The Lowden sound

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kindnes

The evidence is simply that I know personally, or have met, several excellent professional players who have never thought about what wood their guitar was made from. I'm not saying that they're not fussy about their instruments, just that the wood choice would not be very important.
Regarding James Taylor, Olsens became famous because of him playing one, not the other way round! I'm afraid I know nothing about Jackson Browne.

That’s because wood selection does not matter if you’re playing a gig and it’s being amplified. In fact many musicians are using laminated back and sides. It’s totally different if you’re playing unamplified.

[mercy]

A few things have been said that Id like to respond to not being a Lowden owner. Amplified I think plywood guitars or heavily braced acoustic or AE guitars are better, so quality wood is not the issue there. BUT unamplified, wood is very important. Certainly mostly the top but the bracing and the wood, soft or hard, make a difference in the sound. Ive been aware that some pro musicians look at their guitars as just tools. I used to go see a guy play fingerstyle at a coffeshop here and he used a fold up guitar for his performance, a fold up guitar! The thing that made it work was that he was a great player. The same kind of thing as TE. He plays a dog and it is set so low the unamplified sound is awful. But hes such a player and performer that most people dont notice the lack of quality of the guitar. A mahogany acoustic Lowden is going to sound different that a rosewood Lowden. Both are are to sound more similar to each other than they sound similar to a Martin. Speaking of Martin, a mahogany backed D18 sounds different than a rosewood D28. An African blackwood with a cedar top is going to sound different than a mahogany with a spruce top. I think Lowden doesnt get any better than the walnut/ cedar sound but thats me. You might like the AB/spruce sound better

[Malcolm Kindnes]

People choose what they want to believe, I have finished with this debate.

[BluesKing777]

This workmanship and craftsmanship should be encouraged, my opinion!

Here are a few samples from Heartbreaker, no affiliation:


https://heartbreakerguitars.com/coll...n-black-walnut

https://heartbreakerguitars.com/coll...olo-with-bevel

https://heartbreakerguitars.com/coll...cedar-cocobolo


BluesKing777.

[mercy]

Malcolm, Im sorry you feel it is a debate. There are very few facts on this forum. What we do is express our opinions. I do agree with you that "5000 year old bog oak sinker redwood" stuff is just marketing to persuade people with lots of disposable income to spend it on guitars." But I do think that rosewood and bog oak, which I dont like and wouldnt pay any money for, sound different. I like the walnut/cedar sound best on Lowdens, considered by some to be plain Jane. Anything more expensive than that is excess but if they have the money to buy it that helps keep the economy going, its a good thing.

[Malcolm Kindnes]

Originally Posted by mercy

Malcolm, Im sorry you feel it is a debate. There are very few facts on this forum. What we do is express our opinions. I do agree with you that "5000 year old bog oak sinker redwood" stuff is just marketing to persuade people with lots of disposable income to spend it on guitars." But I do think that rosewood and bog oak, which I dont like and wouldnt pay any money for, sound different. I like the walnut/cedar sound best on Lowdens, considered by some to be plain Jane. Anything more expensive than that is excess but if they have the money to buy it that helps keep the economy going, its a good thing.

Thank you, it seems we agree after all. 😀

[JayBee1404]

I think the point Malcolm is making - which Mercy seems to support and which I absolutely do - is that wood which is visually, strikingly beautiful, and which carries an upcharge because of its beauty, is not necessarily better sonically than cheaper, plainer woods, and in fact can be inferior in that regard.

Of course, everyone’s ears are different, what I hear can differ from what **you** hear, and some people’s ears are undoubtedly influenced by their eyes - as Mercy says, we are expressing opinions here, precisely what this kind of forum exists for.

I certainly understand a guitar’s desirability on the basis of the beauty of its woods, in fact I’m strongly attracted to a used Lowden RT Signature currently for sale in the UK for exactly that reason, but I don’t believe it necessarily follows that sonic superiority automatically goes with visual beauty.

The usual disclaimers apply......IMHO, YMMV etc.

[hamburg325]

Originally Posted by JayBee1404

I think the point Malcolm is making - which Mercy seems to support and which I absolutely do - is that wood which is visually, strikingly beautiful, and which carries an upcharge because of its beauty, is not necessarily better sonically than cheaper, plainer woods, and in fact can be inferior in that regard.

Of course, everyone’s ears are different, what I hear can differ from what **you** hear, and some people’s ears are undoubtedly influenced by their eyes - as Mercy says, we are expressing opinions here, precisely what this kind of forum exists for.

I certainly understand a guitar’s desirability on the basis of the beauty of its woods, in fact I’m strongly attracted to a used Lowden RT Signature currently for sale in the UK for exactly that reason, but I don’t believe it necessarily follows that sonic superiority automatically goes with visual beauty.

The usual disclaimers apply......IMHO, YMMV etc.

To my own ears, I've found that more exotic wood combinations are actually less sonically pleasing, in various ways, than good ole sitka/EIR. But those other woods sure do look purdy.

[nickv6]

QUOTE"I really think all this "5000 year old bog oak sinker redwood" stuff is just marketing to persuade people with lots of disposable income to spend it on guitars."

I'm not a wealthy man. I've been in the music industry for 40 years. I was looking for the best acoustic I could find for personal use. I agree with those who say once amplified the wood doesn't show it's unique charachter. In fact the best amplified acoustics I've ever used were poor acoustically.
So my search ended in a fantastic shop here in UK called Guitar Village. Dozens of Martins, Gibsons, every make including Lowden.
One of which was a Lowden old bog oak and cedar top. To be frank, the bog oak is a pretty boring sight so I didn't buy it for the looks or status. I bought it for the sound. It stood out from everything else for me by the sound. It was more than I wanted to spend but it was SO much better (to my ears) and so playable and perfect in construction that I stretched finances and bought it. I have not regretted the purchase.
So naturally, I do not agree that the bog oak thing is a marketing ploy.
Nick

[mercy]

Nick, the key here is what you said, "to my ears". You may like that sound or maybe you got one that sounded good, whatever that means, but I havent liked the sound better than the other wood options including the poorly mahogany ones. I get it that some folks like different sounds that other folks so Im very glad you got what suits your ears. Different woods do sound different but all Lowdens, no matter what the wood is, sound good.

[Rosewood99]

I wish my hearing was less a stellar, so Wood combination and quality would not make a difference.

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

I wish my hearing was less a stellar, so Wood combination and quality would not make a difference.

I know what you mean. I wish the only difference between a Honda and a Ferrari was the marketing.