#91
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If I commissioned a guitar (which I never have, so what do I know) and said I wanted it to sound and play like so, and also brought my own wood, you'd be constrained somewhat by the wood and would have to work your magic elsewhere. Conversely, if I requested that you pick the tonewoods that you thought would most likely get me what I wanted, plus you worked your magic on the bracing, etc., would that make your job easier? Relevant to the topic, would your choice of B/S tonewood play much of a role if, for instance, a darker tone with more harmonics was requested. Thanks. Just trying to get a handle on our preoccupation with B/S tonewood. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
I think the top and bracing and overall construction have the most impact on sound. The back/side material surely contributes. But how much is anybody's guess. That said, I choose the back/side wood based mostly on aesthetics and then go from there. If the guitar sounds good, it sounds good. I really like Macassar ebony, ziricote, cocobolo, etc. They just look cool.
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
It’s a great question and I’m not sure what the answer is. I will only say that the Furch Red deluxe series is made with master grade tuned woods on the top and back. Sides are solid as well, of course.
It sounds like angels. |
#94
|
||||
|
||||
Reminder: The original question was — Does the wood used for the back and sides realy make a difference?
It didn’t ask if wood made a huge difference. It didn’t ask if wood imparted magical qualities. All it asked was does it make a difference. I have mahogany guitars and rosewood guitars. I can’t say I like one “wood” better than the other. However it’s hard for me to imagine different woods don’t have an influence. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
I have two Walnut Gibsons and I prefer them over Indian Rosewood guitars or Mahogany. However, I think the Gibson LG-2 sounds amazing and I want to try one!
__________________
Taylor 814ce Gibson G-00 Epiphone J-200 Heritage Cherry Sweetwater Exclusive Gibson G-45 Studio Martin X1-DE Washburn WP21SNS Taylor 110 Mitchell D120 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Haasome wrote:
"Reminder: The original question was — Does the wood used for the back and sides really make a difference?" The implied qualification in that question is: ", all else equal?" So far as I can find out the answer (when you include the qualification), is:"yes, but...." Basically, the more things you can control the more likely it is that you're going to end up with what you want. If you want a 'rosewood' sound you're more likely to get it using rosewood. There are other things that come close, such as Osage orange or locust, and they'll get you close. But even if you control everything as closely as possible, down to using matched wood from the same boards, it seems as though you'll never get 'the same' sound. All else is never 'equal'. So what is 'close enough'? That's a quality judgement, and subjective. Everybody has a different idea of what 'good' tone is. We all define terms like 'dark' or 'woody' or 'clear' in our own way. For a maker there is always a certain amount of interpretation involved in talking about 'tone' with a customer, and nobody gets the translation right every time. The more input you can get the more likely you are to get it right. The more you depart from the original the more chances there are for errors. But, again, all else is never 'equal': you can't make an exact tonal copy of a particular guitar unless you have 'the same' wood, and no two pieces are ever the same. Some years back I was asked to make a tonal copy of a particular WW2 era Martin OM, which the owner regards as THE guitar. He was always switching the strings around: lights for fingerstyle and mediums for flat picking, and wanted something that he could leave mediums on to avoid the wear and tear, as well as the lost time, of course. I had the advantage of some familiarity with the instrument, including an 'impulse spectrum' that gave a sort of 'fingerprint' if the sound up to 1000 Hz. I used some old-growth BRW for the B&S, and a Red spruce top, like the original, but in many respects (particularly the top brace layout) what I made was not all that close. All of this was based on my own reading of the properties of the top I had, and what I thought I'd need to do to get it to work like the original. The impulse spectrum of the 'homage' was very similar to that of the original, except that the new guitar had a stronger response at the 'main air' frequency, although the pitch of that resonance was the same. In the end the customer accepted it as 'close enough', much to the surprise of a mutual friend. I have not heard the two side by side. Could I have gotten that good a result with a different B&S wood? I can't say, but possibly. In a case like that you have to try to load the dice in your favor as much as possible. My experience with other 'pairs' with unmatched B&S wood suggests that, with care, it should be possible, but it would be a LOT of work to demonstrate that with any assurance. To the extent that there are consistent differences due to the species of the B&S wood, those differences are probably more consistently demonstrated in factory instruments than in those from individual luthiers. Again, every make has 'their' sound, that they work toward, and makes small changes all the time to get it. Factories work to fixed dimensions, and can't accommodate the variation in wood properties from one piece to the next. For them it's useful to advertise a particular wood in a model, and that tells the customer something about what to expect. In most cases, using 'ordinary' woods such as IRW or Honduras mahogany, the actual difference in cost of the materials is minor compared with the labor that goes into making a guitar. Folks can, of course, obtain an upcharge for 'better' woods, and will do so if they can. And there are woods, such as old growth BRW or 'the Tree' mahogany, that are limited in supply, and thus more expensive for the maker. If it happens that the wood is also hard to work and prone to failure added expense is incurred in providing for replacement costs of wood that breaks in the process. At any rate, if a maker can convince customers that a particular wood is in some way 'special' they can up their profit margins a bit. With some woods, of course, the sales effort has already been made: 'Adirondack' spruce and old growth BRW for example. Since people tend to hear what they want/expect to hear the customer is likely to accept the product as 'superior' in any case. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There are times when I have played two OM’s (or two different dreads) that were totally different (different top wood, different back and sides, different makers) and a could barely detect a difference). But there are also times when two different examples of the same guitar size from the same maker but with different back and side woods sound quite different. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Yes it makes a difference in tone and EQ.
Sapele is very bright in comparison to mahogany and rosewood. The latter two already with ample commentary here. Sent from my SM-S901U using Acoustic Guitar Forum mobile app
__________________
Chris 2022 Taylor 714ce, 2020 Martin D-28 Modern Deluxe, 2013 Martin D-16GT, 1980 Yamaha FG-335 |