Conference napalm::guitar

    
    	Woods, like any other materials for building things out of,
    have many mechanical properties. Different woods, of course, have
    different properties, which can be made use of depending on what
    you want for the behavior of a structure such as a guitar body.
    
    	Probably the most obvious property is density. Woods such as
    "pine" arent very dense, whereas some of the more exotics like
    "Brazillian rosewood" or "koa" are probably very dense. This density
    is exploited to make a guitar body very heavy, giving better sustain,
    for a given shape that can only contain so much material - like the 
    classic "strat" bodyshape.
    
    	A more subtle property is called "Q". It's a resonance quality
    factor; wood on a marimba has a high "Q" and thus the bars "ring"
    when you hit them. Well, guitar bodies also can ring, which I always
    thought was a characteristic of Gibson instruments. However, it
    is debatable whether you *want* your electric guitar's body to ring
    or to be somewhat "dead" - in and of itself.
    
    	I suspect that by layering a number of different woods in the
    construction of a guitar body, you can generate a structure that
    has properties that cannot be obtained through the use of one single
    wood type. For example, it is non resonant, sustains well but doesnt 
    weigh a ton, is also extremely strong and stiff, and has whatever
    "finish" on top and in back that you want.
    
    	Joe Jas

    There are many woods suitable for making musical instruments.
    The standards (Mahagony, maple, rosewood, ebony, spruce, cedar)
    were selected for tonality as well is looks. They are all fine
    grained woods. Heavily grained woods have never been used much
    for making instruments. I guess the early luthiers ruled them
    out either because of undesirable tones, looks, or construction
    problems. I always wondered why you don't see oak instruments !!
    
    As far as I know Fender used Ashe because it was growing in abundance
    in California, and could be purchased cheap. Since Fender was setting
    the style anyways, they chose to use an inexpensive wood that was
    functional acceptable, and cover over it with opaque/semi opaque
    finishes like blonde, sunburst, and Dupont colors. 
    
    As far as the subtle differences between woods go, it is really
    a subjective decision whether one sounds better than another.
    Actually none of them sound better, just differant. Exotic woods
    are used mainly because they are pretty, as apposed to sound 
    reasons. Although there may be some sound considerations, most
    people buy exotic wooden instruments because of the beautiful
    looks more than the sweet sound. If I am going to pay over $1000
    for a guitar, it damn well better feature a nice natural wooden
    finish. That's why I can't see spending big bucks on an instrument
    with a a fancy graphic paintjob. Paint has traditionally been 
    used to cover over plain woods. 
    
    The laminations used on some of the more exotic instruments are
    simply an extention of the art. Since quarter-sawn logs are not
    wide enough to make a guitar body in one piece, 2-3 piece instruments
    have been the standard. Since manufacturers have been making neck
    through body instruments, the laminations have become more
    complicatied, and more ornate.
    
    that will be 2c, please.
    
    Mark
    
    
    

   > Actually none of them sound better, just differant. Exotic woods
   > are used mainly because they are pretty, as apposed to sound 
   > reasons. Although there may be some sound considerations, most
   > people buy exotic wooden instruments because of the beautiful
   > looks more than the sweet sound. If I am going to pay over $1000
    

    You're talking about *electric* guitars, right?   Most serious players
    of acoustic instruments (that I know) don't give a dime what the
    thing looks like, if it has the right sound.  But then you didn't
    say anything about *serious* players, did you?  You may be right.
    
    Bob

    As far as I'm concerned, anyone that enjoys music, and invests
    their time and money into it (whether they are into it on a pro-
    fessional, semi-pro, or hobby level) can be considered serious
    musicians. I have a problem with people suggesting that only
    working musicians playing a certain type of music are serious.
    
    When it comes to acoustic instruments, sound is first and fourmost
    in my book, but I like an instrument to look good as well, especially
    if I am paying a high price for it. It better look as good as it
    sounds.
           
    I was referring to electic guitars, since the Base note seems
    to be directed towards solid-body electrics. The people that
    were involved with inventing the solid body guitar (Les Paul,
    Paul Bigsby, Leo Fender, etc.) were all using hard solid wood
    bodies to eliminate resonance almost entirely. The idea was to
    eliminate problems with feedback associated with amplifying
    hollow instruments. This was the whole idea behind Les Pauls
    "log" guitar which was constructed from a railroad tie.
    
    Over the years, luthiers have found a happy medium point where a
    guitar could be feedback-free, and still have some natural acoustic
    properties. An example would be a Gibson ES335 which has a solid
    core with hollow wings. The wings are not just for looks. They
    give the instrument it's tone, while the solid center prevents
    the pickups from "booming".
    
    Naturally, all woods have their own characteristic tone, but whether
    wood A is better than wood B is very subjective. I have seen numerous
    people that believe rosewood is best for acoustic guitars. I recently
    read an interview with Leo Kottke. He believes that mahogony is
    best. Who's opinion counts ? Everyones' opinion counts, but the one
    opinion that counts the most is the person playing/buying the
    instrument.
    
    Again this is just my humble opinion. Of course, I am not really a 
    "serious" musician.
              
    Mark Jacques
    

    A lot of what is "better" in wood depends on the use. Many bluegrass
    players use D-28's because the rosewood bodies are loud, ringing,
    and full-bodied, but a studio player will more likely use a mahogany
    bodied D-18 for its tighter, more controllable sound.
    
    The top, back, sides, and neck of an acoustic guitar contribute
    to the sound in that order. The quality of the top and the method
    and quality of bracing or carving probably outweigh all the other
    choices put together as to whether a guitar will sound "good" or
    not.
    
    However, no one has ever made a great acoustic archtop out of anything
    but maple for the body and spruce for the top, though there are
    some good electric archtops with birch sides. Once you add built-in
    pickups, there is a lot more flexibilty: for example, some of the
    best-sounding electric archtops use laminated maple. The laminations
    reduce the boominess caused by low-frequency feedback.
    
    As to how much effect the choice of woods has on a solidbody, I
    think that pickup variations tends to be an overriding factor, but
    all things being equal, a discerning ear can hear the difference
    between a mahogany and a maple body, or even a rosewood vs an ebony
    vs a maple fingerboard, but...
    
    Things are almost never equal. A good example is that Gibson built
    Goldtops mostly with maple tops, but sometimes used LP custom bodies
    instead, which were all mahogany in the 50's. At the time, no one
    noticed.
    
    Danny W.

    re .5
    
    Pretty interesting stuff about archtop construction.  I'd argue
    with you on the fact that no-one "noticed" the differences between
    mahogany and maple top LP's though.  I'm sure some people did.
    Plenty of people are hip to the fact that even Strats made of the
    same wood (alder) vary significantly in weight and sound.  Some
    folks care about this sort of thing, some folks don't.
    
    /rick

    Rick
    
    I used the past tense intentionally. Players in the late '50's were
    far less analytical about instruments than now. Remember, there
    were no guitar publications, no guitar books, no how-to videos,
    no vintage dealers.
    
    There were only a handful of manufacturers: Gibson, Guild, Gretsch,
    Epiphone, Rick, Fender and Harmony. Few players knew what type of wood
    a Strat or Tele was made of. I knew players who assumed that an LP Custom
    had a maple top because it was more expensive than a Standard. There
    was no way to experiment: all the hardware was produced by either
    the guitar companies, or companies like Kluson, which only dealt
    with the manufacturers.
    
    The whole explosion of solidbody makers in the '70's can be laid
    to the fact that it became possible to buy high-quality hardware
    "over-the-counter", meaning that anyone with a saw and some wood
    could build a guitar. Up to that point, there was little
    experimentation with different woods, pickups, construction techniques,
    etc, outside of what the major makers had done.
    
    There was little interest from most players in "sound" in general,
    until the mid-'60's. Looks and feel tended to be the primary
    influences for rock players. Consider that Chuck Berry used an ES-350T
    and Scotty Moore used an L5-CES, despite the fact that there were
    Les Pauls and Teles in existence that were more suited to the music
    they were making, but these players were too  used to the feel
    of their traditional type guitars to switch.
    
    Most players then knew that Strats ,LPs, Chets and Capris
    sounded different from each other, but the structural,hardware and pickup
    differences were more than enough to explain that without worrying
    about the type of wood.
    
    One other point: Fender used Alder for all most guitar bodies, unless
    they were Blonde, in which case the prettier-grained Ash was used.
    I never heard anyone back then state that the Blonde ones sounded different,
    but they obviously did.
                                                 
    Danny W

   >           I have a problem with people suggesting that only
   > working musicians playing a certain type of music are serious.
    
    I've certainly never suggested that.  My definition of a serious
    musician is one who takes his/her music seriously for a serious
    length of time.  My point was that, of the serious acoustic players 
    I know, most really don't consider appearance in choosing a guitar.  
    Some tend to prefer the rosewood sound, some prefer mahogany.  But
    it takes some experience to appreciate the differences, and most
    guitars are probably not bought by people with that appreciation.
    
    Bob
    

    No offense taken. My point is that some great guitarists are very
    analytical about thier instruments and other great guitarists
    are not. An example would be David Gilmore of Pink Floyd. Certainly
    David Gimore is a serious guitarist, however, he isn't too fussy
    about his Stratocasters. He believes he can walk into most any
    music store, pull a Strat off the rack, and a couple of effects
    and an amp, and he can get "his" sound. Other Guitarists have 
    analyzed the instrument and their playing style to the nth degree
    and can notice the slightest differance in their gear. I could
    probably walk into most music stores, choose an acoustic off the
    shelf and be content with it. Others have to have an instrument
    custom made to their specs or they are not comfortable.
                                           
    To each his own. 
    
    Mark Jacques
    
    

    Okay let's get this one straight...
    The wood of a solid body is the critical thing on the guitar,I suggest
    checking out Melvyn Hiscock's book "Build your own guitar".
    The wood affects the sustain capabilities of a guitar which is why
    Fender tend to use Ash or Alder bodies (soft bodies) with a rock
    maple neck to get the distinctive sound.
    Apparently the choice of Ash for the original Broadcaster guitar
    was because it looked good on monochrome TV but I don't know if
    this is an old wives tale or not.
    There is a distinct difference between the earlier and latter Gibson
    335s,the earlier ones having a mahogony neck have a far mellower
    tone. 
    Another good example are the Walnut Strats produced in the early
    80's by Fender.
    The best source of info on this subject is a guitar builder,someone
    who's living depends on their knowledge of the subject.
 
    I have a Telcaster made out of basewood,with macau ash veneer and
    a Birds eye maple neck and a Strat made entirely out of Bubinga.
    
    I also have some unexotic guitars.
    
    Regards
    Jeff Jansen
    A serious electric guitar player
    

    Jeff:
    
    You have to work on your Gibson lore--current 335's have mahogany
    necks.
    
    Danny W

    Interesting Danny I must admit that I haven't picked up a 335 for
    some years...
    When did they change back?
    Regards
    Jeff Jansen

    Interesting note!  Based on resonating qualities and the quality
    of wood, which of the 4 configurations below would result in the
    better sounding/playing acoustic?
    
    1.  Top = Solid Spruce          2.  Top = Spruce
        Back & Side = Rosewood          Back & Side = Nato
        Bridge = Rosewood               Bridge = Rosewood
        Fingerboard = Rosewood          Fingerboard = Rosewood
        Neck = Mahogany                 Neck = Nato
    
    3.  Top = Spruce                4.  Top = Mahogany
        Back & Side = Royal Cherry      Back & Side = Mahogany
        Bridge = Rosewood               Bridge = Rosewood
        Fingerboard = Rosewood          Fingerboard = Rosewood        
        Neck = Mahogany                 Neck = Mahogany

    # 1. (IMHO, Brazilian Rosewood would give you the best sound). 
     dep

    
    Re: .14
    
    #1 is the classic Martin D-28 combination, although if you substitute
    mahogany for the back and sides you get the D-18.

    If the Martin sound is what you like, that's the way to go.  
    
    One reason a lot of folks have switched away from rosewood for backs
    and sides is that it's hard to come by in large enough pieces, thus
    the 3-piece back on a Martin D-35.

    Brian, I find that interesting!  All of the 4 options I posted in
    .14 are from the Takamine catalog.
    
    Mike

Re: .14

While the wood does make a difference, I would think that the size and 
construction techniques would make a bigger difference.  I have been considering
having a custom Martin built.  Here are some of my thoughts:

The top is where much of the sound is produced.  The mahogany top of choice 4)
in note .14 would not be anywhere near the best choice.  There seem to be 
several types of spruce.  Martin uses primarily Sitka spruce but a whiter
German(?) spruce is also used.  I have hear some people say that they can hear
a difference.  I have noticed that the guitars that I have liked have tended
to have close, evenly spaced grain.

Perhaps more important that the wood on the top is the bracing underneath.  I
think that you can hear the difference with scalloped bracing.  The wood used
for the bridge plate can be a number of things (maple and rosewood seem to come
up often).  And then there is the tuning/voicing of the top.  I understand that
Martin does not "voice" individual instruments.  I understand that they have
an arrangement with some famous guitarist and a master guitar builder whereby 
Martin does the assembly and lets the master builder choose the wood and to the 
voicing of each top and instrument.  I don't know how or if you could get Martin
to have a particular top "voiced" or if this would be worth the trouble.

I have a preference for rosewood for the sides and back.  Brazilian rosewood
seems to have the best reputation and is very pretty and expensive.  I am a firm
believer in 2 piece backs.  I owned a Martin with a 3 piece back and thought 
the tone was too mellow.

None of the choices for fingerboards in .14 were ebony which I think is the way
to go.

Mahogany necks seem to be the standard for the highest quality instruments.  I
have wondered why Rosewood is never used.  It would be prettier - I suspect that
it may not have quite as good structural characteristics.  I might be willing
to do some minimal periodic neck adjustment for the aestetics of the prettier 
neck.  I suspect that the difference in the sound created would be minimal to
nil.  

Then there is the body size.  I have been playing Martin D size for many years.
This size has the volume and is excellent for blue-grass types.  Some people 
think that the smaller instruments such as the 000 or OM have a better sound
(clearer with more high frequencies).  At the same time, jumbo guitars seem to
be the new rage at Martin.

I have recently sent my D-28 back to Martin to have the neck reset and some 
other minor work.  I bought it new in '73 and this will be the first work I
have had done on it.  I am looking forward to getting it back and seeing what
the level of work is like.  I was told by one of the people at the Music
Emporium that Martin likes seeing older instuments in excellent condition 
returned for minor work from the orginal owners. 

	Another top wood to consider is redwood. A number of luthiers
	are building guitars with redwood tops & have found them to
	be as good as any Sitka Spruce top that they have used. I played
	one a few years ago (a shop in the Seattle area had one), and
	I liked the sound (ie, clear and warm), more like spruce than
	mahogany.

	Why are so many necks made out of Honduras Mahogany?? Because its
	a very stable and strong wood, and it's also easy to work and
	gives a warmer tone to the guitar. Maple necks tend to make the
	guitar too bright. A Rosewood neck is possible (and occasionally
	done on solid body guitars), but I'd think it too heavy and
	unstable (ebony, when dry is quite stable, rosewood is not bad,
	but Mahogany and Maple are more stable) as well as too expensive
	to do except on special order cases.

							Jens

>	Another top wood to consider is redwood. A number of luthiers
>	are building guitars with redwood tops & have found them to
>	be as good as any Sitka Spruce top that they have used. I played


I believe that's what is also referred to as western red cedar, used as the 
top in most Ramirez classical guitars.  I've found - in my non-statistical 
sample - that cedar tops give a slightly darker/warmer tone than spruce.
Luthiers have told me that spruce takes longer to 'settle in' than cedar.

If a steel-string guitar is well made and voiced, then the choice of rosewood 
vs mahogany is just a matter of taste.  Rosewood is a more expensive wood 
mainly because of its appearance.  The case of classical guitars is harder to
judge since there are so few high-quality mahogany instruments made.  

Pierre Bensusan plays a mahogany guitar and loves it.

Bob

I spoke with a large Martin dealer yesterday about the new model from Martin,
the HD-28MP Morado.  This guitar is identical to the HD-28 except that it is 
made out of Bolivian rosewood (and $141 cheaper).  This person said that India
had put an embargo on India rosewood tree exports, that Indian rosewood would
soon go the way of Brazilian rosewood and that Martin was buying all of the 
Indian (and Brazilian) rosewood available.  She said to expect Indian rosewood
to become an extra charge option in the future (3 years??) and that the price
of Brazilian rosewood to climb out of sight ($2500 extra over "standard" 
rosewood).  This dealer had heard that the Bolivian rosewood was not quite 
as nice sounding as the Indian or Brazilian wood.

Has anyone heard anything about limits on the availability of Indian rosewood?
Brazilian rosewood does seem to be getting quite scarce.

Jim

    Here's one for the members of this conference to discuss: what is it
    about wood in an acoustic guitar that, after time, creates a "mellower"
    sound? The sticker on Washburn acosutics says "IMPROVES WITH AGE" or
    somesuch.
    
    And what of electrics? Can they, too, be expected to improve with age
    because of wood changes? 
    
    I'm really baffled by this!
    

Most wood in acoustic guitars is aged before it goes into the guitar.  While I
suspect there may be some changes in the wood, the biggest changes occur in the
setting of the glue and lacquer finish.  I expect the same would be true for 
electrics, only that the change would be less noticeable.

Jim