Laminate back and sides question

[N+1]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

If you have two dreadnaught (just for the example) guitars made by the same company (or not) that both have a solid spruce top but one has laminate mahogany back and sides and the other has laminate rosewood back and sides does the type of laminate wood really make a difference or really matter?

I can't answer the question precisely, but I can relate the following experience, which I've described elsewhere in AGF:

I've compared a Taylor 214 QM DLX (quilted maple laminate back and sides) with other members of the Taylor 214 DLX series (Rosewood laminate and koa laminate), not once but several times, and using two different specimens of the QM guitar. The differences were clearly audible to anyone who cared to listen. They were not subtle nuances. The maple laminate instrument had the clear, almost bell-like sound of a maple guitar. I did these comparisons in a Taylor room, so I was able to extend the comparisons to include a wide range of Taylor guitars. The 214 QM DLX sounded distinctly like none of the others.

Bob Taylor has often been quoted as saying that the differences beteen laminates are purely cosmetic, and indeed he has said that a few times. But I don't think he's listened to his own 200 DLX series guitars recently! (See my letter published in Wood & Steel, Winter 2018, page 6).

The 200 DLX series differs from the non-DLX series in several ways, one of which is that the outer and inner layes are made of the tonewood. So the maple 214 DLX is maple outside and inside. I can only suppose this to be responsible for the significant 'mapleness' of the tone.

So if we have two laminate guitars with different tonewood veneers (inside and outside), I would not be surprised to hear significant differences. Is the cause of the difference purely psychological (as suggested by some posts above)? Heck, no! I own a 214 QM DLX and two other guitars from the 200 DLX series, and I hear the characteristic differences every day, deliberately choosing the QM whenever I want its clear ringing tone.

[Robin, Wales]

Well there are laminates where the veneer is thin and just for show. And there is plywood where you get 3 equal layers of the same wood, usually with the middle layer's grain rinning a 90 deg to the outer layers. You can have rotary cut veneers or straight cut veneers. And there are all sorts of other combinations making up laminates for guitars.

Personally, I'm a fan of plywood for guitar backs and sides. As you usually get a nice stable instrument with a "dry" sound that projects well.

I think that it could be the inner layer in whatever laminate system is used by the guitar manufacturer that, potentially, has the more impact on tone.

Imagine the impact on tone if the inside of your guitar was lined with felt or lined with tin foil. Now think of that image in terms of having mahogany, rosewood or maple as that inner layer. The sound absorption/reflectivity of a layer of each of those raw unfinished woods on the internal lamination may well make subtle tonal differences to the instrument.

I can't say for sure that this is the case. My thought process does work in mysterious (and often incorrect) ways!!!!

[hubcapsc]

There's a lot of good guitars made in Japan (I'm sure other places
too) with laminate back/sides. I think there's a difference in
kinds of laminate. On these good guitars (I read) there's two
layers of rosewood or mahogany or whatever in the laminate
and nothing else, with benefits like less expensive to get the
thinner laminates and better control over bending... On my $100
1970s laminate guitar (for example) perhaps there's like three layers
in the laminate. What you see is real thin and the inside is maybe no
better than CDX from lowes...

-Mike

[1neeto]

Originally Posted by nightchef

I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but if this is true, then why do people pay so much more money for solid B&S guitars? What's the benefit? Is there one?

I oversimplified my response of course. A guitar’s tone come from a combination of all parts, so back and sides definitely matter. When you hit the string, the string vibrates from the nut (or fret) to the saddle. That vibration is transferred to everywhere on the guitar, but the sound projection comes from the top. Laminated wood is basically two or more sheets of wood glued together. That glue is a dampener. It will absorb some of that vibration, and it may or may not be audible. I’ve heard laminated guitars that sound better than all-solid. It’s more about the construction of the instrument than the materials, also considering all those great sounding carbon fiber guitars out there.

[Ugly Dougling]

I recently was looking for a parlor guitar for something to just pick up when/wherever. Really fell in love with the Yamaha CSF series. That comes in two styles, solid and laminate. I am an iconoclast - love to shoot down conventional wisdom. I tried 'em both and couldn't tell any real difference, so the "budget" one made the most sense, right? Maybe even sounded better. Went to another shop to try a Mini-GS just to be sure... and I made sure. Back to the original shop to buy, with one last play session just to prove things to myself. Set two stands in front of me and A/B played them for an hour before deciding absolutely which sounded best. Went to put the loser back on the wall when I noticed my choice had marquetry between the book-matched back pieces. Funny, I didn't remember that. To my surprise, I had gotten the two confused and absolutely objectively had chosen the solid. Now, it was just a shootout between those two individual instruments, but it made an impression on me. I'm just sayin'...

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

If you have two dreadnaught (just for the example) guitars made by the same company (or not) that both have a solid spruce top but one has laminate mahogany back and sides and the other has laminate rosewood back and sides does the type of laminate wood really make a difference or really matter?

Hi Andromeda

If I had two identically built all-solid manufactured guitars made from the same wood, there is a high degree of probability they are not going to sound the same. If they are made with laminate, they will vary in sound as well…

There is a principle I put into practice 30 years back called "Play before Pay".

I know we can knock dollars off by ordering online, so if sound is less critical to you, perhaps it's a risk you are willing to take.

If sound matters to you, playing in person is always preferable.

Furthermore when I'm hunting for guitars for myself or friends, I recommend bringing a playing friend so they can play guitars for you, and you for them.

That way you hear what the tone is 'out front' where everyone else except you hears the guitar.

[Wellington]

Originally Posted by N+1

I can't answer the question precisely, but I can relate the following experience, which I've described elsewhere in AGF:

I've compared a Taylor 214 QM DLX (quilted maple laminate back and sides) with other members of the Taylor 214 DLX series (Rosewood laminate and koa laminate), not once but several times, and using two different specimens of the QM guitar. The differences were clearly audible to anyone who cared to listen. They were not subtle nuances. The maple laminate instrument had the clear, almost bell-like sound of a maple guitar. I did these comparisons in a Taylor room, so I was able to extend the comparisons to include a wide range of Taylor guitars. The 214 QM DLX sounded distinctly like none of the others.

Bob Taylor has often been quoted as saying that the differences beteen laminates are purely cosmetic, and indeed he has said that a few times. But I don't think he's listened to his own 200 DLX series guitars recently! (See my letter published in Wood & Steel, Winter 2018, page 6).

The 200 DLX series differs from the non-DLX series in several ways, one of which is that the outer and inner layes are made of the tonewood. So the maple 214 DLX is maple outside and inside. I can only suppose this to be responsible for the significant 'mapleness' of the tone.

So if we have two laminate guitars with different tonewood veneers (inside and outside), I would not be surprised to hear significant differences. Is the cause of the difference purely psychological (as suggested by some posts above)? Heck, no! I own a 214 QM DLX and two other guitars from the 200 DLX series, and I hear the characteristic differences every day, deliberately choosing the QM whenever I want its clear ringing tone.

Excellent post.

[Mking]

Originally Posted by 1neeto

Even on all-solid, the back and sides does very little to influence the guitar’s voice. On laminated b/s is more of which veneer looks prettier to you.

Really? I have owned a Martin with solid rosewood back and sides and a Gibson J-45 with solid mahogany back and sides, both with Sitka tops and they sounded nothing alike. I think the back and side wood has a lot to do with the guitar's voice. Top bracing is also an influence. But to say the all solid back and sides does very little to influence the guitar's voice, well I don't agree with you on that point.

[jpricewood]

I’ve never played a guitar with laminate back and sides that sounded as good as an all-solid wood guitar. The Seagull S6 I used to own came close but not close enough to keep it.

[redir]

Two identical guitars made from the exact same log of wood are going to sound different and I know becasue I tried it and many others have too. So it's next to impossible to run an experiment like that and get any valuable results. In general though you would expect there to be differences in the two instruments that you describe. The laminate back would be very stiff and would be considered a reflective back. A solid wood back can be made to be stiff too of course but it can also be made to take part in the vibrations of the guitar to produce tone. That would be considered a live back guitar.

[1neeto]

Originally Posted by Mking

Really? I have owned a Martin with solid rosewood back and sides and a Gibson J-45 with solid mahogany back and sides, both with Sitka tops and they sounded nothing alike. I think the back and side wood has a lot to do with the guitar's voice. Top bracing is also an influence. But to say the all solid back and sides does very little to influence the guitar's voice, well I don't agree with you on that point.

They sounded very different because one is a Gibson, and the other is a Martin. Were they both the same size and shape with the same bracing? I bet not.

[thunderboltfan]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Andromeda

If I had two identically built all-solid manufactured guitars made from the same wood, there is a high degree of probability they are not going to sound the same. If they are made with laminate, they will vary in sound as well…

There is a principle I put into practice 30 years back called "Play before Pay".

I know we can knock dollars off by ordering online, so if sound is less critical to you, perhaps it's a risk you are willing to take.

If sound matters to you, playing in person is always preferable.

Furthermore when I'm hunting for guitars for myself or friends, I recommend bringing a playing friend so they can play guitars for you, and you for them.

That way you hear what the tone is 'out front' where everyone else except you hears the guitar.

Agreed, play/pay. A lot of online sellers (private and commercial) offer returns of varying periods. It can seem like a hassle to return and may involve eating return shipping costs. But at least it’s an option, so save the packing materials. I know it was a lot easier making an hours long drive to Elderly to play a few models I was considering and realizing they weren’t right for me. And then trying one that wasn’t on my list and realizing it was the one.

[FrankHudson]

As some have mentioned in this thread, most of us have only our own anecdotal evidence it these matters, and the OP referenced the related debate, subject to the same experiential issues, with solid backs and their materials.

Just thinking about it from an engineering perspective, if the guitar's back has some effect in the guitar's sound, then it potentially has that effect regardless of the materials. I'm not speaking here of the rosewood vs. mahogany veneer question exactly, but it would seem that one could design and craft laminate backs to have differences, and some of those differences might be desirable.

I think of the Guild arched laminate backs, the famous Godin cherry laminate, and even the work that gets done with non-wood materials. Both of these produce interesting sounding instruments in my experience, ones I wouldn't necessary exchange for any competitor just because the competitor had a solid back on the spec sheet.

In the matter of guitar tops we have this received opinion that solid wood is necessary for the desirable sounds from that vibrational component. Of course there are exceptions with some highly engineered sandwiches and or practical trade-off in some archtops where feedback resistance is rated as important. But how are we sure that is also so of acoustic guitar backs?

Here's another thing: we know that laminates can obtain some advantages in stability and strength. Typical laminated backs are simply a cost-saving measure, and the rosewood or mahogany is typically a very very thin slice, but what properties could one get from a two or three-ply laminate of rosewood for example with no cheaper "filler wood?"

[Oldguy64]

I have an Alvarez MD70ce and a Yairi GY1.
The GY1 has a laminate rosewood back and sides.
The MD70CE is all solid wood.

I believe the Yairi has a better sound.
But it’s not heaps better.

Just to muddy the waters...I also have an Alvarez PD85S. Solid Spruce top, solid Rosewood back, laminate sides.
It’s the surprise of the bunch. It’s every bit as good as the others.

[fartamis]

There are b/s laminate guitars that sound great ... but in 35 years of playing I've always found that solid wood has that little extra something, and that little extra something is warmth and the richness of sound.