Does the wood used for the back and sides realy make a difference?

[tommieboy]

Originally Posted by turtlejimmy

When you say, "leaning on the guitar" do you mean, leaning forward when you're sitting so that the guitar it touching/resting against your chest (so you can feel the vibrations better)??? (Guilty!)

Maybe a new thread on this subject???



Turtle

Yes.

Tommy

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

There was blind study done a few years back with designed to be identical guitars with different backs and side, and with the guitars used in their experiment, blind listening couldn't tell...

Perhaps you were referring to the Leonardo Project:
https://leonardo-guitar-research.com

Try listening to the video and see if you can tell the various back and side woods apart. Good luck!

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Perhaps you were referring to the Leonardo Project:
https://leonardo-guitar-research.com

Try listening to the video and see if you can tell the various back and side woods apart. Good luck!

I believe the sonic differences would be far greater using steel string guitars. Well conducted study.

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by hifivic

I believe the sonic differences would be far greater using steel string guitars. Well conducted study.

And consider this study of steel string guitars:
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.112...4l98E3hC9w5Xv4

The abstract of the paper is:

"Some of the most prized woods used for the backs and sides of acoustic guitars are expensive, rare, and from unsustainable sources. It is unclear to what extent back woods contribute to the sound and playability qualities of acoustic guitars. Six steel-string acoustic guitars were built for this study to the same design and material specifications except for the back/side plates which were made of woods varying widely in availability and price (Brazilian rosewood, Indian rosewood, mahogany, maple, sapele, and walnut). Bridge-admittance measurements revealed small differences between the modal properties of the guitars which could be largely attributed to residual manufacturing variability rather than to the back/side plates. Overall sound quality ratings, given by 52 guitarists in a dimly lit room while wearing welder's goggles to prevent visual identification, were very similar between the six guitars. The results of a blinded ABX discrimination test, performed by another subset of 31 guitarists, indicate that guitarists could not easily distinguish the guitars by their sound or feel. Overall, the results suggest that the species of wood used for the back and sides of a steel-string acoustic guitar has only a marginal impact on its body mode properties and perceived sound."

[Tenn]

Originally Posted by KevinH

And consider this study of steel string guitars:
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.112...4l98E3hC9w5Xv4

The abstract of the paper is:

"Some of the most prized woods used for the backs and sides of acoustic guitars are expensive, rare, and from unsustainable sources. It is unclear to what extent back woods contribute to the sound and playability qualities of acoustic guitars. Six steel-string acoustic guitars were built for this study to the same design and material specifications except for the back/side plates which were made of woods varying widely in availability and price (Brazilian rosewood, Indian rosewood, mahogany, maple, sapele, and walnut). Bridge-admittance measurements revealed small differences between the modal properties of the guitars which could be largely attributed to residual manufacturing variability rather than to the back/side plates. Overall sound quality ratings, given by 52 guitarists in a dimly lit room while wearing welder's goggles to prevent visual identification, were very similar between the six guitars. The results of a blinded ABX discrimination test, performed by another subset of 31 guitarists, indicate that guitarists could not easily distinguish the guitars by their sound or feel. Overall, the results suggest that the species of wood used for the back and sides of a steel-string acoustic guitar has only a marginal impact on its body mode properties and perceived sound."

get out the melamine and chipboard

[BrunoBlack]

Imo, absolutely. Here is an interesting discussion just about the difference between rosewoods by some well respected builders.
https://thenorthamericanguitar.com/b...Zvkw%3D.VGhFLx

[Alan Carruth]

Define 'difference'.

Significant differences in the most important properties of the back wood, particularly density, and also damping, do produce consistent differences in the response, all else equal. These differences are usually not large, and can be minimized by making changes in the structure. Given the innate variability of wood (and, in particular, in the top), and the variety of practice in construction, "all else" is usually not really "equal".

Matched pairs of instruments, made using 'the same' wood, can, in my experience, be easily told apart by listeners/players in blind tests. There is no overall preference in general in terms of 'quality': they're simply perceived as 'different'. This is linked to small changes in the output in the range between 2000-4000 Hz, where normal hearing is most acute. Although most of these are probably due to local variation in the tops the back is inextricably bound up in the response in this range. Substituting a different back wood should make those differences larger or more numerous, but it's hard to say by how much.

"A difference which makes no difference is no difference".

[SpruceTop]

This comment was deleted as further reading revealed that the content of my comment had already been brought up previously.

[gmel555]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

.....These differences are usually not large, and can be minimized by making changes in the structure.....

Alan, would you agree that this can be used in the other direction as well? That is, some luthiers (or even just incidental design differences) can change structure to maximize/emphasize the differences? (I'll confess -for me- it's a rhetorical question).

[Alan Carruth]

gmel555 asked:
" That is, some luthiers (or even just incidental design differences) can change structure to maximize/emphasize the differences? "

Sure.

One of the issues in all of these 'magic wood' threads is the way they minimize the ability of the maker. Specific woods are treated as if the tone is 'fated', with little or no possibility of mitigation by the maker. Nobody can make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear, of course, but a good maker can get surprisingly close to the desired sound with almost any reasonable wood combination if they're allowed to make the necessary changes. The more constraints the buyer imposes the less control the luthier has. Naturally we all tend to start out with the wood we think is going to produce the tone that's closest the desired outcome; it's easier when you're not fighting the wood. And all makers (and factories) tend to have 'their' sound: you would not ask Martin to make a Taylor, and my sound is probably a bit different from Howard's or Bruce's. There's a lot that goes into determining the sound of a guitar, and the wood is not as much of a factor as these threads imply.

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

gmel555 asked:
...
Sure.

One of the issues in all of these 'magic wood' threads is the way they minimize the ability of the maker. Specific woods are treated as if the tone is 'fated', with little or no possibility of mitigation by the maker. Nobody can make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear, of course, but a good maker can get surprisingly close to the desired sound with almost any reasonable wood combination if they're allowed to make the necessary changes. The more constraints the buyer imposes the less control the luthier has. Naturally we all tend to start out with the wood we think is going to produce the tone that's closest the desired outcome; it's easier when you're not fighting the wood. And all makers (and factories) tend to have 'their' sound: you would not ask Martin to make a Taylor, and my sound is probably a bit different from Howard's or Bruce's. There's a lot that goes into determining the sound of a guitar, and the wood is not as much of a factor as these threads imply.

I am not sure how well liked I'd be if I discussed how much better (or worse) Alan's guitars were compared to Bill's (or Henry's or Sylvester's...) Talking tonewoods offends no one.

But still.... you're right.

[Malcolm Kindnes]

Originally Posted by Haasome

Imo, absolutely. Here is an interesting discussion just about the difference between rosewoods by some well respected builders.
https://thenorthamericanguitar.com/b...Zvkw%3D.VGhFLx

Bear in mind that these people are in the business of selling guitars, they want to convince you that the very small differences are in fact considerable!

[davidd]

Do different tone woods in laminate back and sides make a difference?

[William2]

Someone on another site contends that it is the top material and bracing that is the sound determining factor. He said that while Adi for fingerstyle playing gives him effortless volume and a greater variety of nuances.

[CASD57]

After thinking about it, I think there are other things that change the sound more than the wood... as mentioned before...Bracing, top material and thickness, Finish and type of finish material, open pore, satin etc..,
I seem to be attracted to open pore or satin finishes and shy away from thick shiny finishes...