EIR VS Exotic/Expensive Rosewood for Custom Build

[stuartb]

Originally Posted by billgennaro

This has been a good thread and one that I have enjoyed reading all the responses to. To me it depends on the builder. If I'm having James Olson or Kevin Ryan build me a guitar I'd be 'leaning' towards EIR. One of the absolute best guitars I've ever played was an EIR Kim Walker 000-12. However, I can also say that I've played some Walker BRW instruments that were every bit as good, if not better. If I were ordering a Somogyi, Traugott, or Franklin I think I'd be 'leaning' toward BRW. I've played two Bruce Sexauer builds made with BRW and thought them both to be superlative. On the other hand, I played two OM's by Laurent Brondel, one with BRW back/sides and one with EIR. I liked the EIR instrument quite a bit better. So who knows?

We've heard a few luthiers on this thread say they feel EIR can sound a bit muffled in the low end. I have certainly experienced this with many such guitars and, by and large, that is the same 'general' conclusion that I have come to as well. But it's only a general conclusion. Each builder and guitar should be considered individually.

For my part I own, what I consider to be, four of the best sounding instruments I have every played. None of them are built with EIR (two BRW, one MadRose, one African Blackwood). However, the aforementioned EIR Kim Walker 000-12 would easily hold its own against any instrument in my little stable (I should've bought that guitar).

Again, good thread.

+1, well said.

I find my Collings EIR guitar is muffled/muddy, particularly relative to my two Braz guitars, which have far greater clarity than many EIR guitars I've played, but I also agree with Larry that Jim's EIR's certainly don't fall into the category of sounding muffled or muddy or dull etc. Depends very much on the builder, and yet generalities can be made.

Stuart

[iim7V7IM7]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

When something is particularly expensive (or inexpensive), opinions are polarized as people find all kinds of reasons to promote or dismiss that option.

Agree fully...

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Assuming that the decision is based on sound and sound alone, what's the point of paying thousands for a difference that is so insignificant that there is no consensus among master luthiers? What's the point of paying thousands for a difference that simply cannot be heard in an actual musical context?

A differing point of view...

I believe that there is a general consensus among luthiers regarding which of the two species of wood they would prefer to work with given the opportunity based upon their relative "Q" Of each species. I think that lack of availability of good quality quartersawn sets of BRW, the cost premium to inventory it and upcharge for it and environmental ethics surrounding CITES Appendix I add to the outward indecision that you may be referring to. I think that luthiers are also hesitant to speak positively or negatively regarding particular woods out of sensitivity and respect for fellow luthiers who may have wood lockers full of particular hardwoods which they might inadvertently indict (luthiers have thousands of dollars tied up in their wood lockers).

I am also not sure that I agree about the difference not being heard in a musical context which I interpret to be when one plays. The two BRW guitars that I have owned and the many that I have sampled had low end euphonic overtones and high end bloom and ring that I have not experienced with EIR. I feel that Pernambuco does other things uniquely that I haven't heard in other tonewoods as well. Perhaps your experience is different, but difference in sound has always factored in for me. Whether the type of difference is worth the current premium is a different and valid position.

[pitner]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi all…
For what it's worth, I've let the builders choose my woods after hearing/knowing my style, discussing my use of my guitars, and what sound I'm after rather than telling them what woods they have to use.

After 23 years with my Olson Dreadnought - EIR/Cedar, I'd disagree about the dismissive comments concerning East Indian Rosewood of "not interesting", "muddy", "dull" and "not warm", at least as they pertain to not only my guitar, but about a dozen other Olson guitars I've played in SJ and Dreadnought, and one Jumbo all of which were built of EIR/Cedar.

I'm sure the builder factors into the equation. I played my first Olson at Jim's shop for a long time (about an hour altogether), and it was EIR/Cedar. Three years later when I commissioned one, I wanted it to be 'just like that one', and it turned out even better than 'that one'.

Perhaps some builders click with certain woods better than others.

If I were commissioning a guitar, I'd certainly want to be sure the builder was invested in extracting the best sound possible from the woods used, and experienced enough to find out what I'm looking for and target those characteristics/properties.

If a builder is biased against certain woods, or partial to a particular non-traditional wood, I'd sure want to be sure they know what I'm looking for, what my use of my guitars is, and have wood and a design in mind with which he/she will be able to accomplish what I'm looking for whether it matches my ideas about wood combinations or not. And if they don't think my choices will be the right fit, I want them to have the courage to tell me so.

After all, I'm just the player, and they are the builder. I expect them to be smart enough to choose the combinations which will emphasize my strengths and fit my music.

I see a lot of really beautiful custom builds go up for sale within a year of purchase because the buyer dictated the woods rather than looking for a good 'fit' of build/design and their personal playing style.

Just my few cents worth…

I own an Olson with IRW and Cedar and a Bourgeois with Sitka over IRW both amazing guitars with tone to die for. Interesting yes without doubt. I think the builder has more to do with final product than the wood itself but maybe I just got a couple of great guitars by chance.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

A differing point of view...

I believe that there is a general consensus among luthiers regarding which of the two species of wood they would prefer to work with given the opportunity based upon their relative "Q" Of each species.

I was not referring to luthiers' preference one way or the other. Of course, if a reasonable individual is given the choice between the most common tonewood that fetches no premium and a rare tonewood that fetches a big premium, I agree that the vast majority would opt for the latter.

I was rather referring to the perception of the tonal difference between BRW and IRW. If you make a list of luthiers who think BRW and IRW are significantly different and a list of those who think they are not (significantly different), you'd end up with pretty impressive names on both sides.

I don't want to cause any feud by posting names in this thread -- but if you do a search on the AGF you will find several names that I'm referring to.

My intent is not to dismiss anyone's opinion. My intent is strictly to highlight the fact that when knowledgeable people disagree about something, whatever they disagree about must be marginal. If the difference in tone between BRW and IRW was clearly significant, there would be no debate as everyone would be in agreement.

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

I am also not sure that I agree about the difference not being heard in a musical context which I interpret to be when one plays. The two BRW guitars that I have owned and the many that I have sampled had low end euphonic overtones and high end bloom and ring that I have not experienced with EIR. I feel that Pernambuco does other things uniquely that I haven't heard in other tonewoods as well. Perhaps your experience is different, but difference in sound has always factored in for me. Whether the type of difference is worth the current premium is a different and valid position.

I think there's a fundamental difference in the way that you and I interpret/analyze tonal differences -- and I'm respectfully not trying to suggest that you're hearing things (or reversely that I'm tone deaf).

I personally never discuss tonal differences between various types of rosewoods -- not with luthiers, not with fellow players. That discussion is simply of no interest to me.

The luthiers that I have most respect for would not try to sell me premium tonewoods based on relatively marginal tonal differences. Again, without quoting anyone, a veteran luthier once told me that BRW/IRW/Pernambuco all sounded more or less the same -- and I thought that was very honest and pragmatic on his part.

I do not express my opinion in hopes of offending others or to win a popularity contest -- but if a dear friend or family member were considering paying extra for BRW, I would provide the exact same feedback that I expressed in this thread.

[iim7V7IM7]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I was not referring to luthiers' preference one way or the other. Of course, if a reasonable individual is given the choice between the most common tonewood that fetches no premium and a rare tonewood that fetches a big premium, I agree that the vast majority would opt for the latter.

I was rather referring to the perception of the tonal difference between BRW and IRW. If you make a list of luthiers who think BRW and IRW are significantly different and a list of those who think they are not (significantly different), you'd end up with pretty impressive names on both sides.

I don't want to cause any feud by posting names in this thread -- but if you do a search on the AGF you will find several names that I'm referring to.

My intent is not to dismiss anyone's opinion. My intent is strictly to highlight the fact that when knowledgeable people disagree about something, whatever they disagree about must be marginal. If the difference in tone between BRW and IRW was clearly significant, there would be no debate as everyone would be in agreement.

I think there's a fundamental difference in the way that you and I interpret/analyze tonal differences -- and I'm respectfully not trying to suggest that you're hearing things (or reversely that I'm tone deaf).

I personally never discuss tonal differences between various types of rosewoods -- not with luthiers, not with fellow players. That discussion is simply of no interest to me.

The luthiers that I have most respect for would not try to sell me premium tonewoods based on relatively marginal tonal differences. Again, without quoting anyone, a veteran luthier once told me that BRW/IRW/Pernambuco all sounded more or less the same -- and I thought that was very honest and pragmatic on his part.

I do not express my opinion in hopes of offending others or to win a popularity contest -- but if a dear friend or family member were considering paying extra for BRW, I would provide the exact same feedback that I expressed in this thread.

Personally, I find that to be a very cynical blanket perspective that unfairly portrays the motives of luthiers who suggest BRW as financial and clients who decide upon it as naive uninformed buyers. That has not been my experience in dealing with luthiers and I hope not yours. I have always found all of those that I have dealt with to be clear eyed and fair people who are very upfront and honest about the magnitude of distinction between different tonewoods.

People indeed will have differing thresholds regarding the value proposition of the magnitude sonic distinction in instruments. Most guitarists draw the line at a solid wood factory guitar. There are a spectrum of thresholds are there not? There are very few things in life where small differences at the upper end of the quality curve don't cost an exponential amount. The benefit/cost curve is steepest early on and flattens out. It sounds like your threshold is simply different than mine (and others).

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Personally, I find that to be a very cynical blanket perspective that unfairly portrays the motives of luthiers who suggest BRW as financial and clients who decide upon it as naive uninformed buyers. That has not been my experience in dealing with luthiers and I hope not yours. I have always found all of those that I have dealt with to be clear eyed and fair people who are very upfront and honest about the magnitude of distinction between different tonewoods.

At the end of the day, you buy what you want to buy for reasons which are personal to you. I did not use such words as "unfair" or "naive" to describe your perspective -- nor am I trying to change your mind over this.

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

People indeed will have differing thresholds regarding the value proposition of the magnitude sonic distinction in instruments. Most guitarists draw the line at a solid wood factory guitar. There are a spectrum of thresholds are there not? There are very few things in life where small differences at the upper end of the quality curve don't cost an exponential amount. The benefit/cost curve is steepest early on and flattens out. It sounds like your threshold is simply different than mine (and others).

Sound quality does not follow a linear pattern.

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Personally, I find that to be a very cynical blanket perspective that unfairly portrays the motives of luthiers who suggest BRW as financial and clients who decide upon it as naive uninformed buyers. That has not been my experience in dealing with luthiers and I hope not yours. I have always found all of those that I have dealt with to be clear eyed and fair people who are very upfront and honest about the magnitude of distinction between different tonewoods.

Hmm, I don't see him saying that at all. He simply gave the anonymous opinion of one luthier. Many other luthiers agree with that one; many don't. I'm sure the luthiers who suggest BRW over other rosewoods genuinely believe there is a tonal benefit for the player in question, and I don't think Mau was suggesting otherwise.

[JoeCharter]

I'm also not quite sure what threshold of mine might be lower than others.

Here's the back of my favourite guitar:



Another one I've indulged in:

[Wengr]

I don't know how to sit down and play just a back and sides. I can only play a complete guitar, in whatever acoustic environment I happen to be in, with whatever strings happen to be on it etc. So comparisons are difficult.
I have played many EIR guitars that I like just fine, some of which I own.
I have played some BRW guitars that did not interest me much, and some which I consider to be among the best guitars that I have ever experienced.

To what degree the back and sides played a part I cannot say, but I do know this - I have one BRW guitar, a Sobell model one euro/brw. When it was completed, I went to dream guitars which was still in Jersey at the time to pick it up. Paul H. was the US Sobell dealer at the time, and he had recently added some nice recording facilities to his home.
At the same same time there was the arrival of another model one, the same as mine except it had EIR. So I had the opportunity to play two recently completed guitars, same builder, same model, same tops, same great sounding room on the same day.
I can't say which one most people would prefer, but I can say that these two guitars sounded quite different. Not even close.

[iim7V7IM7]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I'm also not quite sure what threshold of mine might be lower than others.

I was referring to the opinion that you are espousing today in this thread and not your past purchase decisions (e.g. what's the point of paying thousands for a difference that is so insignificant that there is no consensus among master luthiers? What's the point of paying thousands for a difference that simply cannot be heard in an actual musical context?). We all know that you have a collection of guitars made from exotic tonewoods (they are indeed lovely). I was perhaps wrongly under the impression that your opinion had shifted over time from the time you purchased those guitars to where you are today.

[iim7V7IM7]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

At the end of the day, you buy what you want to buy for reasons which are personal to you. I did not use such words as "unfair" or "naive" to describe your perspective -- nor am I trying to change your mind over this.

No you did not directly use those words, and I know that you are not trying to change my or others mind, just expressing your opinion. However, it seemed to me that you were implying that clients are frequently up-sold exotic woods based upon an exaggerated promise of sonic benefits by luthiers. It was my interpretation that someone who fell for this tact would be naive (e.g. lacking informed judgement).

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I was not referring to luthiers' preference one way or the other. Of course, if a reasonable individual is given the choice between the most common tonewood that fetches no premium and a rare tonewood that fetches a big premium, I agree that the vast majority would opt for the latter.

I was responding to more to this comment which I thought unfairly implied motive. By fetching a "big premium" I understood you to be talking about a luthier and not a client.

[hobbesy123]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

My intent is strictly to highlight the fact that when knowledgeable people disagree about something, whatever they disagree about must be marginal.

That's an interesting way of looking at an awful lot of things. I love those studies you read about where experts are unable to identify during blinds. Violinists who are unable to tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a new violin for instance. The same with wine experts and audiophiles etc. There was a study at Stanford not too long ago where volunteers were given samples of 5 wines ranging from $5 to $90 and they consistently rated the $90 wine much higher than the $10 when they were told the prices, even though they were the exact same wine. The really interesting thing was that they showed much higher brain activity when drinking that wine when they thought it was more expensive. It was real.... even though it wasn't. Makes these conversations even trickier if our perceptions can have an actual influence over what we hear

[TomB'sox]

Originally Posted by dbradfie

Maybe another way of putting it is; do you really need to pay an up charge for a beautiful piece of wood, if your main goal is to have the best sounding guitar possible?
.

I love the argument you two (iim7V7.... and Joecharter) are having.....Your responses to each other are so eloquent and intelligent as well as civil, one has to be paying attention to really see the degree to which you disagree. I commend you both on that...my arguments usually go like...."Shut up", "No you shut up"...."your ugly", "you're uglier"..."your mama..." I think you get the point.

Now back to the original poster, I am not really sure the question was EIR vs. BRW specifically, but that seems to be where the thread has generally headed.

I am not the player nor do I have the knowledge of the two of you, but I think it is fair to answer his above question, with a No, you do not need to pay an up charge for a beautiful piece of wood if your main goal is do have the best sounding guitar possible (although the last 4 words would bring up enough debate to blow up the server). I think we all can agree that the top wood and the luthier play a much bigger role to this OPs goal than the back and side woods!!!! Put your money there...

Peace out girlscouts....

Tom

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by hobbesy123

. Makes these conversations even trickier if our perceptions can have an actual influence over what we hear

We select what we want to hear and ignore the rest.

[ukejon]

Originally Posted by stringjunky

We select what we want to hear and ignore the rest.

Sounds somewhat familiar......

I am just a poor boy.
Though my story's seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.