1/4'd is great but then again so is figuring.
If working with a straight grain wood with little runout I love 1/4'd but figured woods will tend to have lots of runout anyway so flat is fine by me.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| 1/4 Sawn Backs: important or not? http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=12891 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Andy C [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi everybody, You always remember the importance of 1/4 sawn wood for stability, stiffness etc. However, I have noticed that most of the very expensive sets for backs are flat sawn to show wonderful figures and patterns (see Magrose, BRW, Ziricote, Cocobolo and I could carry on). Does that mean that I will have a great looking guitar but not as great sounding if I use one of these sets? I am posting this question because I would love to have both in a guitar. Is it possible or you have to make a choice between aesthetics and sound? Thanks |
|
| Author: | E. Finkelstein [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any wood that shows quilting is flatsawn. That's just the nature of the beast. Often, when woods are rare, finding them large enough to cut quartersawn wood from is difficult at best. Stability is the only real drawback, and tone is virtually unaffected. Right now, you don't have to choose between good looks and good sound. In the future, when all guitars are made of plastic laminates or other composites, that may be the case. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, if there's no more wood left, I guess we can blame you for clear-cutting the forests, eh Elmer?! |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1/4'd is great but then again so is figuring. If working with a straight grain wood with little runout I love 1/4'd but figured woods will tend to have lots of runout anyway so flat is fine by me.
|
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Don Williams] Well, if there's no more wood left, I guess we can blame you for clear-cutting the forests, eh Elmer?![/QUOTE] Your multiple personalities kicking in again? 
|
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
| Elmer and Don share a brain.
|
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
important? Yes. absolutely necessary? No. |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What John said (and others too). Though John and I are from different views as to what the back and sides contribute to the sound. My view is "not much". John builds in a way that allows the b/s for influence to the sound. The reason I say this is that the way I build, a flat sawn back and a quartered back would sound exactly the same. The only reason I would reach for quartered first is stability. |
|
| Author: | erikbojerik [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Don't forget, a lot of trees that are harvested these days just don't get large enough for plates that are well quartered across 8+" of width. |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Andy C] Hi everybody, I have noticed that most of the very expensive sets for backs are flat sawn to show wonderful figures and patterns (see Magrose, BRW, Ziricote, Cocobolo and I could carry on). Is it possible or you have to make a choice between aesthetics and sound? [/QUOTE] You may be shopping in the wrong places. Or adopting the wrong aesthetic. I pay a premium for quartersawn, and love the look. |
|
| Author: | PaulB [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My understanding was that (for backs at least) 1/4 sawn is better from a repairabilty standpoint. 1/4 sawn wood that splits is going to result in a nice straight split line that is easy to fill with a sliver of similar wood. splits in flat sawn wood tend to wander all over the place and are harder to repair invisibly. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] [QUOTE=Andy C] Hi everybody, I have noticed that most of the very expensive sets for backs are flat
[/QUOTE] You may be shopping in the wrong places. Or adopting the wrong aesthetic. I pay a premium for quartersawn, and love the look.[/QUOTE] I'm totally with you Howard. We have, last time I counted, about 200 sets of brazilian downstairs (more upstairs) here at McPherson. Most of it is the wild flamey, "cool" stuff. We have a dozen or so perfectly quartered orange/red stuff. I love it! |
|
| Author: | Andy C [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Howard Klepper] Thanks for your opinions. I understand that aesthetics is a personal matter but please have a look at these three sets.
The pics are not great, however they are Madrose ($200), Ziricote ($250) and Macassar Ebony sold as master grades from respectable guitar wood suppliers. I still have to learn a lot but I don't think they are quartersawn. Perhaps the guitar will look fantastic but will it be the best sounding guitar in the world?
|
|
| Author: | JohnAbercrombie [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Andy C] I still have to learn a lot but I don't think they are quartersawn. Perhaps the guitar will look fantastic but will it be the best sounding guitar in the world? [/QUOTE] Andy- You make some good points. There's more 'mumbo-jumbo' about back and side woods than about most other things in guitars- and that's saying a lot! Some folks talk at length about the different sound that various back woods produce; others say there's no difference on a blind test. If the back is solely a decorative 'reflector', then it doesn't much matter what wood you use, and appearance is everything, I guess. Even at that, a flat-sawn back (like most of the stuff you see for sale, except EIR) is going to be more likely to 'cave in' with drying, and splits will be more unruly to repair, as pointed out above. If the sound qualities are important in back woods, then I'd think quarter-sawn wood is important. When people start building guitars with slab-sawn tops, I'll be more convinced that slab backs are OK. It's a big world- some folks like sapwood and slab-sawn backs and sides, others don't. I don't think there's much argument that quarter-sawn wood is usually easier to work with and more predictable in behaviour than the wilder-looking stuff. Cheers (and happy shopping) John |
|
| Author: | Mattia Valente [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Madrose big enough for 2-piece backs is rare, big enough for quartered 2-piece backs is nigh-on non-existant. Same thing largely applies to Ziricote and to a lesser degree Macassar ebony; a perfectly quartered set of any of those will go for more than the prices listed above. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Andy C] [QUOTE=Howard Klepper] You may be shopping in
Thanks for your opinions. I understand that aesthetics is a personal
The pics are not great, however they are Madrose ($200), Ziricote
I still have to learn a lot but I don't think they are quartersawn. Perhaps
[/QUOTE] That ziricote looks like a disaster to me. |
|
| Author: | Sam Price [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=John Mayes] That ziricote looks like a disaster to me.[/QUOTE] LOL, agreed. |
|
| Author: | Andy C [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What I have understood by reading through various discussions over guitar making is that theoretically the wood used should be all quartered to have a better sounding guitar. In other words, between two guitars made of the same combination of wood and with all things being equal the one with perfectly quartered wood will sound much better. Can you confirm that among the guitars you have built the one that you consider as the best had quartered wood only. If you were to build a guitar for yourself, would you use flatsawn or riftsawn wood for any of the parts? |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I think others have said, quartersawn back and sides are more about stability than sound, if other things are equal. Flatsawn wood that thin tends to check and crack a whole lot. But often other things are not equal: some of the flatsawn sets that look wild are not just flatsawn from the same straight-grained log that might have yielded some good quartersawn sets. They are sawn from logs with wild grain, lots of runout, and tension or compression wood. These sets are highly unstable, and I think that runout and wild grain do have a noticeable effect on sound. No set like this should be called Master or even A grade, since these are not IMO sets that are suitable for instrument making at all. Such logs should be cut for decorative veneer. I can't see the photos very well. The ziricote set looks flatsawn. The Madrose and Macassar sets both look quarter-to-rift in the center, going to flat at the outside. But there are dealers (some of them no doubt well-intentioned) who think that wilder is better, and as long as there are customers who will agree and pay a premium for this wood, these dealers have no reason to think otherwise or not to keep selling it at a premium. |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My last two paragraphs got reversed in order above. I sure hope we can get editing back on the new server. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quartersawn wood will move (shrink ect) less than half of what flatsawn wood will.... One big reason for quartersawn... |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Andy C] What I have understood by reading through various discussions over guitar making is that theoretically the wood used should be all quartered to have a better sounding guitar. In other words, between two guitars made of the same combination of wood and with all things being equal the one with perfectly quartered wood will sound much better. Can you confirm that among the guitars you have built the one that you consider as the best had quartered wood only. If you were to build a guitar for yourself, would you use flatsawn or riftsawn wood for any of the parts? [/QUOTE]Andy, do you remember where you read this? I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to sound any different. I'm curious as to who said this with such authority. |
|
| Author: | Doug O [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paul - I suspect that there is a theory out there that quartersawn wood is inherently stiffer which results in a stiffer more reflective finished back assembly, i.e. improved sound. It's hard to believe that there could be any measurable difference, but I suppose it's possible that someone may have test data on the issue. Previous posts have already pointed out that the main benefit of quartersawn is the stability of the wood in service. Another significant issue is the ability to safely bend the sides. Quartersawn should bend more consistantly with fewer failures. If you look carefully at the BRW for sale on line, you will notice that many vendors will tend toward quartersawn stock for the sides paired up with more wild figure for the backs. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
