make a guitar with these woods every bit as good as Brazilian Rosewood back and sides.

Things goes along with previous poster saying that the signature sound of a builder comes through over back and sides wood type. I tend to agree with this.