Does an OM guitar have an overly bright sound with maple back and sides?

Burstbucker · #1 01-31-2023, 08:44 AM

I spotted a Boucher OM style SG-21 with an amazing looking back, it’s part of their “Private Stock Maple” offering, I haven’t seen the price yet but I would imagine that there’s a significant bump in price because of this spectacular looking piece of wood but what about the affect on the guitar’s sound.

Does it necessarily always mean that the guitar will be a lot brighter sounding than say mahogany or rosewood? Maybe there are other factors involved in tamping down that extra high end?

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

llew · #2 01-31-2023, 08:51 AM

I have the SG-21 which is Adi/Bubinga and it's a great guitar. I believe Robin Boucher and his team have built some Private Stock Maple guitars in maybe three body sizes. But regardless...I doubt seriously it would be too bright. More likely a very articulate guitar with little to no muddiness in the tone. I'd sure love too play one! I have heard that they're pricey?

pdx · #3 01-31-2023, 08:53 AM

Bright, not necessarily. I have found maple to have a quick or immediate response, but it really depends on the maker or the particular guitar.

gmel555 · #4 01-31-2023, 09:10 AM

You'll get varied opinions on maple (no surprise, right?). Generally I'm not a fan of maple except on jumbos where (for me) it can really shine. I do find maple sounds overly bright -and thin- to my ears, except when a large body adds extra "oomph". However, Boucher makes fine guitars and if they have experience with a certain stock of maple, they may have a great "recipe". A lot of other factors yield the final result so you'll never know without hearing it.

keith.rogers · #5 01-31-2023, 09:11 AM

I can say I have not played a maple b/s flat-top acoustic guitar that ever wowed me. There was a time decades ago I had some wood to build one, but I was going to match it with a [western red] cedar top. (Life took a turn, and that never happened.)

The ones that are mildly successful seem to be the jumbos from Gibson. OTOH, Taylor only makes a few maple b/s guitars (61x series, IIRC - tried a 614ce once and it was really unpleasant to my Martin-leaning ears), and Martin practically zilch.

Maple is certainly easier to source than tropical woods, or at least I'd think so, so it seems there's a general lack of response in the buyer market. That would probably steer me away from a very high $ model, unless it was truly spectacular in sound, or maybe if it was a jazz box, of course.

TomB'sox · #6 01-31-2023, 09:28 AM

NO, Maple still gets a bad wrap for how it was used years ago. Some of the very very best guitars I have played have been maple, very well balanced, good bass, not bright. It all depends on what the builder does with it.

Jason Kostal built Michael Watt's his main guitar, guess what, it is maple and sounds amazing. One of the most balanced, beautiful sounding guitar I have, is a quilted maple from Steve Kinnaird, it is anything but overly bright.

This stereotype of maple being too bright kind of drives me nuts.

Howard Emerson · #7 01-31-2023, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burstbucker

I spotted a Boucher OM style SG-21 with an amazing looking back, it’s part of their “Private Stock Maple” offering, I haven’t seen the price yet but I would imagine that there’s a significant bump in price because of this spectacular looking piece of wood but what about the affect on the guitar’s sound.

Does it necessarily always mean that the guitar will be a lot brighter sounding than say mahogany or rosewood? Maybe there are other factors involved in tamping down that extra high end?

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Talk is cheap, so here's a pair of maple & red spruce guitars that I own, just playing into an iPhone. You can make up your own mind, but they're both smaller than a typical OM, and shallow bodied to boot with a standard scale of 24.9"

HE

Steve DeRosa · #8 01-31-2023, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdx

Bright, not necessarily. I have found maple to have a quick or immediate response, but it really depends on the maker or the particular guitar.

+1: my wife has an '80s maple/spruce Guild F-20 that sounds like a 16" archtop with more sustain - punchy, prominent midrange, strong projection, not bright or strident in the least, and an ideal acoustic lead instrument that'll be heard over a roomful of dreads...

Glennwillow · #9 01-31-2023, 11:58 AM

Does an OM guitar have an overly bright sound with maple back and sides?

Not necessarily. As others have pointed out, depending on how the guitar is built, you can get great sound from this combination.

- Glenn

29er · #10 01-31-2023, 12:10 PM

No. My Waterloo WL-12 won't be mistaken for a dread, but it's not bright at all to my ears. It's balanced, very loud and punchy but not bright.

Daniel Grenier · #11 01-31-2023, 12:21 PM

I have a Boucher OM SG-161 with the private stock flamed maple which, I suspect, is the one you are referring to (pics are of mine). Bright? Yes it is brighter than my rosewood and mahogany Martins but definitely not overly so. It is loud, it is equally responsive across all strings, and it rings forever. Price wise, I am not sure how much more mine was compared to "normal" maple but I suspect it is a $500 upgrade, maybe more?

If you can try one, definitely go for it and see if it'd be for you. Also note that it is a hybrid and not a "true" OM as Boucher took the best of the OM and of the 000 and combined them to make this one (and all of it suits me to a T).

cliff_the_stiff · #12 01-31-2023, 12:26 PM

I have a deep body 00 with maple.
Sounds fantastic. Loud, direct, clean, and rounded.
I don’t think it sounds bright.

Monty Christo · #13 01-31-2023, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 29er

No. My Waterloo WL-12 won't be mistaken for a dread, but it's not bright at all to my ears. It's balanced, very loud and punchy but not bright.

Came here to say exactly this. My WL-12 has lots of Gibson-esque mids, and clear trebles. The bass is "tight" in the way electric guitarists use the term, but it's not an especially bright-sounding guitar at all. I think the top has a lot to do with the overall warmth, as well.

jseth · #14 01-31-2023, 01:06 PM

It all depends upon the builder... "In general", facotry built maple guitars can tend towards thin and overly bright...

However, EVERY maple guitar I've played from small shop or solo builders have been nearly the polar opposite of the "norm" that one hears when speaking of a maple sides and back acoustic guitar...

In 1979, Mark Angus built me my #35... run-of-the-mill maple back and sides with a Black Forest German spruce top, Florentine cutaway. Nothing fancy, as I could barely afford a "base-line" model. I asked Mark to build me a great "Workingman's guitar", and he delivered in spades! #35 was **** near a perfect guitar for me, and I played it (professionally), wrote with it, recorded with it, traveled with it - for the next 40 years!!!

I would suspect that a Boucher would fall into the latter category of which I spoke...

Leocino_2804 · #15 01-31-2023, 01:21 PM

I have tried and bought, and give away many maple guitars.

Let's say, in general, I am not a fan of maple guitar.

While the sound is bright and clear, it lacks colour. The bright tone is just like a flash of blank water. The middle and bass are short live at best if there are any middle or bass at all. The entire guitar is suffocated and sounds like its short on breath.

I can imagine flamenco guitarists liking this wood because they want a piercing and quick ending sound. But otherwise, if you love the sound quality of mahogany then maple wont do. Rosewood is way superior is all respects.

A great luthier can change the tonal quality of the wood, but I doubt he or she can make a maple guitar sound the same as a rosewood or cocobolo guitar