Rosewood: not #1 to me -- how about you?

[jpp413]

I notice that acoustics with rosewood backs/sides are typically more expensive than their other tonewood counterparts.

 

Don't know about you guys, but I prefer maple & mahogany. A few weeks back, I was at a local shop checking out some GA-sized Taylors. After a lot of A/Bing with an 814CE, I honestly thought the 614CE, and even the 414CE, both sounded superior to the 814

 

Any of you guys also prefer other tonewoods? What wood(s) do you guys like?

[AK47]

I like and own all three. I also like koa. Walnut and myrtle aren't bad choices either. These are just back and sides. Tops can be more fun. You have the spruces [sitka, red, silver, alpine, german, carpathian, ect.] Lets not forget koa, cedar, and hog. I like to kick back occasionally with a nice mid-rangey all hog guitar. Life is too short to spend the whole of it eating pizza. All the woods inspire you differently. I just wish I had more time to play.

[riffmeister]

my dread & OM are both mahogany sides/back. I traded in an Indian Rosewood s/b OM for the mahogany. mahogany guitars generally are more 'direct'.......more fundamental, less overtones.......compared to EIR models. both my guitars also have Adirondack spruce tops which adds clarity and snap.

[zb0430]

It's all personal preference. I wouldn't own a maple guitar. I simply can't stand the sound. It's just an utter lack of overtones, or something. Not sure how to even describe it. Well, I take that back, a sunburst Taylor 614ce or a Gibson J-200 would be nice... I will admit those two guitars sound the least like that cheap maple sound I was describing, but for their prices, they should sound nice, right? lol...

 

I do like mahogany, though. I'd really like to try out one of the cedar topped mahogany Taylor GS series. Bet those things sound nice.

[DonK]

Love rosewood, mahogany too. I also like koa, blackwood and imbuia. Not a maple fan for acoustics.

[Treborklow]

I love the look of many woods, but I really only prefer the sound of Mahogany. Maple and Koa are too bright for me, Rosewood too boomy, but of course it all depends on the guitar. Some bodies and bracing need certain woods to sound their best. I have heard some fine examples featuring all of those woods and I have even owned some of them. I have played some nice sounding guitars made with Walnut, Cedar and Birch as well.

[valleyguy]

Hmmm, strat vs. LP, hog vs. rosewood. Need 'em all in my opinion. Love 'em all. Some songs/styles demand one sound over the other.

 

I think mahogany generally records better then rosewood, all those overtones are hard to capture well and can get in the way of a busy mix.

[zb0430]

 

Originally posted by valleyguy Hmmm, strat vs. LP, hog vs. rosewood. Need 'em all in my opinion. Love 'em all. Some songs/styles demand one sound over the other. I think mahogany generally records better then rosewood, all those overtones are hard to capture well and can get in the way of a busy mix.

 

 

I was going to say, I will give mahogany and maple due credit over rosewood as far as simplicity in recordings go. In that application, they sound good. But with a nice setup that can capture it, those overtones just speak to me...

[EvilTwin]

I remember reading a link on here describing different woods for acoustic guitar making...and the word "metallic" came up when describing rosewood.

 

That's what I hear. I definitely hear mahogany being more "woody" and having more "air."

 

Recently I've really started to love 'hog top acoustics, too. I played a Guild GAD-25 (all-'hog) and compared it to a GAD-50 (spruce, rosewood) -- both full-size dreads. The 50 may have had more outright balls, but the 25 had a more pleasant timbre to my ears...the sound was just more "filled out" and three-dimensional.

[Blackwatch]

I've always liked the sound of mahogany but on the last guitar I bought I found a rosewood that I couldn't put down.

 

I think it's more that just the materials an instrument is made of.....it's the sum of it's parts.......

[Dave Keir]

My mahogany OM is certainly loud and direct and is the one that gets lumped around to gigs. But for recording either it, or my rosewood OOO is just fine, depending on the song. For noodling and looking for my muse with a bottle of wine to had, the rosewood does it for me.

[t60 fan]

 

Blackwood.

 

BTW, I do like maple for a 12-string; sort of smooths the jangle.

[Andrewrg]

Rosewood used to be the wood of choice for me but I now prefer more direct, less overtone-laden sounds. Maple in a super jumbo sounds great where rosewood would sound muddy and mahogany in a dread is better to my old ears!

 

 

Gibson SJ200

Gibson J185 Koa Custom

Bourgeois Slope D

[min7b5]

I like mahogany on big guitars for the added clarity, and I like rosewood on smaller guitars for the added depth:) I'm not too crazy about koa or maple.

[Pablo]

I'm not sure I have a favorite wood. I used to prefer rosewood (got a Martin D-35), but sometimes all the complex overtones that used to appeal to me so much now seem like an effect that I can't turn off. Having said that, I do still love that guitar.

 

I've played mahogany bodies that I really like (Martin, Gibson), but my favorite of the guitars I've played recently is the Taylor 615ce (maple body, spruce top), though it is decidedly out of my price range at the moment ($2,350). It sounded great even with the Elixer strings that I really do not prefer--my guess is that this guitar would sound good with rusty barbed wire for strings!

[guitarcapo]

Originally posted by Boneyard I notice that acoustics with rosewood backs/sides are typically more expensive than their other tonewood counterparts. Don't know about you guys, but I prefer maple & mahogany. A few weeks back, I was at a local shop checking out some GA-sized Taylors. After a lot of A/Bing with an 814CE, I honestly thought the 614CE, and even the 414CE, both sounded superior to the 814 Any of you guys also prefer other tonewoods? What wood(s) do you guys like?

 

 

I understand your confusion. It's because the back and side's wood species have almost nothing to do with the sound an acoustic guitar makes...Maybe 2 percent ....I would venture to say that the brand of strings probably contributes more to the final tone. The main reason that rosewood has gotten it's reputation is because it's traditionally been more expensive and guitars built with it were usually given more attention and soundboards of better quality and workmanship.

 

Factors people should pay more attention to than what wood the back and sides are made of:

 

SCALE LENGTH: It plays a big role in the amount of tension applied to the top when tuned to standard pitch. No one ever gives it a thought other than playing comfort.

 

GUITAR SIZE: This is fairly complicated. Box Volume. Depth to width ratio. Soundboard shape. Definitely a bigger determinant

 

SOUNDBOARD THICKNESS AND SPECIES: The species again gets all the attention...but how thick the soundboard is, how it is braced, how stiff it is based on things like the grain width etc...probably have more to do with sound than the species.

Imagine a soundboard that's an inch thick and worrying what species the wood it is to determine the tone and you might get the idea.

 

THE BRIDGE: The guitar bridge is probably the most important brace of the entire soundboard. It's right in the center of the action. But it seems to get no attention other that cosmetic considerations. The species seems to be mostly determined by

matching the fingerboard wood.

And what shape it is has a lot to do with how the soundboard vibrations set...but most guitar manufacturers use it as a brand logo and would never think of using a different bridge to complement a different guitar model

 

BRACING: Not just the scalloping. The pattern. The width or the braces and height. The bridge plate size and thickness. The depth that the tailblock intrudes into the soundboard.

 

The NECK: Although it probably effect tone more in solid electric guitars. I would venture to say that the neck probably plays more of a role in sound than the back and sides species.

 

I could go on and on. Soundhole size? 12 fret vs 14 fret? Cutaway or non-cutaway?

 

At the end of the day just pick a wood species for the back and sides you like the looks of. Don't let it influence your decision that much other than that. Play the guitar. If you like the sound or not isn't your imagination...it's your best barometer.

And after a while you'll see that all that attention being paid to the back and sides is misplaced.

 

The back and sides acts as a "sympathetic resonator" It vibrates a bit and maybe colors the sound slightly. But really. Does your guitar sound any different when your belly and arm are up tight against it dampening all the vibration versus playing it without that happening? If that's the case...how much do you figure the

SPECIES makes a difference?

[STEELSTRINGS]

It depends on what I'm playing. I generally like rosewood and spruce the best. For some songs my dao sounds best(though not very loud). I think a mahogany and cedar would really round out my collection nicely.

[Cldplytkmn]

i've got

 

hog/cedar

hog/spruce

hog/hog

 

so you tell me... i'm about to start on my next list

 

rose/spruce

rose/cedar

rose/hog?

[t60 fan]

 

Originally posted by guitarcapo I understand your confusion. It's because the back and side's wood species have almost nothing to do with the sound an acoustic guitar makes...

 

 

I know we all have oft debated this topic. However, when I play, say, a Larri 03 hog vs a Larri 03 rw, I hear a difference and I don't claim to have a great ear (just a pretty decent ear). Maybe a less valid example, but my L7 Blackwoods sound remarkably different (better to me) than their sapelle "African Mahogany" siblings. Very different.

[Attila]

I'm not much into rosewood either --- maple or mahagony are my preferences. Actually, to my ears, maple and mahagony sound very similar, with maple perhaps being a tad punchier.

 

-Attila

[da mayor]

 

I know we all have oft debated this topic. However, when I play, say, a Larri 03 hog vs a Larri 03 rw, I hear a difference and I don't claim to have a great ear (just a pretty decent ear). Maybe a less valid example, but my L7 Blackwoods sound remarkably different (better to me) than their sapelle "African Mahogany" siblings. Very different.

 

 

Likewise. I a/b'd an OM-O3R against an OM-O3M. Otherwise identical guitars, but with, to my ear, very different tone. And, although I'm not generally a rosewood fan and usually prefer mahogony, I got the OM-O3R. HTe roewood just sounded better on this guitar to me.

[Ronaldo]

Rosewood is not #1 to me either. I love that it can sound lush and rich and 'alive' with reverberations but it also has some sort of metallic overtones that I don't like. I know a lot of people don't believe it, but I think the back and sides make a substantial difference in the tone of a guitar.

 

If I could only have one guitar, I would want mahogany b/s with a short scale. I just love the tone of mahogany -- for tops, b/s and necks. My only gripe with mahog. is that when you play single notes, rosewood can add a lush and rich sound where mahogany can sound a little plain or thin by comparison. I still prefer mahog. but it's true that in classicals and steel strings, there is a certain beautiful 'aliveness' in the reverberations of rosewood. I just prefer the woody, warm clear and direct sound that comes with mahog.

[JasmineTea]

 

Originally posted by guitarcapo It's because the back and side's wood species have almost nothing to do with the sound an acoustic guitar makes...Maybe 2 percent

I've also compared many simelar models with hog and rose sides and I gotta disagree with the 2% thing. Larrivee OM-03 -vs- OM-03R makes a darn good example.

 

 

 

Originally posted by guitarcapo Does your guitar sound any different when your belly and arm are up tight against it dampening all the vibration versus playing it without that happening?

Hell yeah.

 

 

Originally posted by guitarcapo If that's the case...how much do you figure the SPECIES makes a difference?

I'd give back and sides 15 to 20%. But hey, some people can hear it, others can't.

[d03nut]

B/S make a difference and that's no BS....

 

but I'm really enjoying my Lam-back though.........

[guitarcapo]

 

Originally posted by t60 fan I know we all have oft debated this topic. However, when I play, say, a Larri 03 hog vs a Larri 03 rw, I hear a difference and I don't claim to have a great ear (just a pretty decent ear). Maybe a less valid example, but my L7 Blackwoods sound remarkably different (better to me) than their sapelle "African Mahogany" siblings. Very different.

 

 

The trouble that people run into is that they attribute that "different sound" to the back and side woods...when more likely it something else they are hearing...most likely variability in the soundboard and how it was built....but a myriad of possible things. You can hear a lot of variability between two examples of the exact same model and make of guitar. Consecutive serial numbers...different sound.

 

Some other ingredients to the recipe that aren't given a second thought but have a lot of influence:

 

FINISH. Nitro isn't necessaerily the best but it will make a guitar sound brighter than poly. Finishes like spirit varnish will harden and crystalize over time and make a guitar sound slightly different than another guitar finished in poly. Odd that we pay so much attention to the wood underneath but not much of a thought to all the stuff laying on top of the wood.

 

KERFING. That little lining of wood that runs around the border of the guitars top and back. If it's made out of a dense stiff wood like mahogany...you'll get more sustain and maybe a more defined (tight bass)

If it's basswood (like on Guilds) the sound migh be more compressed.

 

AGE: As guitars get older and the top loosens up...they usually get louder and more "boomy" Brightness seems to come about more as a functuion of the wood drying out (intracellular water...not extracellular) Glues harden. Finish crytalizes. Just another vairiable in the mix.

 

I've heard desriptions of mahogany's tone vary from "sweet" to "woody" to "strong fundamental" to "bright"

All over the place. And what kind of "mahogany" are we talking about anyway? Honduran? African? Asian? Cuban? Some of these are totally different genus let alone species. WHy is it that we have to lump them together in terms of tone because someone arbitrarily named them the same?