Help: against the grain (of guitar faces)

Subject: against the grain
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:28 AM

A musical question (for a change)
Over the years I have noticed that guitars have a wide variety of grain size in the face. Seems to me that the wider the grain, the louder the sound. Any comments?

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Bert
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:36 AM

I would think that the most important things that determine loudness would be size of body, thickness of the face and the bracing.

Structurally, I would think that the grain has little or no effect. If it does anythingI would think that it would tend to make a guitar quieter, all other things being equal.

It is quite likely though that luthiers tend to choose wider grained wood for larger guitars. This would then definately have the effect that you have observed.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: 53
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:52 AM

i haven't noticed yet, but thanks for the tip.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Hollowfox
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 02:00 PM

Guest, Kendall, if that's you, Kendall Morse, why don't you just ask Nick Apollonio or Gordon Bok, and pass the answer back to the rest of us?

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 04:49 PM

Because I want the opinions of a group of musicians.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Justa Picker
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 05:21 PM

From what I've read, discussed with Martin people, and other luthiers, and from my own experience, and for the sake of this post assuming we're just talking spruce tops (i.e. Adirnodack, Sitka), is that wider grain will allow the instrument to open up sooner, and also yield a brighter, sharper and more resonant sound. Tighter grained tops (i.e. Engleman) will have a darker, mellower sound and take longer to open up. I have guitars with Sitka, Adirondack and Engleman tops, and have largely found this to be true at least in my experience...but the bottom line is that they all sound great.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 05:54 PM

My youngest brother has a 1958 Martin D-18. It has a very wide grain, and, it is the loudest acoustic I have ever heard. My Apollonio 12 has a tight grain, redwood, and is very mellow.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 07:21 PM

Here is a peach. Here is an apple. Here is a pear. They all have fleshy fruit. They all taste different though.

Kendall, you cannot compare redwood to spruce and then throw in grain.

Finer grain is generally stronger and you'll notice that the finnest grain on most tops is at the center joint. The three most common spruces have similar grain patterns, but most people look for 10-25 per inch and reasonably similar across the top. Englemann is usually cut from billets and so the grain patteren is more even. Remember that what you're looking at are the annular rings and so the narrower the grain the closer it is to the center of the tree. There are so damn many other factors involved here in building an instrument that the question of whether 20/inch is better than 10/inch in sound quality or whatever is so far out as to be a freakin' non-issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can just see it now..........Another friggin' myth is started and somehow invades the mysterious and sacred mythological world of guitars. Gawd help us, ain't we got enough of that crap already?!?!??!?

geeziz...

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 07:37 PM

Damn you Spaw, you beat me to it, and said it better than I could have.

As a matter of interest, however, has anyone else ever seen a Martin with the WIDE grain to the center of the soundboard? I used to own a 12-fret D28-S (circa 1972) which had a soundboard so constructed.

I know Martin was going through a dodgy period then, and this may just have been carelessness on the part of an operative (the underside of the soundboard was straight off the bandsaw, unsanded.)

Every other Martin I have ever seen has been bookmatched conventionally, but who knows, someone out there may own one like mine.

\murray

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: CaptainLewis
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:57 PM

In addition to all of the above, the soft bands o the grain are what will "deteriorate" first. Studies on older Stratavarius violins show that the softer grain bands start having microscopic porosities, which while it technically compromises the structural integrity of the wood itself, contributes substantially to the "improved" sound of the instrument. This is due to mellowness caused by the dampening effect of the porosities on the transient harmonics in the wood.

Or so I've been told.

;-)

CLB

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 09:08 PM

Calm down Spaw, I dont know diddly about this, and, if you dont mind, I'd like to find out! Geeze...

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:46 PM

Kendall my man, I ain't upset and I can apprecaite anyone wanting to learn...I know I want to learn too. Whenn you are trying to learn though, you need to be sure your basic idea has as few parameters as possible. So many things are variables here that it gets kinda' tough to say how much one small thing weighs in comparison to the whole. Grain width is a pea in the Grand Canyon or a pee in the Ohio River....your choice. But there are souls out there who read things like this or look at a couple of instruments and make some decision and it spreads like wildfire until people begin to believe it's gospel.

Here's a case in point.

A lot of people (maybe you) believe that the satin finishes allow more sound because they are thinner and let the sound come through without all that "heavy, glossy, varnish." This is a favorite of Clinton Hammond, but it is widely believed. It's complete bullshit. First, most finishes are lacquer, not varnish, but more to the point..........ANY finish applied past a certain thickness will begin to affect tone. However, satins (lo-gloss/non-gloss) are no thinner than high-gloss and indeed may be a bit heavier.

High Gloss lacquer is shot in multiple coats and then sanded and buffed which removes a bit of the lacquer. The sanding and buffing is required not to make it glossier, but to level the finish. If you have ever looked at an unsanded and unbuffed high-gloss, you can visually see this.....no micrometer needed. All of this is very labor intensive and easily flawed.

The Low-Gloss/Satins have an additive in them which actually fills some pores (not good, but not enough to matter) and is self leveling! You shoot it, it's done. Kills off a lot of time and time is money. It has nothing to do with sound quality and if it did, low-gloss is potentially more detrimental to sound.

Don't believe me? Go check it out with Frank Ford, one of the very best, at Frets.Com It's a great site to just read and talk about learning........

Grain? Within certain parameters....no big deal.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 09:19 AM

Geez, ask him what time it is, he tells you how to build a clock! I had no thought of starting a myth. All I was asking was, has anyone any thoughts on the difference between grain width in guitars? I'm not interested in thickness of laquer, or bracing etc. I ask a simple question and get a F*****g pageant!

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Hollowfox
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 12:00 PM

Now *That's* a pageant they'd have no trouble selling tickets to!

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: mooman
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 12:01 PM

...and I haven't even thrown in my pennyworth yet!

By and large though I agree with 'Spaw though I personally believe the consistency in denseness of the tonewood and the quality of its preparation, e.g. drying and thicknessing, are important rather than the grain (or annual ring) count. I have instruments with very wide and very narrow grained spruce tops and some with somethiong in between and I don't believe it makes a significant difference. Consistency, thickness of the top, design and shape of the instrument, quality of build, glues, hardware, type of bracing including scalloping or not and combination of tonewood and body wood and general dimensions, not to mention the dynamics introduced by the stringing and player are all probably more important.

Like 'Spaw says, a multiplicity of factors are at work here all of which result in a poor, passable or true "killer" instrument.

As I said on the mahogany thread, maybe we should start a "permathread" on this sort of stuff? There's certainly a lot of expertise here that could be be shared to the common good!

Best regards

mooman

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 07:44 PM

You guys should get a job in a bra factory. Making mountains out of molehills.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 07:49 PM

Well hell Kendall, you're the one that asked!!! We're just trying to give you an answer.(:<))

Or maybe you didn't want to know?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 10:01 PM

A brand new preacher took a job in a small Maine town. His first Sunday came, and only one person was there. He didn't know what to do, so, he asked the old fella if he should preach anyway, and, the old fella, being a typical Mainer couldn't answer him directly said, "If I took a load of hay to the pasture, and only one cow showed up, I'd still feed her." Naturally, the preacher thought he wanted his sermon. so, he gave him one. A full lenght, two hour sermon, for one person. When he had finished, he asked the old fella, "What did you think of my sermon"? Old fella says "If I took a load of hay to the pasture, and only one cow showed up, I wouldn't giver her the whole damn load"!

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Oct 01 - 10:15 PM

Gee, why not?

I mean a few of the cow's friends might show up or even some old buddies from an adjoining pasture. Then of course there's the thought that the cow may be pregnant too and actually eating for two. Then if those other cows that showed up later and the ones from the next pasture too were also pregnant, why then they'd be eating for two also. Consider also that the farmer may decide to take a run to the stockyard and purchase a few more head. All of this being the case, he'd be a damn fool not to drop the whole load and save a trip back to the barn and all..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: mooman
Date: 26 Oct 01 - 03:45 AM

'Spaw...

In Maine that'd be "against the grain"!

mooman

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: kendall
Date: 26 Oct 01 - 07:52 PM

AAAAARRRRRGGGG I CANT STAND IT! My stomache hurts.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: Bert
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 12:17 PM

Kendall's pain goes 'Maine'ly against the grai-ain.

Subject: RE: Help: againt the grain
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Oct 01 - 12:34 PM

I tend to agree with Justa's point earlier.

The observation made within the parameters of spruce types and why they seem to sound different.

But I will say that I think that the term "opening up" is prone to misunderstanding because what in theory is actually happening (according to a luthier I know) is that the tension inherent in the building, especially where the curve of the bridge meets the curve of the top, is relaxing. This allows the top to vibrate more freely.

The reason I say that the term "opening up" is misleading is that it is a term arrived at by an aural sense that the sound was "airier". But it leads one to conclude by choice of words that somehow the wood itself is becoming pourous (opening up) and lettiing more sound out.

So, I would guess that a wider grain (top thickness being equal) will allow the tension to relax more quickly. Therefore, if you translate that "broken-in-ness" to seem louder, you will likely conclude that, yes, wider grain, when comparing equal varieties of wood, will be louder.