Ovangkol's Tonal Profile

[ewalling]

Are we really talking about Ovangkol here or the builder that made it? I would imagine one would have to play a pretty substantial range of instruments from different makers, all of the same dimensions and with the same top wood to make an informed judgement as to the generlized properties of this tonewood. I once owned a 30th Anniversary Taylor GC in Sitka and maple which had a really fast decay. I concluded that maple was not for me until I played an OM in the same woods made by Scottish luthier Jimmy Moon which had sustain to die for.

I'm inclined to think that Taylor's (influential) fussiness about tonewoods in their magazine has as much to do with marketing as it does with significant differences between woods. They give the impression that we need a Taylor in a variety of tonewoods to get the full range of sounds available. Not only that but that there is some kind of pecking order from "entry level" Sapele up to rosewood and koa.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Are we really talking about Ovangkol here or the builder that made it? I would imagine one would have to play a pretty substantial range of instruments from different makers, all of the same dimensions and with the same top wood to make an informed judgement as to the generlized properties of this tonewood. I once owned a 30th Anniversary Taylor GC in Sitka and maple which had a really fast decay. I concluded that maple was not for me until I played an OM in the same woods made by Scottish luthier Jimmy Moon which had sustain to die for.

I'm inclined to think that Taylor's (influential) fussiness about tonewoods in their magazine has as much to do with marketing as it does with significant differences between woods. They give the impression that we need a Taylor in a variety of tonewoods to get the full range of sounds available. Not only that but that there is some kind of pecking order from "entry level" Sapele up to rosewood and koa.

I think your observations are correct about the perceived tonewood pecking order and marketing of different woods with different attributes. This is a spin based on science that sells guitars. However, one could argue that from the 500 series upward, the differences are not about pecking order but rather preferential differences between classically accepted tonewoods (mahogany, maple, EI rosewood), save for the 900 and presentation series that are mostly about bling appointments and specialty guitars.

Still, one cannot deny the sonic differences that exist and are acknowledged by other makers as well. I agree that construction matters significantly, but GA’s from Taylor allow for a comparison of tonewoods with “all other factors being equal,” which may lead naturally to the emphasis on different tonewoods in their line.

I consider tonewoods like ingredients in a recipe. They have their own distinctive properties that have strengths and limitations, apart from the application. Some “ingredients” have more preferable qualities and make great tonewoods; others (e.g., maybe birch) are not at all ideal for guitar making a guitar. But just like the reality TV show “Chopped,” good “chefs” can make amazing creations out of average ingredients. In the case of Taylor guitars, all the tonewoods are quality ingredients, but different flavors: variations on a theme.

My opinion is that Ovangkol is always Ovangkol, which will always have a distinctive and consistent tonal difference from Indian Rosewood (noting slight variation within a species and from tree to tree and due to environment); however, the designer’s decisions can bring the best out of Ovangkol or the worst out of Ovangkol depending on how it is implemented in the design.

My guess is that this (in addition to its affordability) is why Ovangkol has been selected (or relegated) to the AD series: it is a budget option that mimics the tone of more expensive woods. It pairs well with the GP/V design combination, but less well with the GA/V design combination. The GA with V bracing makes Ovangkol, a brighter wood, sound even brighter due to both body shape and bracing strategy. The GP with V bracing brings out more depth in general, balancing the Ovangkol, with the V bracing (originally designed for the GP) assisting in the clarity and sustain of the overall design.

[Osage]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Are we really talking about Ovangkol here or the builder that made it? I would imagine one would have to play a pretty substantial range of instruments from different makers, all of the same dimensions and with the same top wood to make an informed judgement as to the generlized properties of this tonewood. I once owned a 30th Anniversary Taylor GC in Sitka and maple which had a really fast decay. I concluded that maple was not for me until I played an OM in the same woods made by Scottish luthier Jimmy Moon which had sustain to die for.

I'm inclined to think that Taylor's (influential) fussiness about tonewoods in their magazine has as much to do with marketing as it does with significant differences between woods. They give the impression that we need a Taylor in a variety of tonewoods to get the full range of sounds available. Not only that but that there is some kind of pecking order from "entry level" Sapele up to rosewood and koa.

It's absolutely marketing. I'm not saying that there is no difference in tone between Taylors made from different woods, I'm just saying that it's subtle and what a guitar sounds like depends so much on the design and builder and so little on the wood species used.

If you want it to sound like Rosewood, it'll sound like Rosewood. If you want it to sound like Mahogany, that's what it'll sound like

[dnf777]

I like the way my AD17 sounds, but Im not sure I can characterize it in terms of other popular woods.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I like the way my AD17 sounds, but Im not sure I can characterize it in terms of other popular woods.

This is a key point. No one compares Rosewood to Ovangkol: quite the opposite. The main reasons to compare one wood to another is to upgrade its perception, or possibly to describe it in familiar terms of traditional tonewoods (most notably rosewood and mahogany). If Ovangkol was well known in its own right, then it wouldn’t require a comparison to other woods! It seems to be the latter rationale in the case of Ovangkol.