Mahogany vs rosewood back and sides...

[Misha]

I think each manufacturer has his own way to create guitars that sound brighter or darker or warmer, or... It has to do with the building process, the bracing (as Kwak mentioned), etc. Because, a Taylor is a taylor and a Martin is a Martin. Usually, Taylors are brighter...

 

I'm pretty sure both of these manufacturers use the same wood combinations for several models.

 

Conclusion: Wood makes a difference, but there are other variables...

 

If we compare two guitars made by the same company, of the same size, same type of bracing, I stand by my observations though!

 

Biggest conclusion: use your ears!!! Get the guitar that speaks to you - and to your heart - otherwise, pass your way on the deal!

[Rich]

IMO, mahogany guitars always sound dry and sterile to me. The rosewood models always seem to sound more lively and louder.

[Goofball Jones]

This is all in playing them personally though, yes? I mean, listening to a recording of a solo acoustic, are you able to distinguish between mahogany and rosewood sides and back?

 

[Misha]

This is all in playing them personally though, yes? I mean, listening to a recording of a solo acoustic, are you able to distinguish between mahogany and rosewood sides and back?

 

Nope, (at least, not me!)

[guildfire]

This is all in playing them personally though, yes? I mean, listening to a recording of a solo acoustic, are you able to distinguish between mahogany and rosewood sides and back?

 

No, but some on here will swear they can tell the difference.

[Misha]

 

No, but some on here will swear they can tell the difference.

 

 

I can't tell the difference when I hear a recording and it doesn't matter to me because I love both rosewood and mahogany!

[Pine Apple Slim]

From my many years of hanging around bluegrass festivals and hearing and playing innumberable D18s vs 28s/35s/41s, my overall assesment is

 

the 18s are better at cutting thru the other instruments, single notes cut thru well, and the bass is still punchy, high strings are crisp.

 

28s and 35s are better for that big boomy & beautiful bass note heavy bluegrass rhythm. And the poster who comapred a good D35 to a grand piano, yea, I understand that totally.

[blue2blue]

Perfect thread for me right at this mo' because I'm weighing the choice of a Silver Creek T160 vs. T170.

 

The collective thoughts tend to reflect my general impressions (though I've never owned a mahogany acoustic but I've played a number over the years) and it's certainly worth considering that there are a range of factors beyond side/back wood choice.

 

I've always had a rule to never buy a 'real' acoustic by mail -- and there's no question that there's a bit of a crapshoot angle to it all -- but circumstances are certainly pointing me in that direction.

 

This thread has been really helpful in clarifying my position and removing some of my uncertainties. (FWIW, I'll probably go mahogany; I'm a finger guy; I've been using a Norman [seagull jr] dread and I like it but want a tighter sound -- and more right shoulder comfort when playing right knee.)

[Freeman Keller]

 

From my many years of hanging around bluegrass festivals and hearing and playing innumberable D18s vs 28s/35s/41s, my overall assesment is the 18s are better at cutting thru the other instruments, single notes cut thru well, and the bass is still punchy, high strings are crisp. 28s and 35s are better for that big boomy & beautiful bass note heavy bluegrass rhythm. And the poster who comapred a good D35 to a grand piano, yea, I understand that totally.

 

 

 

That is the conventional wisdom and I try to hear it - and I try to hear all the other things people have been saying here. But you know, when we had a blind posting of a hog jumbo, rose jumbo and maple jumbo a few years back the poll was only slightly more significant than guessing. That reminds me of my string test - some people chose the strings they hate as the best sounding. Conversly, knowing before hand can add some interesting bias.

 

I think it would be very interesting to hear clips of these two guitars - particularly if they were not identified. Put new strings on both (same obviously) and play them the same way - lets see who can identify which.

 

My little quiver has mahogany and sapelle and rosewood and koa - but not the same bodies or construction. I like them all

[guitarcapo]

So many other factors come into play shaping the sound that a guitar makes that they overwhelm that one small feature: (what taxonomic species of wood the back and sides are made from).

 

The soundboard, box size and shape, and scale length are the big factors.

 

I can understand that the wood that the back and sides are made of naturally draws attention...but it's really a small ingredient in the equation.

 

It's sort of like trying to make some prediction of what gas mileage a car will get by the color of paint used.

 

(red gets the worst mileage because sports cars are more often painted red...etc...)

[gitmo]

I think it would be very interesting to hear clips of these two guitars - particularly if they were not identified. Put new strings on both (same obviously) and play them the same way - lets see who can identify which. My little quiver has mahogany and sapelle and rosewood and koa - but not the same bodies or construction. I like them all

 

If you guys want to hang till the weekend I'll post clips of the T-160 & T170.

 

I have a Tusq saddle coming any day now so I'll post clips of both with up to 3 different saddle in each. If it's a slow weekend, maybe even two sets of strings. We'll make it a Hog vs Rosewood vs bone vs Tusq cage match. Get Hulk Hogan on the phone for me wood ya?

[Greg.Coal]

 

IMO, mahogany guitars always sound dry and sterile to me. The rosewood models always seem to sound more lively and louder.

 

 

Thanks, Rich. I agree 100% with you. I am surprised how many people think of rosewood as being metallic or mid-rich. I think Rosewood gives richer tones and definitely deeper bass; that's why it's a standard in the dreadnoughts of old - famous for the bluegrass picking and solid bass tones.

 

Having said that, my best guitar is a Lowden jumbo with cedar top and mahogany back/sides. Magnificently deep bass notes. I bought it solely based on playability and sound.

 

For other guitars, I would say that I could identify rosewood and mahogany guitars blindfolded without any problem. I will concede, too, that there is overlap in tonal qualities across the wood species and that some mahogany guitars can sound like rosewood guitars.

 

To the OP: I think in 2 years they will sound quite different than they do today as the glue finishes curing and the resins change their chemistry and the wood and finish continues to age; esp true for the spruce top and rosewood components.

 

Greg

[Hudman]

In my opinion, most of the tone comes from the top.

 

The back and sides play a minor role in the overall tone.

[garthman]

In my opinion, most of the tone comes from the top. The back and sides play a minor role in the overall tone.

 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ This is the truth - and not only IYO - it's a fact.

 

Check out Antonio Torres Jurado and his papier mache guitar:

 

"Torres reasoned that the soundboard was key. To increase its volume, he made his guitars not only larger, but fitted them with thinner, hence lighter soundboards that were arched in both directions, made possible by a system of fan-bracing for strength.These bracing struts were laid out geometrically, based on two isosceles triangles joined at their base creating a kite shape, within which the struts were set out symmetrically. While Torres wasn't the first to use this method he was the one who perfected the symmetrical design. To prove that it was the top, and not the back and sides of the guitar that gave the instrument its sound, in 1862 he built a guitar with back and sides of papier-m

[guitarcapo]

The back and sides act AT BEST in a manner called "sympathetic resonance"

 

It does color the sound slightly BUT:

 

Within any given species of lumber there's going to be variability in terms of density and strength-to-weight from piece to piece based on growth conditions and natural variations within the species.

 

Combine THAT with the fact that different luthiers will shape the thickness of the back and sides differently(which will change the resonant frequency of that back a lot. (Think of a marimba with all the individual keys made from the same species of wood but sounding different)

 

Also combine THAT with the fact that the players stomach and arms and knee rest on the back and sides dampening any vibrations they DO contribute.

 

Combine THAT with the fact that there are so many other factors that determine a guitar's sound that are WAY more significant.... and well... I'm sorry...you might THINK you are hearing that rock maple back and sides...but you're really hearing:

 

The box volume

The soundhole size and shape

The bridge plate species and thickness

The bridge footprint species and dimensions (the bridge is probably the most important "brace" for the soundboard...but guitar manufacturers almost treat it as a brand symbol like the headstock shape (Dean, Taylor, Guild, Martin etc...)

The soundboard thickness

The bracing pattern

The scale length

The saddle material

The soundboard strength to weight ratio

The string composition

The soundboard size and shape

The soundboard and the soundboard and also the soundboard

The break angle of the strings over the saddle

The neck thickness, species, fretboard

The finish

The age of the guitar

THE KERFING of the soundboard (very signifigant)

The type of glue used....

The bracing thickness and height

 

...and after all that the just plain magic of the build that you can't predict exactly when it's all thrown together and can't totally control. A little more glue in one corner than the other, a little more clamping pressure here than there etc....

 

Personally I think there's a lot of merit to the recent trend (especially among classical guitar builders) that you want to OVERBUILD the back and sides as much as possible to RESIST vibration and REDUCE its effects as much as you can. The back and sides act as a sink tapping vibration energy from the top and subsequently getting dampened by the player's body, reducing sustain.

 

Some classical builders are increasing the side thickness by bending two sets of sides and combining them (because it would be difficult to bend one side set that thick) Basically the idea is to isolate the soundboard vibrations from the back and sides as much as possible to get maximum top vibration and minimize damping. It does make a heavier guitar but in my experience it increases brightness and sustain (a major goal in the classical guitar build)

I build mostly steel strings and I find that it makes my guitar build a bit more controlled by minimizing the back and side contribution, increasing sustain and projection. But again it's slight at best because there are so many other factors involved in the guitar's sound.

[JasmineTea]

Everything is a factor in tone, but all factors can be heard seperately.

 

One has to spend a lot of time with guitars of the same brand with similar specs in order to learn what different specs do to tone. I continue to do this with Martins because they are the most accessable brand, although I've found the basics are true with other brands.

 

It's hard to point to a Rule Of Thumb because of build variations in identical models.

 

That being said, I think of back and sides as an EQ or Effect Pedal. Rose seems to boost the low mids, Hog boosts the high mids and trebs. As for Overtones, I don't hear one as having more than the other, rather it seems they are distributed differently.

[acousticdepot]

 

In my opinion, most of the tone comes from the top. The back and sides play a minor role in the overall tone.

 

 

I was comparing FG700 (lam mahogany) to the FG730 (lam RW) in the store and there was a significant difference in tone. Although I am not an expert on these guitars and perhaps there are other differences (bracing?) that are contributing to this difference.

[Etienne Rambert]

My preferences are:

 

Rosewood B&S with Cedar top.

 

or

 

Mahogany B&S with Mahogany top.

 

or

 

Maple B&S with Spruce top.

***

 

I don't like other combinations very much.

 

I've got a big Vietnamese jumbo with IR/Cedar.

I like that sound better than my Guild D60 with IR/Spruce.

I preferred my old Guild D25 hog top to my old D40 with Spruce top.

 

The only Mahogany/Spruce combination I've liked is on my

arch-top. On flat-tops, I prefer Mahogany tops with Hog B&S.

[guitarcapo]

I seem to like cedar as a soundboard if the guitar is going to be a classical, parlor guitar, or guitar for lighter gauge strings. It's a lighter wood that seems quicker to respond with less force needed to get it to move compared to spruce. It seems to have a nice sound like the guitar is broken in more new, but doesn't seem to improve as much over time as spruce does. Of course its a more fragile wood to dents. Some people claim that it cracks easier but I haven't noticed that. I wouldn't use it myself for a jumbo steel string or a cannon strummer guitar. It seems to compress and lose separation when strummed hard, creating a brash clanky sound instead of something harmonically musical.

 

Soundboard wood choices are definitely more of a factor in the guitar's sound than back and side woods IMHO.

[gitmo]

 

I seem to like cedar as a soundboard if the guitar is going to be a classical, parlor guitar, or guitar for lighter gauge strings. It's a lighter wood that seems quicker to respond with less force needed to get it to move compared to spruce. It seems to have a nice sound like the guitar is broken in more new, but doesn't seem to improve as much over time as spruce does. Of course its a more fragile wood to dents. Some people claim that it cracks easier but I haven't noticed that. I wouldn't use it myself for a jumbo steel string or a cannon strummer guitar. It seems to compress and lose separation when strummed hard, creating a brash clanky sound instead of something harmonically musical. Soundboard wood choices are definitely more of a factor in the guitar's sound than back and side woods IMHO.

 

 

Care to attempt to quantify your assement of the contribution back and side woods make to the tone?

 

Without actual luthier knowledge and/or building experience, from reading, I agree with your list of factors but side and back wood didn't make the cut.

 

Copy:

The box volume

The soundhole size and shape

The bridge plate species and thickness

The bridge footprint species and dimensions (the bridge is probably the most important "brace" for the soundboard...but guitar manufacturers almost treat it as a brand symbol like the headstock shape (Dean, Taylor, Guild, Martin etc...)

The soundboard thickness

The bracing pattern

The scale length

The saddle material

The soundboard strength to weight ratio

The string composition

The soundboard size and shape

The soundboard and the soundboard and also the soundboard

The break angle of the strings over the saddle

The neck thickness, species, fretboard

The finish

The age of the guitar

THE KERFING of the soundboard (very signifigant)

The type of glue used....

The bracing thickness and height

 

Your synopsis of soundboard wood, context accepted, does make the argument that different wood properties lend themselves to different applications. Boat building, balsa R.C. airplanes and furniture further make the argument. How much of what is the question in my mind.

[gitnoob]

Good list. Plate thickness is an interesting one. Rosewood is more dense than mahogany, but some factory builders tend to build their guitars without consideration to wood density or stiffness, so their rosewood backs may tend to be less responsive than their mahogany backs.

 

As I get ready to shave braces on my Silver Creek, the first braces I'm eyeing are the massive lower-back braces. Those are about double the height of braces on other more responsive guitars.

 

IMO, the back makes a pretty huge contribution to the responsiveness. Tonal coloration may be more a function of the resonant frequency of the back than the particular species. And the resonant frequency of the back will primarily be a function of the plate thickness and bracing.

[Jimmy Chaos]

Rosewood is more bassy and trebley Mahogany is more mid-rangey.

[gitmo]

 

Good list. Plate thickness is an interesting one. Rosewood is more dense than mahogany, but some factory builders tend to build their guitars without consideration to wood density or stiffness, so their rosewood backs may tend to be less responsive than their mahogany backs. As I get ready to shave braces on my Silver Creek, the first braces I'm eyeing are the massive lower-back braces. Those are about double the height of braces on other more responsive guitars. IMO, the back makes a pretty huge contribution to the responsiveness. Tonal coloration may be more a function of the resonant frequency of the back than the particular species. And the resonant frequency of the back will primarily be a function of the plate thickness and bracing.

 

 

Record before and after. We'll make the Silvercreek T-1X0 the most documented guitar since Leo Fender made the Broadcaster.

[Etienne Rambert]

 

I seem to like cedar as a soundboard if the guitar is going to be a classical, parlor guitar, or guitar for lighter gauge strings...I wouldn't use it myself for a jumbo steel string or a cannon strummer guitar. It seems to compress and lose separation when strummed hard, creating a brash clanky sound instead of something harmonically musical. Soundboard wood choices are definitely more of a factor in the guitar's sound than back and side woods IMHO.

 

 

I disagree on Cedar for strumming. I have it on my jumbo and strumming

is where that guitar excels. It's the compression you refer to.

 

IR/Cedar has smooth, velvety strum sound with a light touch. That's the compression factor.

 

It is nothing like the sound of my IR/Spruce Guild D60 cannon or my

little Vietnamese Rosewood/Spruce dread. It is sheer velvet.

It's the most beautiful-sounding guitar for strumming I've owned.

 

But my style has a light touch. I'm not a Bluegrass strummer.

 

If you want a very smooth strum sound -- Cedar/Rosewood are the way to go.

 

For Spruce top instruments, I prefer Maple B&S.

[BLUtunes]

 

Rosewood is more bassy and trebley Mahogany is more mid-rangey.

 

 

This is my impression as well. In fact, I've always noticed the increase in BASS, more than the increase in treble on rosewood b/s. I have played several different guitars that differed only in the woods on the b&s, and I always thought that the rosewood guitars sounded much "mellower" and bass-y. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that my (almost) 50 yr. old ears can't HEAR the increase in treble so much, but I CAN hear a difference in bass response. Or maybe it has to do with being (primarily) a bass player and being more focused on the low frequencies.

 

I also believe that rosewood creates a much more "complex" tone with lots of overtones, that I personally find very appealing. I almost always prefer rose for the b/s, unless I'm looking specifically for a guitar that had a more clearly defined mid and high frequency response.

 

And as far as where the b/s woods fit on the list of factors that contribute to the overall sound, well, I'm no luthier, so I have no opinion about how much of a contribution things like bracing patterns (and shape of the bracings) affect the overall tone of the instrument. But, having played various guitars that were the exact same model except for the b/s woods, I personally believe that the b/s woods contribute a LOT to the overall tone of the instrument. I strongly disagree with those who move that factor down to the bottom of the list of factors that contribute to a guitar's overall tone.

 

Just my two cents worth, of course.