Everything Matters.

[Eagle]

Here is a quote that pretty much sums it up correctly.
“For me, the species is less relevant than the qualities of the wood. Those qualities are: length of time the wood rings when you hit it, the amount of water remaining in the wood after it is dried, the resins in the wood being crystallised/not gooey, the ability to have strength as necessary (i.e., a fretboard needs to be resistant to sweating, whereas back wood doesn’t), its ability to not warp over time, and its aesthetic appeal.

“A magic guitar can be made of many different types of wood, but those woods need to have certain qualities and need to be handled correctly throughout the manufacturing process. So to me, woods matter.”

He adds, “To me, if wood doesn’t matter, then logically it follows that the material the bridge is made of doesn’t matter and the material the nut is made of doesn’t matter. What I believe, because of scores of experiences, is that if we make two identical guitars out of different woods, the guitars will sound different from each other. Then, if we exchange all the parts from guitar A and guitar B – the tuning pegs, nut, electronics, bridge – they would sound almost the same as they did, and still different from each other…

“Bottom line, to throw away one of the main ingredients for making instruments because the internet says ‘it doesn’t make any difference’ is, to me, like saying dead strings, rubber bridges, soft finishes, and wet woods make no difference. With all due respect, I don’t buy it.”

The misinterpretation of the meaning of “tone wood “ being a particular group of types of wood is the main problem when this comes up as an issue.
If a guitar doesn’t ring out and sustain no amount of pickups is going to make it.
Everything Matters.

 

[laxu]

I agree with that.

"Tone wood" is a marketing term. There's nothing particular about e.g Honduran mahogany or Brazilian rosewood that makes those woods somehow sound better in a guitar. Aesthetically pleasing? Absolutely! There's plenty of guitars, especially acoustics, made from e.g more sustainable wood species that sound just fine, and just as good as any traditionally favored woods.

That Jim Lill video is taken as gospel all over the Internet, but his "air guitar" is basically two workbenches acting as a big headstock and body. Those workbenches are made of wood and metal...not unlike what an actual guitar would have.

 

[Eagle]

Yes tho

I agree with that.

"Tone wood" is a marketing term. There's nothing particular about e.g Honduran mahogany or Brazilian rosewood that makes those woods somehow sound better in a guitar. Aesthetically pleasing? Absolutely! There's plenty of guitars, especially acoustics, made from e.g more sustainable wood species that sound just fine, and just as good as any traditionally favored woods.

That Jim Lill video is taken as gospel all over the Internet, but his "air guitar" is basically two workbenches acting as a big headstock and body. Those workbenches are made of wood and metal...not unlike what an actual guitar would have.

Yes those videos are unbelievably dumb.

 

[FuzzyAce]

There's nothing particular about e.g Honduran mahogany or Brazilian rosewood that makes those woods somehow sound better in a guitar. Aesthetically pleasing? Absolutely!

"Sound better" will always be subjective to a point, but there are reasons these species are prized for instrument making and it isn't based solely on looks. They do have general acoustic properties that can be utilized to get closer to a desired tonal goal and outcome. Wood can be unpredictable but there are traits within wood species (of a geographical region) that are in a range of predictability. Knowing those nuances and how best to apply them in instrument construction is what separates the great luthiers from the good ones. I'm certain there are also luthiers that have made exceptional instruments using only hickory wood, oak, cherry, cypress, pine etc. and that is because they know those species in great detail. If not, then it would be a total guessing game and pure luck to have an amazing sounding instrument... construction techniques aside. Not always a bad thing but I think having knowledge of wood species can make those experiments more successful and predictable.

I think it can be broken down into basic sections:
-strings plucked under tension and connected to wood will become amplified
-certain species and cuts of wood sustain notes longer or shorter and have inherent resonant qualities, and are louder, quieter, etc.
-how the strings are anchored, scale length, and amount of tension applied will affect those qualities further

Very general, and this is all before electronics are introduced.
But yes, everything matters. Even the species of wood. Knowing HOW to construct an instrument matters more though.

 

[laxu]

"Sound better" will always be subjective to a point, but there are reasons these species are prized for instrument making and it isn't based solely on looks. They do have general acoustic properties that can be utilized to get closer to a desired tonal goal and outcome.

I don't agree with that. I actually own a Les Paul style Heatley Tradition with Honduras mahogany and Brazilian rosewood. It isn't in some upper echelon of tone compared to similar guitars with more pedestrian mahogany or rosewood varieties.

Brazilian rosewood looks great, it's this swirly, chocolate brown color that looks just right. But I don't believe it sounds better.

To drive the point further, I also own a Flaxwood Rautia that is made of injection molded spruce fiber and resin. The body is a PRS-ish fully hollowbody because otherwise it would be on the heavy side. The material looks and feels kind of like ebony but with occasional flakes in it. It sounds just as good as any of my traditional wood guitars, and tonewise is probably somewhere in the PRS direction as well. I don't think I have ever adjusted its truss rod after first time setup.

 

[Whizzinby]

 

[FuzzyAce]

I don't agree with that. I actually own a Les Paul style Heatley Tradition with Honduras mahogany and Brazilian rosewood. It isn't in some upper echelon of tone compared to similar guitars with more pedestrian mahogany or rosewood varieties.

Brazilian rosewood looks great, it's this swirly, chocolate brown color that looks just right. But I don't believe it sounds better.

To drive the point further, I also own a Flaxwood Rautia that is made of injection molded spruce fiber and resin. The body is a PRS-ish fully hollowbody because otherwise it would be on the heavy side. The material looks and feels kind of like ebony but with occasional flakes in it. It sounds just as good as any of my traditional wood guitars, and tonewise is probably somewhere in the PRS direction as well. I don't think I have ever adjusted its truss rod after first time setup.

I don't disagree with your experiences. But that doesn't change the knowledge of a luthier working with a species of wood and knowing how best to apply that knowledge to a finished instrument. Your Flaxwood guitar is an engineered instrument, not just a random accident. Care, testing and construction know-how went into all of that -- to produce the desired, acoustical outcome.

Construction techniques are a big part of it no doubt, and rosewood varieties could have lesser impact on a LP style build. But I do think everything matters because there is cumulative effect, just in varying degrees.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Here is a quote that pretty much sums it up correctly.
“For me, the species is less relevant than the qualities of the wood. Those qualities are: length of time the wood rings when you hit it, the amount of water remaining in the wood after it is dried, the resins in the wood being crystallised/not gooey, the ability to have strength as necessary (i.e., a fretboard needs to be resistant to sweating, whereas back wood doesn’t), its ability to not warp over time, and its aesthetic appeal.

“A magic guitar can be made of many different types of wood, but those woods need to have certain qualities and need to be handled correctly throughout the manufacturing process. So to me, woods matter.”

He adds, “To me, if wood doesn’t matter, then logically it follows that the material the bridge is made of doesn’t matter and the material the nut is made of doesn’t matter. What I believe, because of scores of experiences, is that if we make two identical guitars out of different woods, the guitars will sound different from each other. Then, if we exchange all the parts from guitar A and guitar B – the tuning pegs, nut, electronics, bridge – they would sound almost the same as they did, and still different from each other…

“Bottom line, to throw away one of the main ingredients for making instruments because the internet says ‘it doesn’t make any difference’ is, to me, like saying dead strings, rubber bridges, soft finishes, and wet woods make no difference. With all due respect, I don’t buy it.”

The misinterpretation of the meaning of “tone wood “ being a particular group of types of wood is the main problem when this comes up as an issue.
If a guitar doesn’t ring out and sustain no amount of pickups is going to make it.
Everything Matters.

Who are you quoting?

 

[PLX]

Who are you quoting?

Glenn Fricker.

 

[laxu]

I don't disagree with your experiences. But that doesn't change the knowledge of a luthier working with a species of wood and knowing how best to apply that knowledge to a finished instrument. Your Flaxwood guitar is an engineered instrument, not just a random accident. Care, testing and construction know-how went into all of that -- to produce the desired, acoustical outcome.

I can agree with all of that. I'm more of the mind that the properties of the wood matter more than which variant of the mahogany family it is. If we ignore that a lot of not-actually-mahogany woods are lumped under that moniker.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I can agree with all of that. I'm more of the mind that the properties of the wood matter more than which variant of the mahogany family it is. If we ignore that a lot of not-actually-mahogany woods are lumped under that moniker.

I know what you're saying. A Sapele backed LP can sound just as good as a Honduran Mahogany backed one. But I do think those differences are more apparent when making an acoustic instrument. An electric guitar is forgiving in that respect because of the overall construction and electronics variable.

 

[laxu]

I know what you're saying. A Sapele backed LP can sound just as good as a Honduran Mahogany backed one. But I do think those differences are more apparent when making an acoustic instrument. An electric guitar is forgiving in that respect because of the overall construction and electronics variable.

I think acoustics can be a lot more varied as individual guitars, and there's cerrtainly plenty of construction details like different bracing etc that can have an effect. When I was last shopping for an acoustic I tried a ton of them in and out of my price range and even several examples of the same model didn't sound the same where some subtle "this is a bit brighter" or "this sounds a bit thicker" were the reasons why I liked one better.

I haven't been acoustic shopping since 2007 though. Back then I ended up buying a made in China, all solid wood Ibanez AW800 just because its neck felt more like an electric guitar neck and I liked how it sounded best from all the guitars I had tried that day. I liked it better than pricier Martins, Yamahas etc. 17 years later, still as good as it ever was, though I wish it had a bit thicker neck.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I think acoustics can be a lot more varied as individual guitars, and there's cerrtainly plenty of construction details like different bracing etc that can have an effect. When I was last shopping for an acoustic I tried a ton of them in and out of my price range and even several examples of the same model didn't sound the same where some subtle "this is a bit brighter" or "this sounds a bit thicker" were the reasons why I liked one better.

I haven't been acoustic shopping since 2007 though. Back then I ended up buying a made in China, all solid wood Ibanez AW800 just because its neck felt more like an electric guitar neck and I liked how it sounded best from all the guitars I had tried that day. I liked it better than pricier Martins, Yamahas etc. 17 years later, still as good as it ever was, though I wish it had a bit thicker neck.

I guess the beauty is that no 2 instruments sound exactly the same, not even instruments made from the same planks of wood. Generally close, but subtle enough to make us prefer one over the other.

 

[Eagle]

Who are you quoting?

I deliberately didn't say because the usual suspects may not read it properly. But since you asked ; Paul Smith.

 

[Eagle]

I think acoustics can be a lot more varied as individual guitars, and there's cerrtainly plenty of construction details like different bracing etc that can have an effect. When I was last shopping for an acoustic I tried a ton of them in and out of my price range and even several examples of the same model didn't sound the same where some subtle "this is a bit brighter" or "this sounds a bit thicker" were the reasons why I liked one better.

I haven't been acoustic shopping since 2007 though. Back then I ended up buying a made in China, all solid wood Ibanez AW800 just because its neck felt more like an electric guitar neck and I liked how it sounded best from all the guitars I had tried that day. I liked it better than pricier Martins, Yamahas etc. 17 years later, still as good as it ever was, though I wish it had a bit thicker neck.

In acoustic world you need £5k up at least or it's a lottery tone wise and even then some will still be better. The base is a lot better though.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I deliberately didn't say because the usual suspects may not read it properly. But since you asked ; Paul Smith.

Meh, when you quote somebody, you gotta state who it is.

There is nothing remotely controversial in his statements, and despite the flaming that Jim Lill gets, I'm sure he'd agree with those statements too. Dumb people on the internet are gonna dumb on the internet and over simplify things.

 

[Eagle]

"Sound better" will always be subjective to a point, but there are reasons these species are prized for instrument making and it isn't based solely on looks. They do have general acoustic properties that can be utilized to get closer to a desired tonal goal and outcome. Wood can be unpredictable but there are traits within wood species (of a geographical region) that are in a range of predictability. Knowing those nuances and how best to apply them in instrument construction is what separates the great luthiers from the good ones. I'm certain there are also luthiers that have made exceptional instruments using only hickory wood, oak, cherry, cypress, pine etc. and that is because they know those species in great detail. If not, then it would be a total guessing game and pure luck to have an amazing sounding instrument... construction techniques aside. Not always a bad thing but I think having knowledge of wood species can make those experiments more successful and predictable.

I think it can be broken down into basic sections:
-strings plucked under tension and connected to wood will become amplified
-certain species and cuts of wood sustain notes longer or shorter and have inherent resonant qualities, and are louder, quieter, etc.
-how the strings are anchored, scale length, and amount of tension applied will affect those qualities further

Very general, and this is all before electronics are introduced.
But yes, everything matters. Even the species of wood. Knowing HOW to construct an instrument matters more though.

It's only subjective to a point and well constructed instruments can still be shit if they don't ring.

 

[Eagle]

Meh, when you quote somebody, you gotta state who it is.

There is nothing remotely controversial in his statements, and despite the flaming that Jim Lill gets, I'm sure he'd agree with those statements too. Dumb people on the internet are gonna dumb on the internet and over simplify things.

No I don't, I just stated it was correct. Sometimes you need people to read the quote and make their own mind up as to whether it is right based on the content alone. Those videos are unbelievably flawed experiments by someone who has no grasp of the issues or how to conduct a relevant test.

 

[FuzzyAce]

It's only subjective to a point and well constructed instruments can still be shit if they don't ring.

For sure. But I think great luthiers can't afford to make too many duds. They need to be able to eliminate a problem wood before the construction gets too far.

 

[itchyfingers]

I think there are a few tried and tested recipes - ash body / maple neck, mahogany with a maple cap, etc. The further you deviate from those recipes, the less familiar it sounds. That could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.