Members jor.pandolfo Posted December 10, 2006 Members Posted December 10, 2006 I was looking at a guitar with a Spruce top and Maple sides. I was wondering if someone woud give insight into the sound quality of the guitar, and if possible, other types of woods.
Members babablowfish Posted December 10, 2006 Members Posted December 10, 2006 It depends on what you are looking to use it for and on the particular manufacturer and model. I am a strummer, period. I play very aggressively and have a loud voice. When I bought my Parkwood Jumbo I found the perfect guitar for me. The Parkwood PW340FM has maple back and sides and a spruce top. The tone is very sweet and clear and holds up to aggressive strumming. That said, I wouldn't recommend it to fingerpickers. Maple tends to be brighter, mahogany has a warmer tone, cedar is warmer still. Different body styles also produce different effects. I like my Jumbo partly because it booms. You should go to the guitar stores and play whats out there and get a sense of what sounds, feels and looks best to you. Don't get hung up on the material the guitar is made of or the name on the headstock or the price. Trust you ears and your hands and your eyes. Go with what is best for you.
Members Howard Emerson Posted December 10, 2006 Members Posted December 10, 2006 Hi Jor, Talk is cheap..............Listen and watch these clips of me playing, fingerstyle no less, my Flammang L-45, with red spruce top and curly maple back and sides:http://www.howardemerson.com/videos.html HEhttp://www.howardemerson.com/
Members jor.pandolfo Posted December 11, 2006 Author Members Posted December 11, 2006 howard. i enjoyed the videos very much. i do like the sound a lot and im going into a store and im going to check out some spruce tops and just play around with it.
Members jor.pandolfo Posted December 11, 2006 Author Members Posted December 11, 2006 i was taking a look at this: http://www.ibanez.com/guitars/guitar.asp?model=AW200ECEVV. I cant get my hands on it in any close stores but im going to find the sound closest to it and i cant get over the look of the guitar. any criticisms?
Members Howard Emerson Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 Hi Jor, The guitar you're hearing in the video was made for me by David Flammang, and this model goes for around $6000.00 Happy hunting in any case! Good luck! Howard
Members Etienne Rambert Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 Your playing is great Howard Emerson. I'm a Maple man myself. For the stuff I play, it's the best tone wood to use in a recording studio. What you hear is what comes out on the recording. It's clear, bright, strong, you lose almost nothing in going from sound waves to the recorded medium. In my experience, Indian Rosewood and Mahogany are more iffy. They have more complex tones. You need more expensive mic's to do them justice. You can record a Maple guitar with a Radio Shack mic and it will still sound true.
Members Howard Emerson Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 Hi Marcellis, I happen to love mahogany guitars as well, and in fact my first CD, Crossing Crystal Lake has 5 of 9 tracks recorded with a 1954 00-18 Martin. On my second CD, A Tale to Tell, I used a Martin OM-18V, a '35 Gibson L-00, and a Flammang EL Majestic to record many tracks with. All of them are mahogany back and sides. The other tracks were done with my 1927 Gibson L-5 archtop, which is maple back and sides. The thing that I like about mahogany is that it sounds good with worn strings. I do not like new strings. I want to hear what the body of the guitar has to say. Rosewood is not so forgiving with worn strings, plus I don't like the deeper bass or the extra brightness you get with rosewood, especially with new strings. HEhttp://www.howardemerson.com/
Members DeepEnd Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by jor.pandolfo i was taking a look at this: http://www.ibanez.com/guitars/guitar.asp?model=AW200ECEVV . I cant get my hands on it in any close stores but im going to find the sound closest to it and i cant get over the look of the guitar. any criticisms? First, go back and edit the link: the period at the end shouldn't be part of it. Second, I have an AW120 that I love but it's mahogany rather than maple. The AW200 would have a brighter sound. If you like a moderately bright sound, by all means go for it. Ibanez acoustics are seriously under-rated, especially the ArtWood series.
Members Freeman Keller Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 I don't think I've ever heard a git with a maple top, but here is what Dana Bourgeois says about it "Koa and mahogany have been used for soundboards since the
Members jor.pandolfo Posted December 11, 2006 Author Members Posted December 11, 2006 yes, i realized i titled the message board maple top and im sorry for the confusion. and heres the proper link i hope: http://www.ibanez.com/guitars/guitar.asp?model=AW120ECERDV any differences between the 120 and 200? Can someone shed light on dreadnought guitars?
Members Freeman Keller Posted December 11, 2006 Members Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by jor.pandolfo Can someone shed light on dreadnought guitars? Dreadnaughts were named after the warships. Big, loud, boomy. There are other boats in the navy. I wished I had known that when I bought my two dreadnaughts. My guess is that both of those guitars have laminated back and sides which might take a lot of the wood color out of the comparison. It might be mostly cosmetic. I would want to play either or both if I was considering buying one.
Members DeepEnd Posted December 12, 2006 Members Posted December 12, 2006 Originally posted by jor.pandolfo yes, i realized i titled the message board maple top and im sorry for the confusion. and heres the proper link i hope: http://www.ibanez.com/guitars/guitar.asp?model=AW120ECERDVany differences between the 120 and 200? . . .The link you have posted now is to the AW120CERDV, the acoustic/electric cutaway version of what I play. That said, it's a dynamite guitar for the price. The difference is that the AW120 is mahigany with a satin finish whereas the AW200 is maple with a gloss finish. As a practical matter, the gloss finish will be somewhat more durable. The two will sound different because of the different characteristics of mahogany and maple, with the maple being a bit brighter. Personally, I like the way mine sounds but others might think the brightness of maple compensates for the inherent boominess of the dread body shape. And Freeman Keller is right (as usual) that AFAIK both have laminated backs and sides.
Members Etienne Rambert Posted December 12, 2006 Members Posted December 12, 2006 Don't archtops often have Maple tops?
Members Kap'n Posted December 12, 2006 Members Posted December 12, 2006 Originally posted by marcellis Don't archtops often have Maple tops? Only the ones which are primarly electric in nature.
Members Howard Emerson Posted December 12, 2006 Members Posted December 12, 2006 Originally posted by marcellis Don't archtops often have Maple tops? Marcellis,Acoustic archtops are usually maple sides and backs with spruce tops, although they frequently made instruments with mahogany backs and side as well. The ones that appear to have maple on top are all laminated and will almost always have pickups, be they shallow or deep bodied. Gibson, in their ever-infinite wisdom, actually made some flat tops back in the 90's called Starburst that had maple tops. They sounded terrible played acoustically. Regards,Howard
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.