Official Luthiers Forum!

I starting my 5th steel string OM Martin style guitar. It will be used with a pick and with light strings (56-11). I'm thinking about Western Red Cedar soundboard to get warmer tone instead of Sitka.
Would like any thoughts regarding using Red Cedar? Is this a good top for a steel string? Do I need to make it thicker than Sitka? Should I increase the bracing and bridge plate? Any help would appreciated so I don't make a big mistake.
Thanks for any help.

I've built several steel-string instruments with WRC soundboards -- typically with thicknesses about 10% greater than Sitka while using my "standard" bracing and bridge plates. I've been pleased with the resultant tone -- and the appearance. The biggest issue I've encountered is how easily WRC is dented by even the smallest bit of grit on the worktable (only redwood seems more fragile). Keep your workplace scrupulously clean and you can build a fine instrument.

My go to guitar is a WRC over cocobolo OM that I built about 5 years ago. As I recall the thickness was 0.110 and moderately scalloped 1/4 inch braces. I string with lights, tune down occasionally, play strictly fingerstyle. It is nicely balanced, warm and responsive

What Hans said about the soft, fragile nature of Western Red Cedar is very true. If it is your first time working with WRC your in for a learning curve. Ir gets dinged extremely easily. It also bruises with too heavy sanding and often you can't see that until the finish goes on. The results from that are a spotty top with darker areas where the bruising occurred.I have a lot of very nice WRC that I cut in the 70"s in the North Cascades, but I seldom use it because of the finiky nature that makes it difficult to produce an unblemished top. For me redwood is a lot less trouble. I like the tone of WRC, so I'm unly addressing the aesthetic issues with it. Obviously, since it is used so widely by classical builders, all the issues can be overcome with dilligence.Good luck.--Bob

_________________
“ The meaning of life is to find your gift and the purpose of life is to give it away” Pablo Picasso

The first nice Spanish classical guitar I bought many years ago was bought at a substantial discount because it had a small ding in the western red cedar top. It is not only during construction that you need to be careful with it.
I use WRC for dulcimer soundboards. It seems like it helps bring up the bass notes and subdues the treble some and gives them a fuller less strident sound. I have used it a couple of times on guitars, but being rather soft and easily damaged it is not my first choice. Western red cedar, like most woods has some variability, and good WRC seems to be about as tough as some of the lighter/softer types of Engelmann spruce and can make a wonderful sounding instrument. Many classical guitar makers offer it, and some prefer it. For a fingerstyle instrument I think it can work well, but for players who flail around with a pick I think the guitar would soon be "Triggered".

All of the redwood I've seen has had higher density and surface hardness than the WRC I've measured and used. They are both prone to splitting as you work on them, though. They do shrink less across the grain, and should be less prone to humidity cracks than spruce. Redwood and WRC also tend to have very low damping; they give a long-lived and 'musical' pitch when tapped. The exception to that was some 'salvage' redwood I got in a few years ago that had a tap tone like cardboard. I sent it back.

I'm not the biggest fan of WRC on steel strings and think that what WRC does best is it's lush with overtones without, without being driven hard.

I'm in the repair business and WRC tops have a different meaning to me beyond tone. They often get torn up badly when a bridge lifts and bridges do seem to lift on WRC tops with a goodly..... frequency. Not making any claims I can't support here but in my business there is a joke that goes like this: Cordoba (maker of WRC topped classical guitars) stands for bridge reglue in Spanish....

There are lots of alternatives to Sitka for a steel string that I think are superior in both tone, projection and my suspicions about being compatible with a glued on bridge and Adi is at the top of my list. Redwood can be cool too and sounds a lot like Adi to me and has a different look too.

Now the finger style guys love WRC and will push back on me for mentioning serviceability and I will push back, back when they do because serviceability is super important if one really cares about producing heirloom quality instruments.

If you must use WRC on a flat picking steel string and I did too I went about .125 on the thickness but that is an approximation my actually numbers were what resulted from deflection testing of that exact piece of wood. It was also an OM which has some bearing on top thickness too, ideal top thickness to consider the body size and shape when considering thickness.

The last guitar I ever built has a WRC top it was number 55. Then I became a repairman and viewed WRC as I've mentioned here.

Don't get me wrong WRC is likely one of the standards for finger style instruments and that's cool. My objection here is using it on a flat picking instrument that may, may be driven much harder than a finger style instrument or a classical. My objection is also that or a repairman, the people your clients come to see when what you did didn't work out so well for them... Generally speaking of course.

Agree with Hesh, deflection testing is the way to go.
Going by thickness can be well out, I've had sets as much as 20% higher or 10 % lower than the average stiffness.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

+1 on deflection testing but this being your 5th guitar you won't have that data to help determine thickness. What you could do is join a spruce top and thin that out to your normal spec, something that worked well to you before, then measure that deflection and make the WRC top deflect the same.

I have a few sets of very old WRC from the 70's. IDK if it's because of how old it is but these tops are WAY stiffer than any spruce tops I have ever measured. I have not used them yet because I'm not sure what to do with them. Anyway point being, it's best to thickness tops to some sort of measurement rather than to a spec. Experienced luthiers can even do this by feel.

One of the best 'by feel' methods I have come across is to thickness till the soundboard has a sheet metal warble tone to it when you hold it by it's long sides, grain running up and down, and shake it vigorously back and forth.

I build steel string guitars for bluegrass and blues, old-time and folk. In order of my preference is Carpathian Spruce, Red Spruce, & Sitka Spruce.
I tried, but Western Red Cedar did not give me the volume and tone that I was looking for.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

I was given a block of old growth WRC some years ago from a friend who was a shake producer and it's beautiful, tight grained stuff. I've only made two guitars with it, an archtop and a 12 string. 10 or more years later and still solid.

WRC has lower cracking and peel resistance than the spruces in general. If you use the same size bridge on a WRC top the combined load along the back edge tends to exceed the peel resistance, and they come up. The way around that is to make a bridge with more 'belly' than usual: wider along the line of pull. This reduces the load at the edge disproportionately. The bridge will tend to weigh more, of course. On my own builds I like to use walnut for bridges on WRC and redwood (which has the same issues); you can make them larger and still keep the weight down. Make the saddle slot further back from the front edge, too...

This is a great solution and work around with WRC, thanks Al.