Brazilian Rosewood, worth the cost?

[RP]

I think that BRW can produce a really dramatic grain and bragging rights for the owner. Any thread that questions "worth" is bound to be very subjective so only those who are willing to throw down the extra $$$ for pretty grain and bragging rights will answer in the affirmative...

[Moocheng]

Originally Posted by superfluidity

Please allow to respectfully disagree. Over the years, I have had my share of all types of wood combos, I also agree that in the hands of the right builder most final products can be great sounding. But, the BRW/Sitka I have now has no comparison, it just is head over heels better sounding. I mean. up and down, over sideways and upside down. I can only say it this way, all the other guitars I have had, I played them. This one plays me. Of course it is just IMHO.

Oh' dear, I think I might have put the cat amongst the pigeons was'nt my intention at all.

you are absolutely right super' BRW is a wonderful tonewood in the hands of the right luthier, in that theres no doubt and these days due to its premium cost its only ever going to be found on the very very best of instruments so its bound to create a good impression. This leaves me wondering how much can be attributed to the wood itself. Is it possible for a Indian RW instrument to sound equally as good ?.Is there a crossover point, where its possible for a Indian to have the same or even more of the beloved properties normaly ascribed to Brazilian once all the other variables, top, bracing, finish, etc. are taken into account

Truth is I don't know, I'm a lefty so its not like I can play and form any worthwhile opinion on everything that comes my way. What I have noticed is selecting BRW is not always infallible in ensuring what turns out will be a truely great guitar, as many have said theres much more to it than that. Going back to the 70's if you had a RW back & side guitar chances are it was Brazilian and we all know what a mixed bunch they were back then, anything from wonderful to absolutely horrible and all point in between, Now its top $ everything made with BRW is going to be good

So maybe, its one of them personal preferance things, many swear that BRW has that certain something that puts it ahead of Indian and if your experience has led you to believe that, thats good. On the otherhand I'm yet to be convinced but thats o.k. they all make music, ultimately thats what its all about.

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by RP

I think that BRW can produce a really dramatic grain and bragging rights for the owner. Any thread that questions "worth" is bound to be very subjective so only those who are willing to throw down the extra $$$ for pretty grain and bragging rights will answer in the affirmative...

A lot of brazilian sets have actually very boring grain redolent of East indian rosewood and are even rather brownish in colour to boot. Not much to brag about looks wise for those guitars.

It is a false assumption for you to make to opine that every owner of a braz guitar who are answers in the affirmative owns the guitar to have bragging rights. He or she may own such a guitar for its tone, its playability, its beauty, its sentimental value, its build quality, its history, its aromatic scent, and even its investment value.

Another false assumption you have is that braz rosewood is not worth the upcharge for its contribution to tone so that no owner of a braz guitar who answers in the affirmative is doing so because it actually sounds so good it's worth it to that ownet. That really depends on the guitar that results from that braz being used as well as the owners subjective impressions of its tone and how good it is to him.

A more serious miscalculation on your part is for you to presume you can even know what is the subjective motivation of even one of those owners who answers in the affirmative and whom you dont even personally know, let alone all of those owners

Of course worth is subjective to each person. But for you to jump from that valid starting point to the conclusion that only those who are owning the guitsrs for their prettiness and bragging rights will say the braz was worth it - is completely illogical and uncalled for. If worth is subjective, then the subjective worth ascribed by any owner of such a guitar also depends on his or her subjective reason for thinking it is worth it - which will differ from person to person.

[RP]

Originally Posted by gitarro

A lot of brazilian sets have actually very boring grain redolent of East indian rosewood and are even rather brownish in colour to boot. Not much to brag about looks wise for those guitars.

It is a false assumption for you to make to opine that every owner of a braz guitar who are answers in the affirmative owns the guitar to have bragging rights. He or she may own such a guitar for its tone, its playability, its beauty, its sentimental value, its build quality, its history, its aromatic scent, and even its investment value.

Another false assumption you have is that braz rosewood is not worth the upcharge for its contribution to tone so that no owner of a braz guitar who answers in the affirmative is doing so because it actually sounds so good it's worth it to that ownet. That really depends on the guitar that results from that braz being used as well as the owners subjective impressions of its tone and how good it is to him.

A more serious miscalculation on your part is for you to presume you can even know what is the subjective motivation of even one of those owners who answers in the affirmative and whom you dont even personally know, let alone all of those owners

Of course worth is subjective to each person. But for you to jump from that valid starting point to the conclusion that only those who are owning the guitsrs for their prettiness and bragging rights will say the braz was worth it - is completely illogical and uncalled for. If worth is subjective, then the subjective worth ascribed by any owner of such a guitar also depends on his or her subjective reason for thinking it is worth it - which will differ from person to person.

And you overlooked my use of the word "can" which qualifies my statement to mean that it is possible that those who plunk down the extra bucks do so because of the possibly more striking grain and/or bragging rights. Several posts have already said that having a guitar with BRW does not guarantee tone that is enhanced to justify the extra cost so tell me what besides looks and bragging rights do justify the extra cost of BRW. Anyone who has not paid to have BRW back/sides, like myself, will have to say "NO, it's not worth to them" because they haven't seen fit to plunk down the money for BRW. It's curious that in your first sentence and last paragraph you dismiss the idea of BRW having noteworthy grain, but in your third sentence you offer beauty as a reason to own a BRW guitar. You suggest that playability is enhanced by the use of BRW, but I'm not sure how that would occur...

Originally Posted by Moocheng

Truth is, if Indian rosewood was hard to obtain and commanded exhorbitant prices, many would be spouting its virtues over Brazilian, such is hype.

Back in the day Brazilian was just another rosewood even used on some fairly ordinary instruments, now it costs a fortune and hard to come by its mysteriously developed magical acoustic propertys

[gitarro]

On the contrary - i noticed that attempt by you to give yourself a get out of jail card and I anticipated you would pull that one out.

Unfortunately you failed to notice your next sentence after that sentence is an absolute statement condemning all owners who answer in the affirmative to have such ignoble motivations.

Your attempt to riposte by suggesting that I contradicted myself also fails because you failed to notice that I said "A lot of..." which means that I am NOT saying that all braz guitars have boring grain.

Your first post is unfair and unjustifiable in its condemnation of all owners of brazilian rosewood who post saying yes it is worth it. Your latest post actually makes you look even worse because now you admit that yut have never bought a braz rosewood guitars- which means you are unfit and unqualified to pass judgment on braz rosewood guitars being not worth the cash. It isn't enough to play it in a shop or even at a friend's house- you have to spend enough time with the guitar before you can make conclusions about it, and that means owning it for a sufficient time.

Lastly you highlight several posts but none of those posts have made blanket condemnations of other members" motivations in saying that braz is worth it, nor have those posts dismissed the possibility that braz may be worth it to someone else. And what about those posts which have said that braz is worth it? Why didn't you mention those posts?

Come on now - if you make blanket statements like that on things that is unfair for u to suggest and that you couldnt even know, you should own up and withdraw it because it isn't justifiable on any level.

Originally Posted by RP

And you overlooked my use of the word "can" which qualifies my statement to mean that it is possible that those who plunk down the extra bucks do so because of the possibly more striking grain and/or bragging rights. Several posts have already said that having a guitar with BRW does not guarantee tone that is enhanced to justify the extra cost so tell me what besides looks and bragging rights do justify the extra cost of BRW. Anyone who has not paid to have BRW back/sides, like myself, will have to say "NO, it's not worth to them" because they haven't seen fit to plunk down the money for BRW. It's curious that in your first sentence and last paragraph you dismiss the idea of BRW having noteworthy grain, but in your third sentence you offer beauty as a reason to own a BRW guitar...

[TominNJ]

I've played BRW guitars but never owned one. They didn't sound 30% - 100% better to my ears so they aren't worth the extra cost to me. The human tendency to perceive things as more desirable because they're scarce is amusing to me. Put Limited Edition or Limited Time Only on something and people line up to buy it. Unobtainium is an ingredient that makes everything more desirable.

[magictwanger]

I've got two BRW guitars....H&D and Bourgeois....Both fabulous and I didn't even know the wood when I decided to buy them.

[Von Beerhofen]

Originally Posted by TominNJ

I've played BRW guitars but never owned one. They didn't sound 30% - 100% better to my ears so they aren't worth the extra cost to me. The human tendency to perceive things as more desirable because they're scarce is amusing to me. Put Limited Edition or Limited Time Only on something and people line up to buy it. Unobtainium is an ingredient that makes everything more desirable.

This bypasses the fact that you won't know untill you try yourself. I mean if one gets a chance to experience BRW it's worth comparing to other guitars with different woods. This is true for all tonewoods and all brands, what is also true is that no two guitars will sound the same and if you find one with BRW which has the sound that appeals to you then all you can do is see wether it's within your budget.

If structural integrity is more important then sound then I can only advice to stay away from the stumpwood Braz and go for the lesser sound. that goes for Authentics with slabsawn Madi backs too, or any other slabsawn wood.
Some guitars are build on the virge of collapsing or imploding, brace wise and top thickness wise, just to produce it's tonal quality. Is it any different?

Ludwig

[zmf]

Originally Posted by magictwanger

I've got two BRW guitars....H&D and Bourgeois....Both fabulous and I didn't even know the wood when I decided to buy them.

A blind control study! There you have it, folks.

Overall, semantic bickering aside, this is useful and informative thread that provides perhaps as much information about members' perception of what elements create an exceptional guitar, as it does the virtues of BRW.

Something I've wondered when playing a good guitar with upgraded/expensive/rare tonewood is whether the luthier, consciously or unconsciously, takes more care in the construction of the guitar. Which might account, in part, for the resulting quality.

[superfluidity]

Originally Posted by Moocheng

Oh' dear, I think I might have put the cat amongst the pigeons was'nt my intention at all.

you are absolutely right super' BRW is a wonderful tonewood in the hands of the right luthier, in that theres no doubt and these days due to its premium cost its only ever going to be found on the very very best of instruments so its bound to create a good impression. This leaves me wondering how much can be attributed to the wood itself. Is it possible for a Indian RW instrument to sound equally as good ?.Is there a crossover point, where its possible for a Indian to have the same or even more of the beloved properties normaly ascribed to Brazilian once all the other variables, top, bracing, finish, etc. are taken into account

Truth is I don't know, I'm a lefty so its not like I can play and form any worthwhile opinion on everything that comes my way. What I have noticed is selecting BRW is not always infallible in ensuring what turns out will be a truely great guitar, as many have said theres much more to it than that. Going back to the 70's if you had a RW back & side guitar chances are it was Brazilian and we all know what a mixed bunch they were back then, anything from wonderful to absolutely horrible and all point in between, Now its top $ everything made with BRW is going to be good

So maybe, its one of them personal preferance things, many swear that BRW has that certain something that puts it ahead of Indian and if your experience has led you to believe that, thats good. On the otherhand I'm yet to be convinced but thats o.k. they all make music, ultimately thats what its all about.

Yea there are many variables, but you have brought up a great long time argument. In fact, this thread caused me to go find out more data, and the one thread I found really helps. Two exact guitars, only difference was the B/S. When I listen to them I only noticed a tonality difference not a quality difference. To me, the BRW has a tone that I like better (more bell like), but I still like the EIR sound. Fact is, my Wingert is almost 20 years old and has top shelf everything, as well as a great luthier, so there are no other guitars to compare it to, i. e. she makes one of a kind instruments.
Here is the link, you tell me/us what you think ok?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdA4g1i1J7c

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by superfluidity

Yea there are many variables, but you have brought up a great long time argument. In fact, this thread caused me to go find out more data, and the one thread I found really helps. Two exact guitars, only difference was the B/S. When I listen to them I only noticed a tonality difference not a quality difference. To me, the BRW has a tone that I like better (more bell like), but I still like the EIR sound. Fact is, my Wingert is almost 20 years old and has top shelf everything, as well as a great luthier, so there are no other guitars to compare it to, i. e. she makes one of a kind instruments.
Here is the link, you tell me/us what you think ok?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdA4g1i1J7c

There are subtle differences, but how much of that is the top and how much of it is the density of the b&s or the overall weight of the guitar? And therein lies the problem with these comparisons. Too many variables for this to be anything but a curiosity. They are both the same model, but not the same guitar...if you know what I mean.

There is no way to scientifically make this point without recording the guitar (and maybe with flatter mics than the KM184 - the Schoeps or DPA) and then pull the b&s off and replace it with the other b&s wood...so the only change is the b&s woods, making it a true 1:1 comparison.

Nice video though. The BRW was brighter, the EIR darker...he didn't match volumes though so the "brighter" translated to louder and that offers an unfair advantage to the BRW because our ears are generally stupid and we equate louder with "better".

[Rockerga]

Different woods, different sounds, different makers, lalalalala....

EVERY quality guitar has a different tone and timbre that I have ever heard or recorded. You have to play or listen to a quality recording of that exact guitar to appreciate (or not) its inherent qualities. COMPARE SEVERAL OF THE SAME MATTER-OF-FACTLY.

I am new both to Guitar playing and this forum but I have extensive recording experience. (I was a professional drummer....no jokes please, I have heard them all)

I have listened to two of the same make model and construction of guitars and they had a different sound!

FACT: Do differing woods give a differing tone: YES. Is there a better wood than any other: NOT NECCESARILY.

What you have to know IS what sound YOU WANT TO HEAR! Paying an exorbitant cost for an upgraded wood is nothing but dress-up if you have not heard it played.

I recorded "primarily" for studio work a variety (And many varieties of...) of the best from: Martin, Taylor, Gibson and Ovation. I loved them all. it was a decision based upon what we wanted to hear. I never, never fixed any sound "in the mix!"

[Tico]

There are really two different questions:
1. Is Brazilian RW worth what it costs today?
2. Is it worth it to a particular individual?

The answer to #1 is, absolutely yes.
Stuff costs what people are willing to pay.
Period.

The answer to #2 isn't absolute at all.
People vary tremendously, as does their budget.

[RP]

Originally Posted by Tico

There are really two different questions:
1. Is Brazilian RW worth what it costs today?
2. Is it worth it to a particular individual?

The answer to #1 is, absolutely yes.
Stuff costs what people are willing to pay.
Period.

The answer to #2 isn't absolute at all.
People vary tremendously, as does their budget.

I don't know this to be true but have read other posts stating the differences in quality between older and newer BRW i.e. the older stuff was trunk wood and the newer stuff is from stumps. If true, wouldn't that add food for thought as to a more objective definition of worth???

Most of today's new supply of Dalbergia Nigra comes from unusual sources. The "special permission" CITES clause did create a small loophole. It allows for limited harvesting of stump woods. Stump woods, you guessed right, are woods that comes from tree roots and stumps that have been dormant and decaying since June of 1992 and earlier. Some of the wood harvested from stumps is above ground, and much is literally buried in the ground. But demand for Brazilian rosewood has forced loggers to go back and harvest the "scraps" that were not worth their time when they cut the tree down 3-4 decades earlier.

Reputable sawyers working for reputable companies try do a good job of "culling" stump wood. They try remove as many flaws as possible. Professional sawyers also try to yield as large a piece as they can get while still getting rid of defects. This is a tough balancing act. And it sometimes means flawed wood. But there's another problem. Wood that is harvested from stumps is more likely to split, no matter what the drying method. It also has spent 18 or more years in or on the ground -where the hungry worms live.

[iim7V7IM7]

Don't believe everything that you read on the internet...

Originally Posted by RP

I don't know this to be true but have read other posts stating the differences in quality between older and newer BRW i.e. the older stuff was trunk wood and the newer stuff is from stumps. If true, wouldn't that add food for thought as to a more objective definition of worth???

Most of today's new supply of Dalbergia Nigra comes from unusual sources. The "special permission" CITES clause did create a small loophole. It allows for limited harvesting of stump woods. Stump woods, you guessed right, are woods that comes from tree roots and stumps that have been dormant and decaying since June of 1992 and earlier. Some of the wood harvested from stumps is above ground, and much is literally buried in the ground. But demand for Brazilian rosewood has forced loggers to go back and harvest the "scraps" that were not worth their time when they cut the tree down 3-4 decades earlier.

Reputable sawyers working for reputable companies try do a good job of "culling" stump wood. They try remove as many flaws as possible. Professional sawyers also try to yield as large a piece as they can get while still getting rid of defects. This is a tough balancing act. And it sometimes means flawed wood. But there's another problem. Wood that is harvested from stumps is more likely to split, no matter what the drying method. It also has spent 18 or more years in or on the ground -where the hungry worms live.