Endangered wood is pointless for guitars

Subject: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 08:13 AM

Blinded study comparing a lot of different timbers:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122115013.htm

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 09:27 AM

I wonder though Jack, what happens when the guitars have been played for a couple of years? Maybe that is more the top? But I gather it takes time for tone to develop.

Of course there are other factors and we are not usually looking at the “identical” guitar just made with different backs and sides. I have 2 playable (I also have a long out of action Fylde Falstaff which did have a lovely tone) guitars and of the 2, much prefer the tone of of my say £150 Jay Turser which I’d think is a cheap laminate construction. My say £700 Yamaha which I think has solid Indian rosewood back and sides and a solid spruce top usually sounds too bright/harsh for my liking. I don’t mind it for strumming some songs, it can be nice to have something that contrasts with the other and it does have robust electronics if I ever needed them (unlikely) but it was a blind purchase that I mostly regret making. There again, that Yamaha did pick up some very good reviews with some praising the sound...

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: leeneia
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 11:05 AM

From the study:

Overall sound quality ratings were then given by 52 guitarists in a dimly lit room who played the different guitars while wearing welder's goggles to prevent visual identification.

They gave similar ratings to all six guitars, while blinded tests by 31 of the same guitarists indicated that they could not easily distinguish the guitars by their sound or feel.

==================
Even if there were a difference, I don't think anyone is justified in killing rare trees to make guitar backs from them.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,Ray
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 12:35 PM

Some of us will remember the endless arguments over whether Gibson guitars sound better than Martins.

The truth is, and my guitar collection is well into double figures, that all guitars sound “DIFFERENT”. Whether one sounds better than another is entirely subjective and entirely in the mind of whoever is listening to it.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 12:55 PM

GUEST's opinion on the factor of tone developing in the wood over time can be given some anecdotal credence from what I was told by staff at Ivor Mairants in London, many years ago.

"If buying a Martin buy it at least a year before you need to start playing it in earnest, and just `bash the hell out of it' during that time to wake it up."


Make of that what you like But I can believe the possibility that it might take time for assembled wooden components to start to resonate more sympathetically - and with a discernable tonal difference - than they do just after assembly.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 01:15 PM

I've commissioned 3 custom guitars over the years - all from the same luthier and all from different woods. All three "woke up" after bring played regularly. After about a year, they all sounded more resonant, warmer in tone and louder. New guitars need the wood to vibrate, and vibration is caused by playing.

I've just bought a 22-year old Lowden - huge volume and resonance, absolute clarity across the bass/treble range, and lots of projection. That's a guitar that had truly woken up.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 23 Jan 19 - 06:37 PM

Gibson has walnut editions of all their well-known acoustic models (J-45, Hummingbird, J-200). They're priced quite a bit less than their mahogany and rosewood cousins.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,Jerry
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 04:19 AM

All very interesting, but how experienced/accomplished were the guitarists, I wonder. Presumably, they were playing acoustically or not through amplification. Most seasoned players can hear the difference between say maple (typically used by Gibson), and redwood (famously used by Martin). Fingerstyle players will notice the different response from say mahogany or cedar, particularly in the bass, compared to maple or redwood, and some can even detect differences with the woods used for the neck and fingerboard.
I can’t say that I can detect such subtle differences myself, but I can certainly hear the difference between say a wooden and an orchestral flute, so I really don’t think it’s all down to manufacturer hype and the snobbery of performers. Other things affect the sound of course, such as the size and shape of the body, thickness of the varnish, etc and in my case the age and quality of the strings on the instrument at the time. Out of interest, there are loads of comparison tests on YouTube for guitars, banjos, mandolins, etc. but you need good headphones to detect the differences in sound between them.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: beachcomber
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 09:17 AM

Somewhat off thread, for which I beg excusement, but I recently bought a new "Parlour" size guitar from HB Guitars. It has quite a good tone apart from the two bass strings which , understandably, sound a bit "thin".
Do any of you expert guitar people know of any combination of different guage strings, or any other physical modification, that might improve this , even to a small degree ?

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: gillymor
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 09:21 AM

Here's an article by noted luthier Dana Bourgeois (I'm lucky enough to own one of his instruments) published in 1994 in which he seems to opine that the top wood is the most important factor in determining the tonal quality of an instrument, at least as far as tonewoods go. From the article:

"Each part of the guitar seems to play a role, be it significant or subtle, in determining the tonal characteristics of the instrument. In very general terms, the top, or soundboard, seems to affect the guitar’s responsiveness, the quickness of its attack, its sustain, some of its overtone coloration, and the strength and quality of each note’s fundamental tone. Most luthiers (but not all) believe that the wood chosen for the top is the single overriding variable that determines the quality of tone of a finished instrument."

The two acoustic guitars that I play these days have Adirondack tops, they are very different in size and tonal characteristics but it's what I've come down to after 40+ years of playing and owning and trying out numerous instruments. Adirondack (or Red Spruce) is acutally increasing in availability in recent years. It seems that more and more makers are offering it at reasonable prices while 20 or so years ago it was kind of rare in all but vintage and very high end instruments and was offered as a very expensive upgrade.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: gillymor
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 09:43 AM

Re parlor guitar strings, I once owned a 0-sized Martin and after trying out a lot of different string sets I finally settled on D'Addario custom lights 80/20 Bronze which at .011-.052 had heavier bass strings than most extra light sets. You might want to check with the builder and see what he/she recommends, you sure don't want to string it too heavy.
Disclaimer: I'm no expert just a long time guitar enthusiast.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: John P
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 10:46 AM

A big reason to not get a guitar made of endangered wood is that you probably won't be able to travel across any borders with it.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: beachcomber
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 10:49 AM

Thanks for your note gillymor.
You seem to be saying that different strings should help ?

A set of MARTIN strings have been installed originally, these are :   1st = .010 to 5th = .039 and 6th = .047.

I'm wondering if I were to change the 5th and 6th to slightly heavier guage, would you say that might possibly help too ?

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: gillymor
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 11:33 AM

beachcomber, I would first and foremost check with the builder to find out what they recommend for string gauges for that particular guitar model. Smaller guitars usually have smaller bridges with smaller footprints (i.e. less gluing surface) and too heavy a string could lift up the bridge or the top or screw up the neck and none of those situations are desirable. When you find out what is tolerable then start experimenting with heavier bass strings. Silk and Steel with it's lighter tension in the wound strings when tuned to pitch are an option and sound good on some guitars.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: beachcomber
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 12:09 PM

thank you very much gillymor, i will bear your advice in mind and email the supplier first before attempting any string change. thanks again.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,johnmc
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 01:39 PM

I wonder if anyone else is, like me, "sold" on the sound of the dreadnought guitar, irrespective
of make or construction. I know some smaller guitars are nice for fingerpicking and that archtops have their strengths, but for sheer versatility and sound balance they are my preference. Jumbos are unwieldy, I fear. So, as regards woods used, that is a secondary
consideration.
   Amplification and mics I am taking out of the equation too. And, of course, how new the strings are.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 06:46 PM

Will Fly: Please post some videos with your Lowden as soon as you can!

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 06:58 PM

I own about 700 sqf of Philipean Nara/Mohagony 1.5" thick, solid. Aged for 60 years.

At one time ....we concidered making them into three "grand father clocks"...one for each son. Time and death interviened.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 24 Jan 19 - 07:18 PM

Whether it is a lute....
         ok a fine tuned skate...
or a tobaggon on a down-hill-run.

So much demends,
       upon chickens
beside a red wheel-barrow,
      glazed with rain....

Sincerly,
Gargoyle
Black-Ice.....glazed with rain...is dangeros....drive safe.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Jan 19 - 04:10 AM

michaelr - my YouTube channel is at:

Will Fly's YouTube channel

The last 4 videos made feature the Lowden.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jan 19 - 05:20 AM

I hope to god that research wasn't done with public money.

Any musician with a few years under his belt could explain that it doesn't work like that.

Over a period of years i put together my album - which I reckoned was probably going to be the testimony I left behind as to my existence on this earth.

I bought the guitar that sounded best to me in the shop, and I selected a beautifully designed medium priced Yamaha.

I suppose it took maybe a decade to realise that i should have looked harder and put my great work down on a solid wood guitar. just would have been better. the resolution of the notes.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Jan 19 - 11:27 PM

Will Fly -- PM sent.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 19 - 04:45 PM

Gargoyle... Philippine Mahogany is not usually called 'nara'...Most wood from there is usually Meranti... not a true Mahogany.

If what you have is "Narra" it is also not Mahogany, but much more expensive Pterocarpus indicus... the tree which produces the VERY expensive Amboyna burl.

Mahogany is either from Honduras...or rarely Cuba... or is one of the 1st cousins, African Mahogany....


Here is the lowdown on Philippene Mahogany
And more guide to stuff called Mahogany
One simply cannot trust common or trade names when referring to wood, as retailers want names that people are familiar with, whether the wood is cheap or rare & expensive. I have spent much of the last 20 years with or following the IWCS...International Wood Collectors Society... and chatted with some of world's experts.

Here is the absolute best WWW site to see images of lumber properly identified http://hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 26 Jan 19 - 07:16 PM

Thank You BILL D

This will take some serious reading.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

sustainability

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,Fyldeplayer
Date: 27 Jan 19 - 09:10 AM

Shopping from new is hard - I helped a friend buy a Mid range Sigma, the two in shop were fairly different. He made a good choice with my help. However when I attend his singaround in poorly lit room I can't tell if he has bought the Sigma or the exact same shape Martin, both well played in. Even spending couple of quid more on strings makes a difference - not always better! I sometimes use core contact and they bring out a whole new range of frequencies. The human ear can be fickle, sometimes I prefer the sound of my Recording King ROS 16 over the Oberon ( not often! ). Also the same guitar can sound different in other hands.

Subject: RE: Endangered wood is pointless for guitars
From: GUEST,Mike Rogers
Date: 27 Jan 19 - 09:29 AM

For what it's worth I've always considered that among the many things that influence a guitar's sound, the wood used for the top was more important than the back and sides, not least because the bridge is mounted on the top. Some will say that the grain of the wood can make a difference, both when new and after years of age. All my acoustics sound quite different.