What's the Difference in Tone Woods?

[masterbuilt]

What’s the Difference in Tone Woods?

 

 

I posted this on Ukulele Player Magazine's website this morning. The information applies to tone woods on guitar as well as ukulele, though, so I thought I'd post it here, too.

 

What’s the difference in tone woods? It’s a common question. I posted this long ago on Ukulele Underground. I’ll post it here for reference.

 

What tone, over all, do I want? A rosewood back and sides will have better low and mid-range tone than a mahogany uke. Spruce will be brighter than mahogany and will not mellow as much as cedar with age. Cedar will sound bright at first and just continue to get more mellow and sweeter with age. Then there are the exotic woods, starting with koa, very punchy with clear tone. Mango is softer and sweet, but it doesn’t carry as well as koa. Zebrawood, pretty new on the market is bright, but it is a thinner tone than any of the others mentioned thus far. Maple is bright and combined with a spruce top will be one of the loudest ukes you can ever find, yet played softly, it can be about as sweet and mellow as any instrument. Maple is usually laminated, so the solid spruce top is important.

 

The “sound” changes with different combinations of wood, bracing, body size and shape. Many companies have different sounds on different instruments depending on the choice of woods used. So, here is a basic rundown…

 

bright sound…. maple back and sides, spruce top (very loud).

fairly bright sound, warms with age…. solid mahogany

warm sound, warms slightly with age, not as loud as koa…. mango

bright sound, with a pronounced “bark” with warm tone, yet very loud…. solid koa

warm sound, sweet tone that gets sweeter with age…. mahogany back with cedar top

bright, warm sound, mellows with age, remains loud…. mahogany with spruce top

warm sound, mid-volume, smooth sweet tone…. koa back and sides with a cedar top

warm, rich sound, good midrange & lower registers… rosewood back sides, cedar top

warm, rich sound, bright highs, good volume…. rosewood back & sides, spruce top

 

less common woods…

myrtle… bright, mid-range tone with good balance

zebrawood… chipper, bright tone, average volume (add spruce top for more volume)

monkeypod… sounds similar to Koa, not as pretty, but nice straight grain

blackwood… nice grain, sounds a lot like koa, warms with age

walnut… bright, loud, not commonly used in ukes… used a lot in hammer dulcimers.

sycamore… bright, mid-volume, but soft

redwood… very soft, but warm tone

 

There are more combination available these days, but the combinations you see listed here are the most common, especially among ukuleles. The same descriptions appy, though, for guitar construction.

 

Keep in mind that for guitar, attack angle can make a difference in your tone, too. So can changing your strumming position. With ukulele, the strumming hand position doesn’t change the tone as much as on a guitar.

[garthman]

What’s the Difference in Tone Woods?

 

 

. . .. Many companies have different sounds on different instruments depending on the choice of woods used. So, here is a basic rundown…

 

bright sound…. maple back and sides, spruce top (very loud).

fairly bright sound, warms with age…. solid mahogany

warm sound, warms slightly with age, not as loud as koa…. mango

bright sound, with a pronounced “bark” with warm tone, yet very loud…. solid koa

warm sound, sweet tone that gets sweeter with age…. mahogany back with cedar top

bright, warm sound, mellows with age, remains loud…. mahogany with spruce top

warm sound, mid-volume, smooth sweet tone…. koa back and sides with a cedar top

warm, rich sound, good midrange & lower registers… rosewood back sides, cedar top

warm, rich sound, bright highs, good volume…. rosewood back & sides, spruce top

 

less common woods…

myrtle… bright, mid-range tone with good balance

zebrawood… chipper, bright tone, average volume (add spruce top for more volume)

monkeypod… sounds similar to Koa, not as pretty, but nice straight grain

blackwood… nice grain, sounds a lot like koa, warms with age

walnut… bright, loud, not commonly used in ukes… used a lot in hammer dulcimers.

sycamore… bright, mid-volume, but soft

redwood… very soft, but warm tone

 

. . .

 

Personally I think all this "tonewood" and "ageing" stuff is bull{censored} invented by (some, probably the majority of) luthiers and (some, probably the majority of) companies to promote their products.

 

A guitar sounds as it sounds. Period.

 

[Etienne Rambert]

What’s the Difference in Tone Woods?

 

 

I posted this on Ukulele Player Magazine's website this morning. The information applies to tone woods on guitar as well as ukulele, though, so I thought I'd post it here, too.

 

What’s the difference in tone woods? It’s a common question. I posted this long ago on Ukulele Underground. I’ll post it here for reference.

 

What tone, over all, do I want? A rosewood back and sides will have better low and mid-range tone than a mahogany uke. Spruce will be brighter than mahogany and will not mellow as much as cedar with age. Cedar will sound bright at first and just continue to get more mellow and sweeter with age. Then there are the exotic woods, starting with koa, very punchy with clear tone. Mango is softer and sweet, but it doesn’t carry as well as koa. Zebrawood, pretty new on the market is bright, but it is a thinner tone than any of the others mentioned thus far. Maple is bright and combined with a spruce top will be one of the loudest ukes you can ever find, yet played softly, it can be about as sweet and mellow as any instrument. Maple is usually laminated, so the solid spruce top is important.

 

The “sound” changes with different combinations of wood, bracing, body size and shape. Many companies have different sounds on different instruments depending on the choice of woods used. So, here is a basic rundown…

 

2. bright sound…. maple back and sides, spruce top (very loud).

3. fairly bright sound, warms with age…. solid mahogany

warm sound, warms slightly with age, not as loud as koa…. mango

bright sound, with a pronounced “bark” with warm tone, yet very loud…. solid koa

warm sound, sweet tone that gets sweeter with age…. mahogany back with cedar top

bright, warm sound, mellows with age, remains loud…. mahogany with spruce top

warm sound, mid-volume, smooth sweet tone…. koa back and sides with a cedar top

1. warm, rich sound, good midrange & lower registers… rosewood back sides, cedar top

warm, rich sound, bright highs, good volume…. rosewood back & sides, spruce top

 

I know what I like. It may be purely imaginary. But those 3 are the ones I like best. My best-sounding guitar has a Cedar top and Indian Rosewood B&S, IMO. The strum sound is pure velvet.

[DeepEnd]

Personally I think all this "tonewood" and "ageing" stuff is bull**************** invented by (some, probably the majority of) luthiers and (some, probably the majority of) companies to promote their products.

 

A guitar sounds as it sounds. Period.

Partially agree, about the aging thing. Yes, wood changes over time--more than anything else it dries out--but IMHO the difference in sound is far more subtle than we've been led to believe. An old Martin, for example, sounds the way it does because it's an old Martin and old Martins are simply good guitars.

[bigald18]

The change in sound is effected much more by drying out than you think. A guitar opens up because it's overall moisture content goes down over time. Do an experiment: Keep your guitar in 90% humidity for about a week. Try playing it. It will sound muffled. Humidify it at 50% humidity for the next week and the guitar will "open up" again. Same thing happens when a git ages.

[Freeman Keller]

I agree with all the above.

 

First, for Masterbuilt - remember that many ukuleles are built with the tops of the same wood as backs and sides. All koa or all mahogany ukes are very common, much less so with guitars.

 

Each guitar (uke) is the sum total of all of its parts - wood is just an engineering material and each piece of wood or variety of tree brings its own characteristics. There are variations of course within samples of wood types, but in general each has properties (stiffness, mass densitiy, Youngs modulus, etc) that will contribute to the way it vibrates and sounds. Enough people have played enough D18s verses D28's to know this (yes, I know that Martin changes bracing patterns pretty much at whim), maybe a better comparison is a Taylor 314 vs a 414. Putting sound into words is a problem we all have, but usually we can hear those sounds.

 

But what the builder (or manufacturer) does with the wood makes all the difference too. Body size, bracing, and all the little subtleties make each guitar what it is. I just came back from the Guild of American Lutherie's convention - one of the highlights was the critical acoustic guitar listening session (there was also a uke session, I didn't attend). Out of 31 guitars there was one dread and one what I would call a mini-dread. Both Mark Swanson (the player) and Mike Doolin (the moderator) comment that of all the guitars they "sounded like dreads". Interestingly one of them was sycamore - back, sides and top. As they say, size really does matter.

 

The other guitars were all over the board in materials, size (mostly smaller), construction methods, bracing but there was one that sort of stood out - it had a nice bright sound that Mark called "bluesy". It happened to be my little 00 size all mahogany guitar - lots of people seemed to like the sound but it was certainly different.

 

 

[Freeman Keller]

 

Sitka spruce was commonly used as a wing spar in some older airplanes. Maybe some of those old planes would have flown better if they had a Brazilian rosewood wing spar.

 

If you say that tonewood makes no difference, you're WRONG! (and a liar)

 

One of the biggest uses of Brazillan rosewood back in the 1800's was coffins. Maybe we should go out to the cemetery with a shovel and dig up old grand dad.

[masterbuilt]

I agree with all the above.

 

First, for Masterbuilt - remember that many ukuleles are built with the tops of the same wood as backs and sides. All koa or all mahogany ukes are very common, much less so with guitars.

 

Each guitar (uke) is the sum total of all of its parts - wood is just an engineering material and each piece of wood or variety of tree brings its own characteristics. There are variations of course within samples of wood types, but in general each has properties (stiffness, mass densitiy, Youngs modulus, etc) that will contribute to the way it vibrates and sounds. Enough people have played enough D18s verses D28's to know this (yes, I know that Martin changes bracing patterns pretty much at whim), maybe a better comparison is a Taylor 314 vs a 414. Putting sound into words is a problem we all have, but usually we can hear those sounds.

 

But what the builder (or manufacturer) does with the wood makes all the difference too. Body size, bracing, and all the little subtleties make each guitar what it is. I just came back from the Guild of American Lutherie's convention - one of the highlights was the critical acoustic guitar listening session (there was also a uke session, I didn't attend). Out of 31 guitars there was one dread and one what I would call a mini-dread. Both Mark Swanson (the player) and Mike Doolin (the moderator) comment that of all the guitars they "sounded like dreads". Interestingly one of them was sycamore - back, sides and top. As they say, size really does matter.

 

The other guitars were all over the board in materials, size (mostly smaller), construction methods, bracing but there was one that sort of stood out - it had a nice bright sound that Mark called "bluesy". It happened to be my little 00 size all mahogany guitar - lots of people seemed to like the sound but it was certainly different.

 

 

That's why I had these two paragraphs in the post:

 

 

"The “sound” changes with different combinations of wood, bracing, body size and shape. Many companies have different sounds on different instruments depending on the choice of woods used. So, here is a basic rundown…"

 

"Keep in mind that for guitar, attack angle can make a difference in your tone, too. So can changing your strumming position. With ukulele, the strumming hand position doesn’t change the tone as much as on a guitar."

 

Differences can be appreciable with choices of wood, variations in body dimension, construction, even setup. The tone wood list is a basic guide --all things considered.

[riffmeister lives]

Personally, I hate the name "tone wood". It's just wood. The woods used do influence the sound of the finished product, just like all the other variables (body size, top thickness, bracing, glue, finish, etc etc).

[Pine Apple Slim]

EVERYTHING effects the sound. The type of wood is an important variable. Even in an electric guitar.

Other factors can of course over ride or overshadow the wood selection, but the thing is made out of WOOD. Its what you start with before adding all the other bits. Of course it matters.

 

 

[Idunno]

Personally' date=' I hate the name "tone wood". It's just wood. The woods used do influence the sound of the finished product, just like all the other variables (body size, top thickness, bracing, glue, finish, etc etc).[/quote']

 

 

Tune Wood?

 

Tone is something electric guitarists are always in pursuit of. The way they usually start out is to buy a cheap Squier tele or strat knock-off, tear it apart and then rebuild it with their decidedly perfect combinations of spark-using thingies. I think that's about right from what I've read countless times. Then, they do the same thing with their amps. To round it off they create these massive pedal boards filled with devices that do what their own handiwork could not, for tone, and then start all over again. Somewhere in their crafted search they remember that tone lies in the hands and eventually sell everything to get the one guitar that suits their hands.

 

I think I've heard all the combos out there to be heard. Sometimes I'd take a day trip just to play some exotic boutique builder's guitar hanging in some remote store. These days, though, you'll find me playing the cheapos at the local places just to kill an hour or so. And, I couldn't care less what they're made of.

[garthman]

. . . . . . These days' date=' though, you'll find me playing the cheapos at the local places just to kill an hour or so. And, I couldn't care less what they're made of.[/quote']

 

Same here. And quite often those cheapos sound better than the dearos

[Helloween 66]

Take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/forum/guitar/acapella-41/31221468-comparison-of-tonewoods

[Idunno]

So, the pore depictions are evident but who wrote the rule about larger pores equating to fatter tone? And, what is "fatter"? Who qualifies that thread's postulation? The sheep are no longer bleating in synch.

[garthman]

Mumbo Jumbo

[AndrewGG]

Different tonewoods absolutely make a difference, and a very obvious one if you know what you're listening for. With guitars and the generally large area of top wood available as a tone producer this is very evident but, and I admit not having much experience of them, I'd be surprised given the tiny area and consequent stiffness of a ukulele soundboard, if the variations are as evident as with guitars.

[masterbuilt]

Different tonewoods absolutely make a difference' date=' and a very obvious one if you know what you're listening for. With guitars and the generally large area of top wood available as a tone producer this is very evident but, and I admit not having much experience of them, I'd be surprised given the tiny area and consequent stiffness of a ukulele soundboard, if the variations are as evident as with guitars.[/quote']

 

The difference can be appreciable because the soundboard on a well-made uke can be one-third the thickness of a guitar. I have some Hawaiian hand-built ukes that are worth over $1500 and they really do have a unique sound.

[recordingtrack1]

 

 

Tune Wood?

 

Tone is something electric guitarists are always in pursuit of. The way they usually start out is to buy a cheap Squier tele or strat knock-off, tear it apart and then rebuild it with their decidedly perfect combinations of spark-using thingies. I think that's about right from what I've read countless times. Then, they do the same thing with their amps. To round it off they create these massive pedal boards filled with devices that do what their own handiwork could not, for tone, and then start all over again. Somewhere in their crafted search they remember that tone lies in the hands and eventually sell everything to get the one guitar that suits their hands.

 

I suppose I am, at least in your eyes, guilty of this. I have built several home-made electric guitars now and I have, well, only one homemade pedal board. Don't mess with the amps too much, I own several amps and each has it's own merit. It is true that I have bought and sold different guitars over the years trying to find good "tone". Big deal. I have to defend my building electric guitars simply due to pleasure I get from doing it. When I was a kid, I built $2.00 model cars. Mostly, because I wanted a "real" car and that wasn't happening at my income level. Maybe it was a kind of fantasy world, but it held, and still holds a warm place in my heart, even to this day. It was fun, and that was all it was. I'm kind of the same way about my guitars. They are mostly Frankenstein partscasters. They don't amount to HUGE investments but they are fun to work on and I find challenges in making them work together and come out playable and with good build quality. That may seem ridiculously wasteful to you, but not to me. While I anticipate getting a good sounding guitar, the real reward is in the process of building and tweaking the guitar to make it work. I know I don't have the building skills that some of the people on this site have, nor do I have the desire to be that. However, I enjoy electric guitars and when I put together one that really works and sounds good, I get a great deal of satisfaction from that.

 

All that said, I get good tone out of my hands.

[guitarcapo]

You''l hear a lot of varying opinions on the matter but in my experience the species of wood used to construct the back and sides of a guitar has very little to do with the tone a guitar makes.

 

There are many other factors that don't get ANY mention that effect things far more. Among those are:

 

Bracing pattern, thickness, and height

box volume, depth and shape

guitar shape

scale length

kerfing

soundhole size, shape and location

bridge footprint

Bridgeplate size, shape and location.

String alloy

Soundboard thickness, species, and stiffness

 

And this is just scratching the surface.

 

The back and sides get so much attention because of marketing and plain urban mythology. It's like assuming a car's performance stats based on the color of paint. Throw a sugar cube into a swimming pool. Your analytical mind might assume that the water is now sweeter....but take a taste and reality might set in.

 

I can shape a guitar's tone using any back and side wood. I choose it more for looks and rarity....much like a watchmaker will use gold to make an expensive watch not for any intrinsic timekeeping accuracy properties....but for beauty and market demand.

 

At the end of the day, and acoustic guitar will always sound like an acoustic guitar....you'll never make one that sounds like a pipe organ or harmonica. You'll also never be able to tell with any repeatable accuracy what wood a guitar is made of based on how it sounds. And don't get me started on ELECTRIC guitars and all that Paul Reed Smith Brazilian rosewood fingerboard worship....

[garthman]

. . At the end of the day' date=' an acoustic guitar will always sound like an acoustic guitar....you'll never make one that sounds like a pipe organ or harmonica. You'll also never be able to tell with any repeatable accuracy what wood a guitar is made of based on how it sounds. And don't get me started on ELECTRIC guitars and all that Paul Reed Smith Brazilian rosewood fingerboard worship....[/quote']

 

Attaboy, Cap!. With you all the way.

[Thom Mack]

Tone wood mean's any kind of wood that is used for constructing a musical instrument. Generally used in stringed instruments. The most popular choice of Tone wood guitar is Mahogany. Its a dense wood with a dark finish.

[recordingtrack1]

I did not know that Mahogany was a dense wood with a dark finish. dense.......wood......hmmmm. So what is Rosewood?

[kwakatak]

Don't you just love it when a noob comes on here and educates us.

 

LOLZ.

 

Back and sides are usually made from hard woods. Some woods like mahogany have open pores. Others like maple have no pores. Meanwhile the tops are usually made of ligher, softer wood usually from a conifer tree such as spruce or cedar - with mahogany and koa being a couple of exceptions. The soundboard wood is usually selected for its stiffness in relation to its weight and thickness.

 

Some say that back and sides and even neck material offer nothing to a guitar's tone but I'd humbly disagree. I've found that holding a guitar away from my body lets it ring out longer and when holding a guitar by its headstock and rapping on the neck I can detect a sympathetic resonance coming from the soundhole.

 

BTW, last I checked mahogany was actually a medium brown that reddens with age. On the spectrum of hardwoods it's actually not that dense at all and is much easier to work with then rosewood and maple.

 

PS: what about finish? I've seen some guitars that had a finish thick enough to resemble what one would see on an expensive dining table top.

[Idunno]

He said "I gots tones in my hands and times in my feets."

 

Tonight I was jamming with a band on a discontinued thin bodied Martin HPL, through a Fender Frontman. The drummer, also a guitarist, liked what I was putting up so he messed with the set-up to put me out front, sound-wise. No idea what he was stepping on or what dials he was turning. The guitar was sweet in the mix.

 

It's in what you know.

 

Unplugged, that guitar kinda blows by contrast to most wood boxes but better than any unplugged semi-hollow electric will give.

 

I've watched videos about tapping on plates of different tone woods and listening to their responses. Take one, mill it a micrometer thinner and it will give off a sound that differs from its previous thicker state. Compare it to another similar plate of a different species and hear a different sound.

 

Can I get the same sound characteristics from two different species (side/back woods) by modifying the physical construction of the sound box of one to match the sound of another? To a significant extent, I believe this can be done. I think it happens often by working the sound board and then the elements of the sound box. But, what do I know...? I mean, if Irvin Samogye can completely destroy the tonal characteristics of the B/S woods of a guitar with his inlaid marquetry and still produce a fine sounding instrument I'd say those elements of the guitar box are not about species.

 

I think the aesthetic is all too often ascribed aural qualities by the conjuring of imagination. It looks pretty so it must sound pretty, too. I could also be full of my own imaginings but no one will know one way or the other, never actively seek the truth (because it's impossible to derive) and yet debate it as one way or the other until no one cares to debate it further, that is, until it's considered fresh again enough for another <run-on dialog at whittling time with a cold lemonade. Imaginings.

 

Can I make a guitar with tight-grained, book-matched HPL that rivals The Fancys in sound? Sarcasm offered but possibly failing, I think it can be done.

[guitarcapo]

It's really a lot to do with the top. And the size/shape/box volume of the guitar.

 

Bracing pattern doesn't even enter the equation much as you'd expect.

 

When I build a guitar, I don't bother tapping plates and all that tuning nonsense until the very end. Because those properties change too much after you glue the top onto the rim to give you any consistency.

 

One method I've developed that gives me a great sounding guitar every time is to string the guitar up unfinished and play it a bit. I leave the top a little thick and the bracing thinned out to almost nothing everywhere it meets the kerfing.

 

The guitar will usually sound a little boxy when first strung up...and then sound better after the soundboard is under tension a few days.

 

Then I take out a small handheld orbital sander and go around the periphery of the lower bout, taking off small amounts of spruce there. From time to time I play the guitar between all of this listening for the bass to show up and the volume to increase. The trick is not to "overdo" this so that the guitar top isn't under-built. That gives the top room to age and improve over decades. You're listening for a nice balance between bass and treble. Typically this procedure adds bass to match the trebles that the center of the guitar provides. Volume and sustain increases as well.

 

After I'm happy with the sound I finish the guitar. It's pretty simple and works great every time.

 

Personally I build my acoustics with very stiff back and sides. I don't WANT those areas vibrating because your arms and stomach act as a damper to vibrational energy. Keeping all the vibrational energy on the top gives you better volume, sustain and projection. This isn't a violin where the back and top plates vibrate and create sound with energy being continuously supplied by the bow.