Question about tops

[kydave]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Except, the clip posted above your post shows this theory to be wrong.

I'm not quite sure how you see that.

[John Arnold]

There are good reasons that low density softwoods are the usual choice for soundboards. The problem with using denser woods is that you cannot thin them enough to match the mass without reducing the stiffness too much. So you either have a heavier top, or one that is too flexible to hold up under string tension. Stiffness is proportional to the cube of the thickness, so a less dense wood that is a little thicker will always have a higher stiffness to weight ratio. Softwoods have the property of high stiffness along the grain (which resists string tension), but are relatively flexible across the grain (which produces a fuller sound). Hardwoods are stiffer across the grain for a given density. In general, that means a hardwood top will not have as much bass response as a softwood top.
There is another consideration, however. Stiffness of a conventional flat top is primarily a function of the bracing, so that is a major factor in the sound, no matter how dense the top wood is. Even so, I would not choose a dense wood if my main objective was response to a light touch.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Keep up the info

[Guitarplayer_PR]

A demo of my O'


http://youtu.be/fpuX8IlWMQM

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Guitarplayer_PR

I own one. An Ovation S868 Elite Special. Apparently, a very special edition, I might add. I find it delivers a very unique tone and a great projection for a super shallow guitar

Originally Posted by Guitarplayer_PR

Explain. User? Listener? Owner?

As long as you're pleased with it that's all that matters. What anyone else thinks is very largely irrelevant.

Technically, what john said.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by kydave

I'm not quite sure how you see that.

You can hear it. Obviously, it's a perfectly fine top wood and efficiency isn't a problem. A few guys on the first page made assumptions that were wrong.

[Wade Hampton]

Guitarplayer PR, Ovations work a bit differently than most acoustic guitars. It would be interesting to sit down with your and your bubinga-topped Ovation and a few of my (mostly spruce-topped) acoustic guitars and play them together, both acoustically and plugged in.

I suspect your guitar probably wouldn't cut through the unholy din of an indoor bluegrass jam session as well as some of my guitars will, but obviously that's not the only place an acoustic or acoustic-electric guitar can be musically useful.

Getting back to bubinga itself, I think it's one of the great unsung and under-appreciated tonewoods. About fifteen to twenty years ago Gibson really tried to get the guitar-buying public to accept it as a wood choice, and made some terrific-sounding Gibson acoustic guitars out of it. There were several models they made back then where the back and side wood choices included bubinga, and I often found myself preferring the bubinga guitars over the maple or rosewood versions.

But the public evidently shrugged their collective shoulders, said "meh..." (or words to that effect,) and didn't buy enough of them because I haven't seen any bubinga guitars in Gibson's lineup in recent years.

Which is too bad.

Bubinga has actually achieved more acceptance with a few hand builders making ultra-expensive custom guitars than it has with general musician public, largely because

A.) It can look outrageously gorgeous;

B.) It can sound magnificent;

and

C.) Luthiers can and do have more influence and ability to guide the tastes, perceptions and decisions of their customers than the average sales clerk working in a music store can.


So while bubinga hasn't yet set the hearts of America's guitar-playing masses racing quite yet, there are some of us who recognize it as the fine tonewood that it is.

Anyway, you've got a cool-looking guitar there, and I'm glad that you like it.


Wade Hampton Miller

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

There were several models they made back then where the back and side wood choices included bubinga, and I often found myself preferring the bubinga guitars over the maple or rosewood versions.

And, how many of those had bubinga TOPS? THAT was the question asked and the one I answered. I assumed the question was regarding an acoustic guitar, primarily un-amplified.

I first used bubinga 30 years ago: I'm pretty familiar with it.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Except, the clip posted above your post shows this theory to be wrong.

That stiffness is proportional to the cube of the thickness while mass is directly proportional to the thickness, so that a material that is both twice as dense and twice as stiff (for unit of thickness) will be both a lot thinner and a lot heavier for a given stiffness, is just basic mechanical engineering. It is not disproved by someone strumming on a guitar, making guitar-like sounds.

[printer2]

Another manufacture also went for it.



I wonder if the switch works acoustically.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

That stiffness is proportional to the cube of the thickness while mass is directly proportional to the thickness, so that a material that is both twice as dense and twice as stiff (for unit of thickness) will be both a lot thinner and a lot heavier for a given stiffness, is just basic mechanical engineering. It is not disproved by someone strumming on a guitar, making guitar-like sounds.

You missed the point, he was agreeing with the ridiculous cement statement and I simply pointed to the video as evidence that it's a viable top wood after all.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Guitarplayer PR, Ovations work a bit differently than most acoustic guitars. It would be interesting to sit down with your and your bubinga-topped Ovation and a few of my (mostly spruce-topped) acoustic guitars and play them together, both acoustically and plugged in.

I suspect your guitar probably wouldn't cut through the unholy din of an indoor bluegrass jam session as well as some of my guitars will, but obviously that's not the only place an acoustic or acoustic-electric guitar can be musically useful.

Getting back to bubinga itself, I think it's one of the great unsung and under-appreciated tonewoods. About fifteen to twenty years ago Gibson really tried to get the guitar-buying public to accept it as a wood choice, and made some terrific-sounding Gibson acoustic guitars out of it. There were several models they made back then where the back and side wood choices included bubinga, and I often found myself preferring the bubinga guitars over the maple or rosewood versions.

But the public evidently shrugged their collective shoulders, said "meh..." (or words to that effect,) and didn't buy enough of them because I haven't seen any bubinga guitars in Gibson's lineup in recent years.

Which is too bad.

Bubinga has actually achieved more acceptance with a few hand builders making ultra-expensive custom guitars than it has with general musician public, largely because

A.) It can look outrageously gorgeous;

B.) It can sound magnificent;

and

C.) Luthiers can and do have more influence and ability to guide the tastes, perceptions and decisions of their customers than the average sales clerk working in a music store can.


So while bubinga hasn't yet set the hearts of America's guitar-playing masses racing quite yet, there are some of us who recognize it as the fine tonewood that it is.

Anyway, you've got a cool-looking guitar there, and I'm glad that you like it.


Wade Hampton Miller

Since I'm not from the States and bluegrass is big there, I don't know about it. I only know that many times is not overall volume that can cut through a mix, but the presence or absence of sounds on determined frequencies. I've had a lot of acoustics, Ovations and non-Ovations and always find Ovations cut better than most of what I've played with and alongside, including Taylors and Martins. Does that mean they're better? That's another question; the thing is that this super shallow has a lot of projection, more than the other SS I've own, and its bubinga top may be a part of the reason.

In fact, this is the first guitar I've owned with any kind of bubinga. It's a beauty of a wood and its top tone, at least to me, it's a cross between rosewood and maple. Very good for fingerpicking and while doesn't have the depth of a deep bowl Ovation or a dreadnought, it delivers a very pleasant and balanced strumming tone

[kydave]

Originally Posted by Bowie

You can hear it. Obviously, it's a perfectly fine top wood and efficiency isn't a problem. A few guys on the first page made assumptions that were wrong.

I'm not sure that their assumptions were wrong. Too many variables in what seems like a thin sounding top, even when he's strumming agressively, which would tie in with their statements.

Of course, not knowing anything about the recording, mics, placement or even if it was plugged in makes any determination impossible.

But it is not anything I'd want for top wood...

[printer2]

The cement thing refers to sanding the stuff, hard as a rock. My first guitar build was a shallow body guitar. A surprising amount of volume from it, no bottom end. The reason I decided to make a regular acoustic. The sides and back was pine. Ideal choice, maybe not. But it does work well enough. Maybe Ovation found a way to hog out most of the weight. How about a Spalt Maple acoustic guitar? Seems Luna Guitars built an all Spalt Maple acoustic along with their all Bubinga and all Ash.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by kydave

I'm not sure that their assumptions were wrong. Too many variables in what seems like a thin sounding top, even when he's strumming agressively, which would tie in with their statements.

Of course, not knowing anything about the recording, mics, placement or even if it was plugged in makes any determination impossible.

But it is not anything I'd want for top wood...

I'm not so sure he's strumming aggressively at all. And if it sounds "thin" to you, it has more to do with the fact that, because it's a super shallow bowl, it won't move that much air, giving the sensation of lack of "fullness," which is an overrated word in the acoustic world, IMO.