Sitka Spruce or Myrtlewood Top Opinion

[slide496]

Hi All,
Opinions would be appreciated, please

If you had a choice on guitars and played fingerstyle, no picks,- vintage folk songs that often use alternating bass- which would you choose?

I'm only familiar with sitka spruce, which I like and have the opportunity to choose either the myrtlewood or one with sitka spruce.

Both use mahoghany for back, sides and neck. I think the back and sides are layered - I gather layered means some sort of laminate.

Thanks,
Harriet

[Osage]

Without getting to play them first, I'd choose spruce. It is the most commonly used guitar top wood for a reason. I'm not saying the Myrtle doesn't sound good, just saying that spruce is a fantastic guitar wood.

[slide496]

Originally Posted by Osage

Without getting to play them first, I'd choose spruce. It is the most commonly used guitar top wood for a reason. I'm not saying the Myrtle doesn't sound good, just saying that spruce is a fantastic guitar wood.

I probably will, the myrtlewood samples I heard didn't really have the character I am interested in and didn't sound as good from my perspective YMMV.

[Wade Hampton]

Harriet, I would also go for the spruce top, for the simple reason that it’s more musically versatile than the myrtlewood top would be. You can get a wider variety of different sounds out of it.


whm

[koolimy]

I agree with all the opinions saying go with Sitka Spruce. I have no experience with Myrtlewood but I reckon it will be similar to Maple. If you have played Maple topped guitars and like that tone then you can go for it but if not then Sitka is the less risky choice.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by slide496

Hi All,
Opinions would be appreciated, please

If you had a choice on guitars and played fingerstyle, no picks,- vintage folk songs that often use alternating bass- which would you choose?

I'm only familiar with sitka spruce, which I like and have the opportunity to choose either the myrtlewood or one with sitka spruce.

Both use mahoghany for back, sides and neck. I think the back and sides are layered - I gather layered means some sort of laminate.

Thanks,
Harriet

Hi Harriett
I own a guitar with Myrtlewood sides/back and it's amazing tone wood. The builder makes all the difference in the world. Mine is on an OM sized fanned fret guitar with Italian spruce top, and the tone is smoother than mahogany, warmer than EIR, with a solid (yet mellow) high range.

I have never even heard of using Myrtlewood for tops. I have no grasp of how it might sound.

Also, layered sides are for rigidity and differ from ply-wood in that they are usually formed from two pieces of wood, bent individually, with the grain aligned in the same direction, then glued up for additional stiffness.

One reason is so the sound does NOT travel through the sides causing dissipation…instead the sound reflects off the back directly from the top for more projection.

My OM (mentioned above) has layered sides, and it's like 3-D projection. People sitting beside me (or standing behind me) hear it better than my conventionally built instruments. Mine has a solid back.

Ply-wood is mass produced from fairly thin layers of wood (often peeled off logs) which are then glued with the grain staggered every layer and repeated every other layer. It is not good tone wood.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

[The Bard Rocks]

I am a fan of Myrtle - for backs. Between the two, I would go with Spruce for the top.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Harriett
I own a guitar with Myrtlewood sides/back and it's amazing tone wood. The builder makes all the difference in the world. Mine is on an OM sized fanned fret guitar with Italian spruce top, and the tone is smoother than mahogany, warmer than EIR, with a solid (yet mellow) high range.

I have never even heard of using Myrtlewood for tops. I have no grasp of how it might sound.

Also, layered sides are for rigidity and differ from ply-wood in that they are usually formed from two pieces of wood, bent individually, with the grain aligned in the same direction, then glued up for additional stiffness.

One reason is so the sound does NOT travel through the sides causing dissipation…instead the sound reflects off the back directly from the top for more projection.

My OM (mentioned above) has layered sides, and it's like 3-D projection. People sitting beside me (or standing behind me) hear it better than my conventionally built instruments. Mine has a solid back.

Ply-wood is mass produced from fairly thin layers of wood (often peeled off logs) which are then glued with the grain staggered every layer and repeated every other layer. It is not good tone wood.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

The description of a spruce topped guitar with a myrtlewood back and side has very little in common with a myrtlewood top with a mahogany back and sides. "Plywood" comes in different shades. There are some guitars that use a cheaper inner wood with just a thin layer on the outsides (Taylor) and some that use the identical wood in all three layers (Godin). Yamaha also has "plywood" B&S's although I do not know the relative thickness of the layers. These three manufactures seem to know how to make a good sounding guitar out of the material.

If the sound from the top bounces off the back then it would not matter what wood is used. There stiff backs that do not absorb some of the sound hitting the back (called reflective backs by some but it is more correct to say it is a non-live back) and then there are backs that are live backs that vibrate in response to the energy from the top. The live back adds to the sound output in places and subtracts in some. The subtraction colors the sound coming off the top. And then there are guitars that fall in between these two extremes.

On myrtlewood its density is roughly 37 lbs per cubic ft while sitka is around 27 lbs. So the myrtlewood top needs more energy from the strings to get the same output of spruce. It is more akin to a mahogany topped guitar.

[Jim Owen]

Hi Harriet,
I haven’t played a guitar with a myrtlewood top. However, based on the music you with to play on your guitar, I’d take spruce any day of the week.

Spruce top, mahogany back and sides. To me, that’s the classic folk style.

[jaymarsch]

I play in a similar style that you describe and I have a spruce/mahogany guitar that I love. I agree with some of the other posters here that spruce is very versatile.
Best,
Jayne

[A Green Peon]

A uke builder said to me that he places myrtle tonally with koa, if that helps.

[TomB'sox]

Myrtle wood tops are not common for a reason.

[slide496]

Hi All,

Spruce it is.

I greatly appreciate and thank you for all the info and opinions on this and not only did it confirm my intuition but I think it will be helpful in avoiding mistakes in future purchases. I hope other members find the thread useful as well.

Harriet

[hifivic]

[QUOTE=printer2;7005934]

On myrtlewood its density is roughly 37 lbs per cubic ft while sitka is around 27 lbs. So the myrtlewood top needs more energy from the strings to get the same output of spruce. It is more akin to a mahogany topped guitar.[/QUOTE]

While I agree somehow to my bewilderment my 12 fret Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 is much more responsive with thicker meatier notes with far more weight and volume fingerstyle than my Santa Cruz H-13 (hybrid cross between a 00 and a 000).......both mahogany B&S however the Santa Cruz is sitka and the Martin is mahogany with Martin's VTS aging treatment. however overall headroom with a pick the H-13 shines. Like you I had always thought sitka had more headroom/volume than a hardwood top.