Rethinking The Idea Of "Tonewood"

[turtlejimmy]

cdcrugjur: "It’s been said that no guitar sold so many Les Paul’s as Jimmy Page’s Telecaster…"





Well, when the Gods speak .... you have to listen. That guy on acoustic guitar? Otherworldly.



Turtle

[gmel555]

(Perhaps my longest post ever...apologies)
There are now multiple threads on the new 500 series tonewood (Urban Ironbark, not Ironwood). Even within the same thread, the posts express not just diff opinions but also different questions. There are two distinct issues here for me...1) the use of sustainable "new" tonewoods, even to the point of replacing traditional woods, and 2) how specifically a guitar's tonewood is identified:

1) I greatly applaud Taylor's (and others) efforts to introduce new, environmentally friendly tonewoods. Besides the environmental side, there may indeed be underutilized/undiscovered great tonewoods -in good supply- waiting to be fully appreciated.
2) Whether or not these tonewoods should be clearly identified or not is a totally different question IMO. Looking at various posts in multiple threads, I see confusion re what wood Urban Ironbark actually is. Is this a good thing, a bad thing or neither?

Perhaps Taylor is deliberately working towards getting players to think less about wood names and just focus on how a guitar, plays and sounds (& looks)...? "The use of the term "Tropical Mahogany" being an earlier example. That's not necessarily a bad thing and I've seen some posts that seem to support this philosophy. For me though, when I buy a "rosewood" or "mahogany" guitar I still wish to know more. Borrowing my own post on a diff thread yesterday: "When I'm buying a guitar, I want to know what wood it's made from...not because it justifies the purchase, but because understanding the construction of my instrument is a part of the entire <<guitar owning/playing>> experience I enjoy." It's clear many of us like to drill down into the nuances of these instruments we play. Knowing, understanding, comparing the wood is -for me- part of that experience. My feelings on this are likely a product of the environment in which I took up guitars. Future generations might not give a hoot about the type of wood in their guitar anymore than when they buy a kitchen chair. That's their right, but me for me...I still care.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by turtlejimmy

I wonder what Les Paul would think about that statement. I'm sure Fender would love to think of itself as THE tone of the electric guitar, but then there's all those Gibsons.


Turtle

Point taken - I was trying to keep my analogy short. You buy a Les Paul, and manufactures copy the Les Paul, because it is iconic within music culture (like the Strat and Tele and others). But they were not iconic when they were designed, they became iconic because musicians used them and recorded with them, so they became the sound that folks associated with "electric guitars", and so that's what they went out and bought themselves.

My point was its the same with acoustic guitar tonewoods. The early 1900s Mr Martin may well have thought about rosewood, then mahogany "This wood is available, workable, and sounds OK, looks pretty etc so we will make our guitars from it." Musicians buy those guitars, play and record with them, and they become iconic, so those are the tonewoods folks seek.

It is difficult to break that cycle and introduce new tonewoods. I can't think of anyone who has managed it with more expensive guitars that are mass produced? At present, folks want mahogany or rosewood back and sides. Even laminates are very often made with mahogany or rosewood outer veneers to mimic the iconic.

To some extent Godin has managed to break away with their cherry/maple/cherry plywood cheaper guitars. That was a pragmatic and financially driven choice that has worked out for them (cherry and maple are available, workable into ply, and the sound is OK) - and the Seagull S6 has, to an extent, become iconic. In 100 year's time I could see someone making copies of the late 20th Century Seagull S6, if Godin are not still making them themselves.

The future of tonewoods is possibly not solid woods. There are a number of downsides to solid woods for guitar making - and the upsides are perhaps, well, overstated to some extent for the backs and sides of guitars.

The tops of flat top acoustic guitars is another matter. Finding something to replace spruce or cedar (or mahogany) that will become "iconic" seems to be more difficult. The talk here on AGF concerning tonewoods is generally taken to mean backs and sides - so what about tops? Any ideas what could be coming down the line there?

[turtlejimmy]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

My point was its the same with acoustic guitar tonewoods. The early 1900s Mr Martin may well have thought about rosewood, then mahogany "This wood is available, workable, and sounds OK, looks pretty etc so we will make our guitars from it." Musicians buy those guitars, play and record with them, and they become iconic, so those are the tonewoods folks seek.

It is difficult to break that cycle and introduce new tonewoods.

Yes, I think this is it exactly, in a nutshell. For those of us who grew up in the 1960's, those are the sounds we heard all the time and formed all of our musical tastes around. Those guitars made from rosewood and mahogany were all over the radio and on records everywhere that it just naturally is, for me, the sound of an acoustic guitar. That's the baseline.

I did, many years ago, own a Cherry guitar that I thought sounded really good. It was also really cheap, at the time, so I got it. I moved on eventually, not from the Cherry, but to more expensive guitars.

As for future tops .... I have no idea. If they'd stop making toilet paper from old growth spruce, we'd probably never run out of that.



Turtle

[k_russell]

I no nothing about urban ironwood, but as for alternative tonewoods, I say, if the get the job done, use them.

My two classical guitars were built with paduk back and sides and my steel string 000 has ovangkol back and sides. I think that they sound great.

[perttime]

Originally Posted by Wonderwall

I've always wanted to try a test where I tell the listener that the guitar I'm playing is Madagascar Rosewood, so hearing a bit more "midrange" than Indian Rosewood may be normal. And it isn't until the listener tells me whether they preferred the Indian Rosewood version or the Madagascar Rosewood version, that I suddenly reveal that it wasn't Madagascar Rosewood at all but Ovangkol or Granadillo. I'd be very curious to see how much people's preferences are influenced by the prestige of the wood.

That kind of tests have been done, and at some scale. I attended one some years ago: pairs of steel string guitars by a luthier, one guitar tropical, one something else.
https://sites.google.com/site/leonar...h-report-lgrp2

Listeners graded the guitars without seeing or knowing what exactly was being played.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by perttime

That kind of tests have been done, and at some scale. I attended one some years ago: pairs of steel string guitars by a luthier, one guitar tropical, one something else.
https://sites.google.com/site/leonar...h-report-lgrp2

Listeners graded the guitars without seeing or knowing what exactly was being played.

That was an interesting read. I'd have liked to have seen some plywood (birch, cherry, mahogany etc) thrown in as well. I expect that they too would have had the same pattern of results.

[Dotneck]

Originally Posted by fpuhan

Is Taylor changing the "image" of tonewood?

No. They are just trying to find alternative tone woods that will be accepted in the marketplace. They are not changing the image of tonewood. They’re just trying to find woods that you will accept.

[Sponserv]

If you are a fisherman and travel to a new location the first thing you do is kick around the docks and bait shops asking what the fish are biting. Crickets? Worms? Ballyhoo?

Whatever the consensus is happens to be what you buy and what you use for bait.

I realize tone and great sound is highly subjective. But if you are wondering why popularity and high resale value on Martins, Gibsons, etc. exists......see above.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by perttime

That kind of tests have been done, and at some scale. I attended one some years ago: pairs of steel string guitars by a luthier, one guitar tropical, one something else.
https://sites.google.com/site/leonar...h-report-lgrp2

Listeners graded the guitars without seeing or knowing what exactly was being played.

There may be some valid elements to these studies, here are some immediate flaws.

In a couple of arms of the tests, listeners were asked how many guitars they heard in a recording. in the "online test" they were also asked to mark the transitions between 16 guitars. Because one long passage was played, there is no opportunity to compare the same exact passage on multiple guitars (which is the way I know I can most easily pick out differences).

In the page reporting the online results, all of the links are broken, so we cannot evaluate a lot of the discussion.

The online listeners (presumbably) self-report what their listening equipment was, ranging from "quality" to "low end" headphones or speakers, 13% reported using builtin device speakers.

To me the most glaring problem is that these guitars were built by students, supervised by master luthiers. If there's one thing many of us agree on here at AGF, it would be that the builder has huge influence over the sound of a guitar.

In the frequency response plots there is more variation within the non-tropical and tropical B&S groups of guitars than between the two groups taken as a whole. Whether that was influence of wood or builder, we don't know.

One of our members recently posted a recording of himself playing the same passage on a CEO-7 vs a PWGC of similar woods construction. I was one of the few who preferred the PWGC, the reason I did was simply that I heard a complex tonal signature, and those are what I like. Neverminding the preference, we all easily heard the differences between these two instruments.

Anyway, to touch on the OP, I'm sure ironbark is a useful wood for B&S, however I also think it's a smart and inexpensive choice for one of the largest builders of guitars. Taylor is not comparable to a single luthier shop, or a small high-end factory, they are not going to be spending time choosing the very best available woods or selecting among sources of re-used woods. They need a volume supply, and whether "Urban" means they're re-using old rail ties, or cutting trees few care much about, This is still a volume manufacturer sourcing to meet their production numbers.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by fpuhan

…I'm wondering if Taylor isn't producing great-sounding guitars based less on the tonewood than on their capable design, sizing, bracing, and other materials?

Hi fp…
Taylor has been innovative and experimental with 'wood' used in it's guitars for at least a couple decades. It's NOT new.

And they have had some which weren't that great (the pallet wood guitars for instance). But it hasn't seemed to deter Bob Taylor from continuing to innovate.

There are always players who are after the 'look' not the tone specifically. They are usually stage performers who have a supporting cast on stage (including backing guitarists with amazing skills and amazing sounding instruments).

Interesting topic…

[dnf777]

As many above already noted, I also appreciate Taylors attempt to discover new sources and species of acceptable tonewoods.

What I would like to see is a standard, entry-level (ie…less than $1000) quality built model as an index model for new woods. I think Breedlove is on to this in a way, by introducing new woods across their lineup.

I would be much more willing to try a new wood on a decent $800 guitar, than a $3000 one. (Says the guy who paid too much for a GT-urban ash!)

If a new wood is a dud, it will fizzle out, and hit the used market or become “campfire guitars”. If its a hit, it would quickly migrate to higher-level models. Not sure introductions at the 500-series level is the way to go? Just my thoughts. Worth what you paid for them…

[CASD57]

Originally Posted by turtlejimmy

That's the bottom line for all guitar selection for me. Not only are they just opinions, but everyone has different taste. Over the years, I've only purchased, sound unheard, one acoustic guitar. It didn't go well and that guitar no longer resides here. I heard, not a thousand, but copious amounts of reviews of the Martin D18, all good, which put it on my radar. It wasn't until I bumped into one and was able to hear for myself that I decided to buy one. This guitar will probably be with me for a long time.



Turtle

The D18 has been on my radar and I almost bought one, but I ended up with the Taylor AD17 mainly because of $$$ the D18 was $1000 more, But next year THe D18 is back on my Radar to at least try/play and buy if I can get past that Concert size sound....

[Tenn]

Taylor can use whatever they want cuz I have no real interest in the V-braced guitars they make. When they make a guitar that makes sound that I like then we can talk.

[Dotneck]

Originally Posted by turtlejimmy

If they'd stop making toilet paper from old growth spruce, we'd probably never run out of that.

Well, I certainly don’t want to run out of toilet paper…