Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic - Birdseye Maple.

Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Birdseye Maple. http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=11109	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Steve Saville [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:33 am ]
Post subject:
There was a beautiful Birdseye maple guitar at Ervin's shop when we were there for the course. I'm curious if any of you have built with it. Is it typical of maple, or does it tend to sustain more? Is it pretty stable? Would you use it or avoid it? Do any of our suppliers have any?

Author:	James Ringelspaugh [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:06 am ]
Post subject:
Hi Steve, I recall Ervin said he didn't like building with maple. He thought it was pretty tonally dead as a rule, though I'm sure there are exceptions. If you don't want a live back it sure can make a pretty one. My experience with maple is that it's not exceptionally stable. That is just my experience... I don't have any data handy to back that up, but I would expect a freshly resawn flatsawn piece to want to transform into a potato chip in very short order. Northwest Timber is a great supplier of high quality Maple and Walnut. -Ringo

Author:	drfuzz [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:17 am ]
Post subject:
Birdseye maple seems to be harder than regular maple, perhaps because of the little 'eyes'. Dunno that maple is tonally 'dead', more neutral in my experience - think of all the violins and archtops built with it. The last guitar I built was englemann and quilted maple and I was very happy with the way it sounded.

Author:	Dave White [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:25 am ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=lex_luthier] Hi Steve, I recall Ervin said he didn't like building with maple. He thought it was pretty tonally dead as a rule, though I'm sure there are exceptions. If you don't want a live back it sure can make a pretty one. [/QUOTE] I'd love to see a definition of "tonally dead" and "a live back". Steve, Based on a sample of one I LOVE my cedar/maple Grand Concert but that was European maple in fiddle-back cut. Larkim asked about different maples some time back in this post and a I put in there some comments by John Greven who has a reputation for getting the most out of maple Steel string guitars. I can't really comment as I haven't played any of his maple guitars.

Author:	James Ringelspaugh [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:56 am ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=Dave White] I'd love to see a definition of "tonally dead" and "a live back". [/QUOTE] By tonally dead I mean that it does not ring when tapped... it would sound more like cardboard than glass. By a 'live' back I mean a back that is free to move and vibrate in sympathy to the top, which in theory helps diffuse the sound of the instrument. This is the converse of a rigid back which would reflect sound. You would expect a back wood which rings to be able to vibrate more freely than a tonally dead wood, so if you subscribe to the theory above and want a sound that a live back would compliment, you would want to select a wood that isn't tonally dead. Of course, there's a lot more to it than just choosing the wood... but that's a different can of worms. -Ringo

Author:	TonyKarol [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:52 am ]
Post subject:
Birdseye maple is fairly uncommon as a back and sides wood for acoustics - its a rock maple, whereas most vendors as selling western soft curly and quilt - the main difference is brightness of tone due to its density - the guitars end up pretty bright and in your face, not a lot of overtones. You dont really want to put sitka on it - go softer, warmer - engleman, euro, cedar if you like the colour of it. I built a quilt maple guitar a few years back (not many lately) but that guitar gave you a chest massage while playing low sustaining chords - that back MOVED you. As far as maple being tonally dead, I can agree with that - but in the same breathe, anyone who could hear the current cocobolo, braz and mad rw backs in my shop and compare them to any piece of mahogany or walnut, would also say that the hog and walnut are pretty close to being dead in comparison - half the sustain, not crisp high tap at all. Its all relative. Alex Degrassi's latest Lowden is curly maple, and its no slouch if he is using it. Its not the wood ... its what you do with it.

Author:	Don Williams [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:08 am ]
Post subject:
I have to tell you, if you really want to see an incredible birdseye maple guitar, go see Steve Spodaryk's Stauffer inspired Salon guitar. It's incredible.

Author:	David Collins [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:43 am ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=lex_luthier]I recall Ervin said he didn't like building with maple. He thought it was pretty tonally dead as a rule, though I'm sure there are exceptions. If you don't want a live back it sure can make a pretty one. [/QUOTE] Somebody better tell the violin makers quick!

Author:	Steve Saville [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:21 am ]
Post subject:
I can't remember exactly what Ervin said, but the small bodied Birdseye maple guitar that was being finished at his shop looked and sounded fantastic. If that was tonally dead, I must have a real bad ear. Maybe he said tonally neutral and a bit damping.

Author:	Don Williams [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Don't forget birdseye maple is only found in hard (rock) maple, so it's going to have less damping than softer maples.

Author:	paul harrell [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:
The one problem I see is that the birds eyes show up mostly on the flat-sawn surface, and since maple isn't the most stable of woods I would be a little nervous - the smaller the guitar the better. Paul

Author:	Michael Lloyd [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:
I love to use birdseye maple in the heal cap and for the end graft. This is some found in a woodpile. Birdseye woodpile Once sanded it comes up quite nicely. Birdseye woodpile Normally birdseye maple is not used in violin making as it is heavier then the wavy, striped or tiger maple its been called here. This piece was recently cut last year here in Ontario. Birdseye woodpile Having worked with birdseye maple, I think to build a guitar with it is quite adventuresome and commendable.

Author:	James Ringelspaugh [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=David Collins] Somebody better tell the violin makers quick! [/QUOTE] Indeed, that's an excellent question: why do violin makers always use curly maple for the back?

Author:	crazymanmichael [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:
whilst curly is the most common maple used for violin family instruments, you will find the rare birdseye or quilt fiddle out there. i think it became traditional because european maple doesn't produce the other figures.

Author:	James Ringelspaugh [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=SteveS] I can't remember exactly what Ervin said, but the small bodied Birdseye maple guitar that was being finished at his shop looked and sounded fantastic. [/QUOTE] I agree, from what I remember that is a striking guitar. The rosette had this great directional theme with a couple of layers of abalone around it... like little arrows surrounded by just a little bling that compelled your eye to follow its arc around and around and around until your eyes wandered off on a tangent to check out a little detail from the top, which of course was flawless but also interesting... Interesting and flawless. How about that? Anyway, I've never really been a big fan of the florentine cutaway, but this rosette with it's tiny little arrows really complimented the sharp point of the cutaway and made me think 'perhaps in the past I was mistaken; that's what a florentine cutaway is supposed to look like'. I also recall that it sounded quite good... I remember a very nice articulation and clarity of individual notes along with a nice presence, at least up close. In fact, one of my favorite moments of the week came from that guitar... I bet it would make a nice anecdote so I'll tell it here amongst builders who can probably appreciate it. Anyway, I walk into a room one evening, and there's Dave Berkowitz playing the guitar in question with a few folks sitting around watching and talking about how it sounds. This was before the nut and saddle were shaped, so the intonation is slightly off and the action is ridiculously high. Dave is playing Albeniz's 'Asturias', which is... well, if you're not familiar with it, it is a rather fast paced song, very popular on the classic guitar. It has a lot of notes and it gets more and more and more intense as it repeats its theme... so the player usually gets more and more animated as it goes along, and the usual impression of even the best player is that fingers and therefore fingernails are really flying by the climax. Anyway there's Dave trying to play this piece on this really hard to play high-action guitar, and he's getting into the second or third repetition of the theme, and he's getting more and more animated, and you can see by his face and hear by the random missed note that the action is way too high to play this song well, but by this time of course he's somewhat invested in the performance and it's obvious he's going to keep going and it's probably going to require another level of intensity to keep up. Right about this time Ervin pokes his head in, and as you can imagine, he was not expecting to see his latest guitar which has been very recently polished to a flawless state played by what looks to be (if it were my most recent almost finished guitar) some sort of insanely intense and flailing lunatic. As Ervin's eyes got bigger, Dave continued on a couple more themes, and... fortunately the guitar was unscathed. I don't recall exactly what Ervin said then, but it was far more diplomatic than anything I would have said in his place. The guitar was quickly whisked away and I don't recall seeing it again after that, which is a shame because it really is a beauty. [QUOTE] If that was tonally dead, I must have a real bad ear. Maybe he said tonally neutral and a bit damping.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to imply that the use of maple would make the finished guitar tonally dead, but it will have an effect if you believe that the back contributes to the overall color of sound which a guitar will produce. If you want the back to vibrate freely... if you want the back to ring, well I would bet that Ervin would say that maple might not be the best choice. Conversely, if you want the back to be rigid, reflecting everything the top throws at it, then a thick (or thickly braced) piece of maple might be the best thing. From what I recall, Ervin Somogyi likes to build guitars, at least today, with live backs. I'll add that I wouldn't be surprised to see a piece of maple with a nice tap tone... especially a piece of northeastern US maple which grows very slowly and, by virtue of a short growing season, is more dense. In the end I guess it all boils down to the exact piece of wood you want to work with. One thing I took away from Somogyi's class is that every individual piece of wood affects the end product, not the other way around.

Author:	Dave White [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=lex_luthier] [QUOTE=Dave White] I'd love to see a definition of "tonally dead" and "a live back". [/QUOTE] By tonally dead I mean that it does not ring when tapped... it would sound more like cardboard than glass. By a 'live' back I mean a back that is free to move and vibrate in sympathy to the top, which in theory helps diffuse the sound of the instrument. This is the converse of a rigid back which would reflect sound. You would expect a back wood which rings to be able to vibrate more freely than a tonally dead wood, so if you subscribe to the theory above and want a sound that a live back would compliment, you would want to select a wood that isn't tonally dead. Of course, there's a lot more to it than just choosing the wood... but that's a different can of worms. -Ringo[/QUOTE] Well the maple I used on my guitar certainly rang nicely when tapped, as did all of the other sets I selected it from. And I build responsive backs and as per Tony's description I get the chest massage too when I play. There are so many different maples and to use the old cliche each piece of wood is subtly different within this. To say that maple as a rule is tonally dead just does not "ring true" imho. The most ringinging, sustaining back wood I have built with is African blackwood. This is a heavy wood and built at "normal" thickness is not going to be one of your "live backs" but man will it ring. I do agree that the back and sides wood add to the flavour, but the way the sound comes out is ultimately down to the skill and knowledge of the builder and what he/she does with them. I suspect that there are very few back/side woods that will not make a great guitar in the right hands. If stability is the issue then lamination techniques can be used - this is not such a frowned upon technique nowadays.

Author:	Brad Goodman [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:28 am ]
Post subject:
Steve, I have many sets of nice birdseye maple for sale. Brad

Author:	Arnt Rian [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:19 am ]
Post subject:
I really like maple. I think maple guitars have a unique voice of their own; well maple is pretty similar to birch, but it is not “between mahogany and rosewood” (it seems most woods fall in this category according to vendors), it is different. To my ears the tone is “dry” and “direct”, not too much sparkle or bottom but honest and clear; sort of like a recording before you put any effects on. Of course arch top mandolins traditionally have maple sides, back and neck, so I’m biased… To be clear, I have only made one maple guitar (besides the mandolins), but I have played many and they have this thing in common. IMO

Author:	Dave White [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:14 am ]
Post subject:
[QUOTE=Arnt] To my ears the tone is “dry” and “direct”, not too much sparkle or bottom but honest and clear; sort of like a recording before you put any effects on. IMO[/QUOTE] Arnt, I agree with you here. It seems to my ears to give great clarity and separation between the strings and notes - it also makes it an unforgiving guitar and focuses your playing technique as it is hard to hide the mistakes. I like the way it works with cedar and have pencilled in for sometime in the future making a baritone guitar in cedar/maple - for the low tunings the clarity is what you need and the cedar gives that "darkness" and fills in any missing overtones or complexity. Plus it looks gorgeous - especially with curly koa bindings.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/