Woods don't matter, either!

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

LOL I thought the purpose of Torres' papier mache guitar was to prove the soundness of the bracing? Guess I remembered wrong...

The importance of the bracing was part of it, for sure, but using the example of that guitar as "proof" that the material of the sides and back "don't matter" is just flat wrong. A great many Internet heroes have drawn exactly the wrong message from that instrument.


whm

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Unfortunately, Ted, I can't ask John anything any more: he died several years ago...

...Oh, it proved much more than that, and as I've said before and will say again, well done, Taylor!

I was just having some fun with you Wade, please forgive me for not recognizing your friend as THE John Pearse.

As for the Pallet, I heard of it before any were offered for sale and the way I heard it the project had nothing to do with marketing and I never heard it was an exceptional Taylor, in fact your post is the first time I heard some folks claimed it was. As with other Taylors folks who like the Taylor voice liked it, those who don't didn't. Once finished it was of course a natural as a show guitar so why not use it for that? I like the Taylor voice so there was no way I was passing up the first Pallet that became available to me, still don't know why I sold it.

Ok folks, back to the original topic, do woods matter.

[jseth]

I have to disagree with the opening posit, as well...

Now, I AM one of those guys who ahs written in a number of threads that I feel the BUILDER is the Number One influence on the tone and volume of a guitar, and I'm speaking about smaller builders/shops, not the mass-produced guitars...

I'd stand by that, as well as my other personal determinations; that the top wood is next in line, as for influence on sound, with the back and sides in the third spot of the line-up.

I WOULD NOT go so far as to say that "woods don't matter"... OF COURSE they matter! The thing is made of wood, isn't it?

[Laurent Brondel]

Originally Posted by billgennaro

i've posted this on another thread but it seems apropos here as well. from luthier Laurent Brondel's web site:

"Obviously generalisations about a species tonal potential can and must be made, but it is building style that defines tonal signature, not materials. The shape of the body, thus the volume of air available for sound production, will determine the basic tone of the guitar. The thickness of the plates, along with the layout, dimensions and individual carving of the supporting braces will refine that basic tone to a great extent and give it life. Further refinements are brought out by scale length and neck dimension. After those decisions are made the choice of tonewoods will bring the instrument closer to an ideal."

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

While Laurent Brondel makes some excellent points, I think it blurs the line more than makes it clear, and I hope Laurent or another luthier can help me understand this. Because, once a body style is known, then it would seem that the tonewoods would be selected next. While there can be a general shaping of the braces, for example, there couldn't be way to fine tune any scalloping or thicknessing until the braces are glued to the wood and the plate tuning commences?

The meaning is simple, tonewood choices are the last factor in designing (and not building) an individual guitar: my bracing pattern is the same for a given guitar model, regardless of the woods used (with rare exceptions). So is my method of voicing the guitar. Obviously I do not carve braces "in the air".

Two guitars with identical tonewoods built by two different builders (with different philosophies) will sound vastly more different from two guitars with different tonewoods built by the same builder.

It's not to say that tonewoods are not important.
The quality and nature of materials are of prime importance.
However the differences between materials of equal quality are usually vastly exaggerated. Luthiery is not like cooking.
While I am guilty of this to some extent in attempting to describe the differences between this and that wood to my clients, it is humorous to read or hear flowery, cocksure and very detailed descriptions of tonewoods… Smoke and mirrors.

The best proof is in blindfold tests: who can recognize a mahogany from a rosewood guitar just by listening without knowing or looking? Much less distinguish between various species of rosewood and/or hardwoods.

Brazilian rosewood does not have a sound, contrary to what some would have you believe. Perhaps it has a specific sound in Howard Klepper's hands, and another specific one in my hands. That's as far as I would go.
All IMHO, obviously.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Laurent Brondel

The meaning is simple, tonewood choices are the last factor in designing (and not building) an individual guitar: my bracing pattern is the same for a given guitar model, regardless of the woods used (with rare exceptions). So is my method of voicing the guitar. Obviously I do not carve braces "in the air".

Two guitars with identical tonewoods built by two different builders (with different philosophies) will sound vastly more different from two guitars with different tonewoods built by the same builder.

It's not to say that tonewoods are not important.
The quality and nature of materials are of prime importance.
However the differences between materials of equal quality are usually vastly exaggerated. Luthiery is not like cooking.
While I am guilty of this to some extent in attempting to describe the differences between this and that wood to my clients, it is humorous to read or hear flowery, cocksure and very detailed descriptions of tonewoods… Smoke and mirrors.

The best proof is in blindfold tests: who can recognize a mahogany from a rosewood guitar just by listening without knowing or looking? Much less distinguish between various species of rosewood and/or hardwoods.

Brazilian rosewood does not have a sound, contrary to what some would have you believe. Perhaps it has a specific sound in Howard Klepper's hands, and another specific one in my hands. That's as far as I would go.
All IMHO, obviously.

Laurent, thanks for your detailed response! I do realize that each builder will have their signature "sound," and most all their guitars will have certain characteristics or trademarks.

And I do agree that, as a listener, it may be difficult to distingish one tonewood from another, and less so as part of a mix. But to the player, I think there is a difference that I can "feel" for lack of better description. This is limited by the number of similar model guitars of different wood that I've auditioned though the years. One example: my friends laugh at me because I have a hard time playing any Strat with rosewood fretboards/maple necks, because I "feel" the notes "swell" a little bit slower than on a solid maple neck. And I know it has little to do with the way the guitar sounds from a listener's view, but it does affect the way I play.

Maybe rosewood and mahogany is not such a great comparison, since there can be some overlap in terms of densities. But what about then, say, brasilian rosewood and western maple?

[Tony Burns]

But when you get the best woods with a top builder-

The sky opens up ! ( or so it seems )

Guitars can be a art form as well , showing off fine materials ( the beauty of a exotic wood ) and excellent craftsmanship.

I cant think of a better use for a beautiful piece of wood -
I own some gorgeous spalted and flame maple , that are just sitting on my wood pile - it needs to be a part of something beautiful someday .

Wood does matter - a less gorgeous piece of it may do a simalar job , but
a more figured grade is a beauty to behold !

[billgennaro]

i think the "title" of this thread is misleading as regards to the actual content of the OP's original post. the title indicates that "woods don't matter at all". however, when you read the actual post it clarifies the point that woods "don't matter as much in hands of a skilled luthier as much as they do in a factory made guitar". in my experience this has a ring of truth. Laurent Brondel said it best with his comment about two guitars made of "identical" woods by two different skilled luthiers will sound vastly more different compared to two guitars made of "different" woods by a single luthier.

[Steve_B]

Wood matters. A lot. Rosewood and mahogany sound different to even the most tin ears. Cedar sounds different than spruce. To say otherwise is really just ignoring the obvious.

[scottishrogue]

I have several classical guitars, and #1 is high-end, 5 years old, cedar/rosewood with Savarez strings, #2 is high-end, 35 years old, but more reasonably priced, Sitka/rosewood with Thomastik-Infeld strings, #3 is extremely affordable, 1 year old, cedar/mahogany (laminate) with Alice strings (multicolored)...but the bodies of all are the same size, all with identical scale lengths (640mm), and the tonal response is almost identical. Why is that? That tells me the strings matched to the right guitar make just as much difference as the tonewoods. And, with a proper setup, you can make (almost) any guitar sound fantastic. And, I don't have a tin ear! That's my experience, anyway.

With steel-string guitars, I find the body size has a greater affect on the tone than the woods used.

Glen