Official Luthiers Forum!

Torres proved that the top makes most contribution to sound.

i read sumwhere something roughly along the lines of this:
his tops were radically different (thinner) than guitar makers normally used back then, his guitars were also slightly larger, and his guitars were considerably louder [this lead me to believe that the top made most of the difference, because a drednaught is not considerably louder than a grand concert ]

THE IMPORTANT BIT:

to prove that tops did contribute most to sound. he built a normal guitar, but he used paper mache for the back and sides instead of the top, aparently it still made a good guitar. (then again, torres could build a guitar with no glue, seems every tree he touched turned into a guitar.....)

only a numpty would say that the back and sides doesn't contribute, because it clearly does, but the top does seem to contribute mostly towards the character.

its a bit like a , the topping contributes to most of the flavour, but also if the base is deep pan, stone baked, stuffed crust, pepparroni stuffed crust will also affect the flavour, just not as much as the topping. mmmm food....

btw, this is all from what i have read and heard while playing, ive not built a guitar, yet. sry for the ramble, i find this topic very interesting

_________________
"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that in happening causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that in happening happens again, happens again. Though not necessarily in that order." Douglas Adams

I was gonna write, why didnt Torres try it the other way, BUT !!! my head caught up !! HAHAHAHAHA.

Thanks a lot for all the input guys. Happy to be part of this forum.

Lars

Great topic, and one that's been discussed here before.

I'm surprised no one has brought up this bit

http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm

Its the "heretics guide to tonewood" by John Culkin

Basically it states that no one has an ear good enough to identify the species of wood a guitar is built out of based on a recording. Guitars can be fine tuned in the building process to demonstrate characteristics a builder is looking for.

We can gain some generalities of tonal characteristics based on species, but we could also take a bright sounding maple instrument and warm it up by lightening up the braces or thinning it out a little. Or we could brighten a warm wood by stiffening up the braces. etc...

The variables that influence what it is we are trying to do really are endless. That's what makes this art so much FUN!

Dave

Dave , thanks for the posting, Jody

Thanks ! great article ! And I agree, I dont think one could say "thats a mahogany guitar on led zeppelins recording (joke) ! or even in an instrumental recording" but I do think you could hear basic differences like maple or rosewood ! like if you had 5 maple guitars made by the same maker, and 5 rosewood, I am sure you would hear a difference in depth bethween the 2 sort of woods. but I agree that it would be almost impossible to say like, oh, thats honduran or Brazilian. just like you its would be impossible to hear the difference between a 4 cylinder toyota and a 4 cylinder Nissan car. But between a 4 cylinder toyota and a 8 cylinder Camaro I guess I would. ( maple and rosewood )

Quote: First of all (and speaking from a steel string guitar perspective), let's discard the notion that some species of wood make good instruments and that others don't. The concept of tonewood is a hoax. .
Ok he might be right, although I have a hard time agreeing to this. (as a mucisian that is)

Quote: No one at the blind listening sessions I've attended could reliably distinguish between mahogany and rosewood guitars, or maple and koa guitars for that matter.
Again, he might be right, but it sounds wierd to me. I have played, owned, listened to lots of guitars, and betweeen Maple and rosewood there is a big difference in bottom.
Between mahogany and rosewood I agree might be harder, but I would think the attack is faster on the mahogany, and more ring/reverby on the rosewood, but again maby its a hoax like he says. Maby we have heard those things from so many people that we hear what we´ve been projected to.

Also tonewood to me is not only whats good or bad or gives best sound, taptone etc. Apearance it a big factor to.
ok, I dont want a tonewood that looks great and sound nothing, but a mixture is good, preferably a mixture where the tone is exellent and apearance is to.
So if ziricote is a pain to bend, but it looks like a dream, then the pain of bending is something one could live with.

Great article though. and a facinating discussion i might ad.

Lars

Lars,

Here's three sound clips of my guitars, one has maple b/s, one East Indian Rosewood b/s and one Cuban mahogany b/s (the top wood doesn't matter right? ). They are not the same recording but were done in the same place with the same set up and mix down. I'm certain you'll get them.

Clip1
Clip2
Clip3

In this duet the melody is on a Cuban Mahogany b/s guitar and the accompaniment on a maple b/s guitar - which is which?

Clip4

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Beautiful tunes !!!! Love them !! .

OK I agree its darn hard to tell them apart, Clip 2 i would say that the starting guitar is a mahogany, the second guitar is a rosewood ???? Its extra hard now as these tunes are mixed in and the bass been mixed down a notch I would guess. In recording situations we dont really hear the "Full guitar" but a mixed version where all the extra highs and lows are taken away.

But your guitars sure sound beautiful whatever B/S they are !!!.

and yes its darn hard to tell them apart, and I understand your hint about the top wood. they all have differents in the highs, and I recon thats where the top comes in the most ??. one sounded a bit "dry" in the tone and the other sounded like it had more overtones. Yes it was hard !!!. But what makes it even harder are all the different point of views on this subjekt, the clip I had, we could hear major differents, and in your small ones.
But then again, thats what makes it so interesting with wood. And hey how fun would life be if we all, new it all.

Dave, Thanks a lot for charing the clips, and taking your time .

Lars

Lars,

Yes - I know it's hard and sound clips have a lot of limitations, but it's also hard when you play the guitars for real as once you have seen them and know the woods sometimes the "brain" kicks in the predetermined sound and differences you want to hear. You have to spend a long time with the guitars and get to really know and hear them. I've built with lots of different woods and have come to the conclusion I gave in my first reply. I hear "my sound" across the range but there are subtleties and some top/back wood combinations that work in tandem better. Also once you get confident, you slightly adapt your building techniques with each wood combination to blend them and bring out the sound you want.

Clip 1 was a cedar/maple guitar (a fabulous combination that defies a lot the "stereotypes" of perceived cedar and maple sounds). Clip 2 was the same guitar on both tracks - a Euro spruce/EIR. Clip 3 was a Euro spruce/Cuban mahogany guitar. On Clip 4 a Euro spruce/Cuban mahogany guitar was the melody and the cedar/maple guitar the accompaniment.

The recordings were done using a single AKG C1000S microphone and all had flat EQ in the mixdown with no effects added.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

I think a fairer test would have been if the same songs had been recorded with the different guitars...from what I could hear there appeared to have been slightly different mic placements, and certainly the different chordings and dynamics of the recordings (along with the different bitrates) made it a hard call...

Dave. I have re-listened to the songs, really like em. !! is it you playing ? love the celtic feel, and like I said before, the sound of these guitars are beautiful.

had me a look at your site, wow youve made some really special piece of art guitars! .. by apperance, I must say I really like the Lughnasa guitar.

Lars.

Mike,

Yes but if the differences are that obvious then none of that would matter I've done the same song recording with different wood guitars here on the OLF before with same recording set up but have limited space where I host/store my mp3's and had to use one's that were already there. The result was pretty much the same. That's the great thing about this - if someone gets it right they can say "See I told you so" and if not "well you can make any guitar sound great on a recording".

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Lars,

Thanks. Lughnasa was Clip 2. Clips 1&2 were me, Clip 3 my friend Bill Briscombe and Clip 4 had Bill playing lead and me accompaniment.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

I read Calkin's article when it first came out, and I don't fully agree with him. Sure you CAN tweak a maple guitars construction so that it will sound more like rosewood or whatever, but that's not the point. The point is that you NEED to tweak it: the woods are different, tend to make somewhat different sounds, and must be treated differently to get 'the same' sound from them.

In terms of overall utility I'd paraphrase Orwell: "All woods are created equal, but some are more equal than others". It's possible to make a guitar that a lot of people will like the sound of from any reasonable wood. The job is a lot easier when the people you're working with have fairly generalized tastes: your usual Folkie or whoever can find a lot to like in almost any guitar well made from any wood. Hardcore Flamencos and Bluegrass players tend to be pretty restricted in what they will accept.

It's not all that hard to test the properties of the woods you are going to use, and figure out which ones are more like the 'traditional' tone woods. The more alike the stiffness, density, and damping of the woods, the more alike the sound of the completed guitars will be, all else equal. All wood species have some variation in their properties, although some cover a wider range than others, and there is lots of overlap.

In the end it all comes down to what this piece of wood does, and how skilled the maker is in getting the sound they want from it. A good maker has a lot of control, but the wood offers the maker some possibilites and sets some limits. I've got some expensive 'tone wood' that tests out acoustically worse than Masonite. I think I can still make a good sounding guitar out of it, and it's so figured that the folks who buy with their eyes will love it anyway. But it will never come up to a good set of BRW or Osage Orange for tone, IMO. Silk purses and sow's ears.

Thanks alot for your input Allan.

you wrote :"The more alike the stiffness, density, and damping of the woods, the more alike the sound of the completed guitars will be, all else equal. All wood species have some variation in their properties, although some cover a wider range than others, and there is lots of overlap.".

Do you meen to say that if I use a, lets say, macassar ebony, with the same stiffness, density, and damping as a BRW, would it then sound the same as the brazillian ? . I always read, hear that BRW has some unexplained shimmer to it, "there is just something about it, and so on. or is this just a "hype" ?

In the end, I might just have to find this out for myself as I get there.

Lars

Here is A link to to that thread:
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=14932&p=212579&hilit=Torches#p212579

Dave I hope you don't mind but I saved them and would like to know how well you do?
http://mysite.verizon.net/resre6zl/davewhitestorches/

Of couse the order has been shuffled also.

I will leave this up for a while if anyone else wants to try. I like to think that If I had not been having a bad day I would have done better.

Dave I think turnabout is fair and you should give it a whirl. Honestly you have the advantage of knowing these guitars intimately so I think you have the best chance of getting it right.

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

OK guys I wont be able to reply for a week. Me and my son "4y old" are going to this Island, in the archipelago. here in Sweden. have lent this small house from a friend, without any neighbours, just ocean outside the window, taking a small 4 hp boat to get to it. So right now life is smiling. !! .. look forward to sit on the cliff with a fishingpole in the hand, hopefully getting one or 2.

See ya all as I get back.

Lars with son.

Lars asked:
"Do you meen to say that if I use a, lets say, macassar ebony, with the same stiffness, density, and damping as a BRW, would it then sound the same as the brazillian ? . I always read, hear that BRW has some unexplained shimmer to it, "there is just something about it, and so on. or is this just a "hype" ?"

As far as anybody can tell the stiffness in the different directions, density and damping factors of the wood are the most important things that determine how it vibrates. In theory two pieces of wood with the same numbers ought to vibrate the same and sound the same. So in theory, it's hype.

There are several possible problems with this. One is finding wood that is 'the same': even planks cut next to each other from the same tree can be at least somewhat different.
Different species can be quite similar in many respects, but will often vary from one another in a single parameter, so then you have to figure out how important that one parameter is.

And what contstitutes 'the same'? It's difficult to measure these things with perfect accuracy, for a whole host of reasons. If I can measure, say, the stiffness of a whole back half within 5%, is another one that measures 'the same' on my rig actually the same, or is it, maybe, as much as 10% different? And how about variations within the piece?

On top of that, maybe we don't know as much as we think we do. Perhaps there is some other thing that we ought to measure and don't yet.

One of my long-term research goals is to make a 'matched pair' of gutiars that really match. I've tried in the past, and not succeeded, but each failure tips me off to some other thing that needs to be controlled for. Eventually I hope to 'get it'. THen maybe we'll have some idea of what's really important.

'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is'