| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Solid Body Guitar Wood!??!?!? http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=8834 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | darkvoid86 [ Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey there guys, my name is Ian and i would like to just start this of by saying im not a luthier but a guy who is really into his guitars and has a few questions to ask and you guys are from what i hear the captains on all things "luthier like" so here goes...... 1.a) Why are all large bodied electric guitars, i.e. Lespauls, ML's and Explorer shape guitars, made out of mahogany? I understand it gives a bright tone and is ideal aparently for rock and metal artists. however what would be the problem and result of making one of these large guitars out of popular woods such bass wood or alder? b) When iconic electric guitars that we know of today were first being designed such as the SG, tele, strat, lespaul etc. Why are people left to buying that particular guitar with just its origional sum of parts? I can understand how guitar shapes and sounds are iconic and people therefore are still highly attracted to them and so these models shall forever be timeless. However i dont understand why it is these models are reduced to being being always out of the same woods/neck profiles. e.g. a les paul is generally a meaty guitar, too heavy for most people, made out of mahogany with a neck that feels like a tree trunk for most people with average sized hands (although loved and adored for these exact trates). Why is it that you cant order say an SG as a choice out of three different woods and whatever neck profile you would love and perhaps with a vibrato piece that wasnt a bigsby but perhaps a floyd? 2.When people say bass wood is a cheap alternative to alder which has the best resonance and keeping of sustain . how far can you go to say this is true? If thats the case why do people such as joe satriani and john petrucci have their signature guitars made from an "inferior" material? 3.If i was to put a stetsbar onto a lespaul copy would it be worth changing the nutt to a bass one like yngwie used when he customised his own guitars himself? I didnt mean to rant guys but if anyone could help quell any of these ideas then pleeeeeease do. |
|
| Author: | darkvoid86 [ Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
(forgot a question) 4. Is there any real benefit to having an electric guitar's neck made out of the same material as the body? i.e. for increases of sustain or better tone?? |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think there are a wide range of woods you can use for a solid body. Mahogany is a great wood. I think that is why people use it. It is very stable, fairly light, beautiful, easy to work. However, I have used other materials as well... some traditional, ash, alder, black limba etc. And some not so traditional purpleheart, maple, etc. I think you can build a great solid body with a wide range of woods, the "trick" will be finding stock thick enough. Especially if you want to build a 1 piece body. Regarding the shapes. I think there are two basic reasons 1) Tradition. (This is the same thing that drives the acoustic market to dreds and OMs) and 2) Balance. if an electric has bad balance it can sound great but be a real nightmare to play. I think there are a lot of innovative ideas in electrics, even if they are not immediately obvious. For instance I have been gaining a limited popularity for a very LPish type guitar with 335 style construction. A hollow body with a solid core down the center, and a modern slim neck. This seems to appeal to the ageing LP crowd. They can shed some of the weight and move to a more mellow sound. I have seen a few other new designs (that aren't weird for weird's sake) that I like a lot. |
|
| Author: | Brock Poling [ Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=darkvoid86] (forgot a question) 4. Is there any real benefit to having an electric guitar's neck made out of the same material as the body? i.e. for increases of sustain or better tone??[/QUOTE] I would build the neck for strength and stability while keeping the weight in check. but other than that I think you can use a wide range of woods here too. |
|
| Author: | A Peebels [ Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've used walnut,poplar,maple,mahogany,ash,wenge,cocobolo for bodies,and walnut,maple,purpleheart, and mahogany for necks. Others work well also. As far as wood affecting the tone and sustain, It's all overrated. The electronics do most of the work. Al |
|
| Author: | GD Armstrong [ Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1 All of the guitars you mentioned are factory made. In a factory setting uniformity is important. If you were to order copies of those instruments from a custom builder lots of combinations of woods, construction techniques and dementions are possible. As to why mahogany is so prevalent - it's stable, can be had in large sizes & it used to be cheap. 2 Once again the "signature" models are factory made & aimed at an affordable price point for folks that want to follow thier heros. Basswood is cheap, lightweight, easy to work & sounds ok. It also can be had in large sizes so one or two piece bodies (even V's & Explorers) are not hard to come by. GD |
|
| Author: | darkvoid86 [ Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Okey dokey. well i knew about Lps having a different wood for the top but i just thought that was for cosmetic reasons, 4because they use that resin paint job thats semi-tranparent. And so a nice wood effect comes from under the paintjob. so when people say flame maple or quilted maple top i think it was just for the looks. i can see by the fact that epiphone who mainly have "thicker" paint jobs. you generally cant see anything through to the wood at all. but they have alder tops with maple backs, i had no idea the "tops" were thick at all but just a sliver of wood as a nice natural effect. Are rose wood and maple generally expensive materials? If a maple top gives brightness then what would a guitar be like with a solid maple body of that size and thickness with a solid rosewood neck? i was also wondering are the rosewood necks and say fretboard all one piece of wood in that case also? If basswood, alder and maple are generally easy to get cheap woods used easily for mass production....... what woods are therefore more exotic and better sounding? and what do they sound like? Also is there any chance you know why LPs bodies have a font and back and arent simply just made out of one piece of wood? |
|
| Author: | Bob Garrish [ Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are a few reasons I'd make a guitar out of two separate pieces of wood. One is ease of construction; you can route out the electronics channels and chambers in the back and then glue on the top cap. Also pretty wood is usually expensive wood and so getting a piece of quilted maple thick enough to make a solidbody would be a waste of money considering that only the top will be seen. Ease of construction is in there for some (mahogany is very easy to work with), some topwoods are unstable and thus need a stable backing (like burls), and sometimes a lighter back wood is used just to offset the weight (maple=heavy). And some people believe the woods used in an electric body have an important effect on tone, although I don't buy that it's significant, myself. But, to answer your question, on a Les Paul specifically it's made from two pieces of wood for the top two reasons (ease of construction and looks), especially the looks. Hence Gibson making the 'veneer top' Les Pauls. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|