Down with Brazilian Rosewood

[ThreeChordMonty]

What gives with this stuff? My observation: Hyped up overpriced hoohah tonally indistinguishable from East Indian rosewood. Anybody want to suggest there is actually a tonal advantage that is discernible to mere mortals?

[woody b]

The Brazilian that's available today is mostly stumpwood and reclaimed junk. All of the guitars I've played with old growth, quarter sawed Brazilian sounded GREAT. All of them were 40+ years old too so that might have had something to do with the tone. IMHO Brazilian is a great tonewood but it's not worth what it cost. Mahogany has always been my favorite but now it's getting in short supply.

[t60 fan]

Unfortunately I've never had the pleasure of playing a vintage Brazilian. The newer ones have been great.

Try a blackwood if you get a chance. I love those.

[ThreeChordMonty]

I don't mean to suggest Brazilian doesn't sound great. It does, on a guitar that's made right (for the price, a lot of care is usually invested in its use so they are seldom made wrong). It's also quite beautiful, though not my favorite wood in the looks department. I'm just saying that in general I could not begin to justify paying the obscene prices Brazilian goes for. I just don't see the point unless you have so much money that you're scrambling for a way to spend it all before you die.

Blackwood is fantastic. A nice blackwood guitar is something I'd love to own.

[riffmeister]

nowadays, Brazilian Rosewood is really more of a "trophy guitar" wood..........99.99% of the really good stuff is gone.

good thing, because I like the sound of mahogany, anyway.....

[JasmineTea]

Why does'nt anyone start a tree farm in Brazil?
I'm guessing it's because no one would see a profit for at least 100 years. {censored}, you'd think CFM would start one for his grandchildren.

If I pay 3 grand for a guitar, I'm paying for the workmanship.

There's one or two luthiers who post around here who are certain that back and side woods have almost nothing to do with tone. I don't agree with that philosophy completely, but I do agree that workmanship is #1.

[JasmineTea]

Furthermore...

Trophy hunters. The sobs don't play guitars, they look at them.

[knockwood]

Originally posted by JasmineTea There's one or two luthiers who post around here who are certain that back and side woods have almost nothing to do with tone. I don't agree with that philosophy completely, but I do agree that workmanship is #1.

 

 

I've heard that now and then about back/side woods not having an impact and I think it's a pretty nutty observation. I agree money for workmanship is a better trade than money strictly for materials.

[studyscoot]

I'm lucky enough to have a father with a brazillian. Sustain that lasts forever. The tone is really great, but it's starting to need a set-up. Martin 000 body style, pre-WWII. It blows away my brother's HD-28. Big difference. But I guess I need to take into account that we are able to play them side by side. Obviously the two types of rosewood will sound more similiar than, say, mahogany or blackwood.

[guitarcapo]

There's a lot of factors going on:

First of all. Any hand-builder building with Brazilian is probably going "all out" to make a good guitar...all the other components and the attention is there so a better guitar results.

As for all the good stuff being gone, I have about 100 AAA BRW back and side sets I inherited. It's perfect quality but I don't know where I will get more. My guess is that hand builders probably have enough to last them the rest of their lives. It's just the big factories that are using junk. A hand builder wouldn't use that stuff.

As for the actual quality of Brazilian, I have to say that the genus of the back and side's wood probably only contributes
5% to a guitar's sound...the species maybe only .5%

But then you could just as easily argue that cubic zirconia fulfills 99.5% of the function of a true diamond. WHy would people pay those outrageous prices?
It's just how people are.

[guitarcapo]

Originally posted by JasmineTea Why does'nt anyone start a tree farm in Brazil? I'm guessing it's because no one would see a profit for at least 100 years. {censored}, you'd think CFM would start one for his grandchildren. If I pay 3 grand for a guitar, I'm paying for the workmanship. There's one or two luthiers who post around here who are certain that back and side woods have almost nothing to do with tone. I don't agree with that philosophy completely, but I do agree that workmanship is #1.

 

 

 

It doesn't work that way.They tried starting Indian Rosewood farms and found that the tree grows differently that way than it does in forrests. The wood comes out greyish with very wide growth lines, probably due to fast growth without competition and the lack of nutrients unique to forrests.

 

A more practical plan would be to simply buy up and preserve acreage that contains old growth Brazilian trees. Perhaps even selling the lumber from dead/windfall trees to pay for living ones. This is controversial because some would argue that it perpetuates a market for the wood.

 

The ironic part is that guitar building is not want has caused the tree to become endangered. It's the furniture industry, veneer industry, and slash and burn farming of Brazil that has done that. You could probably supply the entire world with guitars from the trees that just die naturally every year.

 

Like endangered animals, the idea to just grab a few of them and throw them in a cage together to make more is pretty miopic.

[knockwood]

I'm going to have my Guild cloned.

[JasmineTea]

Originally posted by knockwood I'm going to have my Guild cloned.

Elixers suck.

[knockwood]

Originally posted by JasmineTea Elixers suck.

 

 

Thanks, man. I forgot to mention that.

[Herb Hunter]

According to one of the most repected luthiers of our time, Brazilian rosewood is better than Indian with regards to tone.

It is difficult to compare the two types of rosewood because of the many variables in a guitar that affect tone. Over time a luthier who has built many guitars or a music store hound that has played many different guitars begins to appreciate the difference.

When Rosewood trees were cut years ago, the practice was to begin the cut at chest height. Now loggers are going back and harvesting the "stumps" (although they are really more than just stumps) that were left behind. It turns out that what was left behind is actually very good wood and in some cases better than the wood from the taller part of the tree.

[guitarcapo]

The problem with stump wood is that it often twists and warps after cutting. This is sometimes due to the compressive forces of all that weight on the base of the tree. It can usually be worked out but there is often more bending involved. On the upside it is prettier and more often free of knots and defects than the 3rd grade Brazilain lumber that's been left over here in America.

Luthiers will tell you of Brazilian stump wood bookmatched sets that look fabulous... but have turned into "potato chips" in storage. They are usually salvaged by pressing them flat with heat...waiting a few months...doing it again....until flat and stable.

Let's get real. The back and sides of an acoustic guitar act as a "sympathetic resonator" Possibly adding a little color to the tone, but insignificant compared to:

The guitar's size (width at lower bout)
the scale length
the top species
the top thickness
the bracing pattern, dimensions, scalloping
the bridgeplate size, species, thickness
the strings
the neck species, density
the headstock mass
the soundhole shape and size
box volume
guitar's depth (width)
presence of a cutaway
12 fret or 14 fret
bridge shape size and species
saddle material
string brand
fingerboard species
stuff that didn't come off the top of my head just now.....

Combine all this with the fact that your stomach and arm (especially mine because I'm fat) are pressing up against the back and sides (therefore dampening that element more than the others) And I'd venture to say that a lot of players are attributing way too much tone to the species of wood that the backs are made of.

Don't get me wrong. I'd take Brazilian over Indian myself all things being equal. But that's mostly because it's pretty and rare and valuable. Solid gold silverware that functions the same as stainless steel.

[Chirpy_72]

Originally posted by JasmineTea Why does'nt anyone start a tree farm in Brazil? I'm guessing it's because no one would see a profit for at least 100 years. {censored}, you'd think CFM would start one for his grandchildren. If I pay 3 grand for a guitar, I'm paying for the workmanship. There's one or two luthiers who post around here who are certain that back and side woods have almost nothing to do with tone. I don't agree with that philosophy completely, but I do agree that workmanship is #1.

 

 

You could start a tree farm and let them grow for 100yrs. That's 100 yrs of labor costs, material costs etc. Then 100 yrs is up, CFM the 10th is ready to cut the trees down ... you have that damn CITES treaty that won't let you sell any of the wood, let alone get the wood past customs.

 

East Indian rosewood is quickly going in the same direction as Brazilian, for that matter so is mahogany.

 

In the future, all acoustics will be made of Saeple, HPL and Micarta. Of course we'll all be driving hovercars and wearing tinfoil pants.

[Andrewrg]

There IS a LOT of hype surrounding BRW and I agree with a previous poster suggesting that its the guitar,not the wood which is the main factor in a great sounding guitar.With any instrument made from a naturally variable material you are going to get good ones and dogs-no matter how spectacular the wood looks.
I have a BRW Blueridge among my guitars;its ok,nothing special.
The money being charged for a BRW upgrade by some manufacturers is nothing short of scandalous.You can buy sets of BRW for between $300-$600.That translates to around $15,000 when Martin turns it into a guitar.
Worth it? Its your money!

[guitarcapo]

A high grade AAA Brazilian rosewood back and side set (two piece back, old growth,bookmatched, no knots, no wormholes, quartersawn, good color, dense grainline, and large enought to build a Jumbo)
sells for around 500 dollars these days.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally posted by guitarcapo A high grade AAA Brazilian rosewood back and side set... sells for around 500 dollars these days.

 

 

I've been wondering what the wood costs. Thanks for the information.

 

As a point of comparison, how much would big leaf maple and honduras mahogony, of equal quality and size cost?

[Herb Hunter]

Originally posted by Andrewrg You can buy sets of BRW for between $300-$600.That translates to around $15,000 when Martin turns it into a guitar. Worth it? Its your money!

 

 

Rosewood requires more preparation before applying the finish so there is also an added labor cost.

[Andrewrg]

Honduras mahogany is going the way of Brazilian rosewood;its scarce and costly.Maple,on the other hand is readily available but the cost here usually correlates with how figured the wood is.Top grade quilting usually commands high prices.
Best thing is to shop around and do a websearch for luthiery suppliers.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally posted by Andrewrg There IS a LOT of hype surrounding BRW and I agree with a previous poster suggesting that its the guitar,not the wood which is the main factor in a great sounding guitar.

 

 

 

A well made mahogany guitar and an equally well made rosewood are going to sound quite different. While I don't like that people regard mahogany as inferior to the rosewood, it isn't it just has a different tone, the woods sound different and they each have their place. For example I would rather play a rosewood guitar for rhythm and a mahagony for lead.

 

The original question had more to do with the difference between Indian and Brazilian rosewood and there has been little comment about that.

All else being equal, how do the two differ in tone?

[Andrewrg]

Herb,I`ve played a few BRW guitars and many EIRW.I dont think there really is a definitive answer.Some folk claim that BRW is a little crisper sounding and perhaps more"airy"-I really dont know.
The way I see it,there are so many variables involved in a guitar`s performance on any given day-string age,relative humidity,room acoustics,background noise levels-not forgetting that no two guitars will ever sound the same.
To my ears the tonal differences are not that marked and are fairly subtle.
What is without question is that when you buy a set of BRW the cost reflects its rarity.
Prior to 1969 Martins rosewood acoustics were all Brazilian.It wasnt a big deal then when it was readily affordable and nothing magical has happened since.
EIRW is now also becoming more scarce and expensive and will no doubt go the same way as BRW.

[BrainChild]

As the owner of a 67 D-28 with BRW and a 71 D-28 with Indian I at least hear no difference in these two guitars. I have also compared my 97 D-28 with these two and actually prefer it. I have friends with 40's and 50's BRW Martins that swear they are better than anything anyone else ever owned, however when I play them myself I am not overwhelmed, nor envious. Yes a few vibrate pretty strong but you would too with no finish left on the top, high action, and heavy strings. Every guitar has it's own character, often determined by the age, climate it has been in, how much it's been played, etc. I for one feel the BRW farce is out of control and view the vintage market in general as a bunch of ego boys. I prefer to keep my funds in banks where a minor wood crack won't cost me a $5k loss or a fire my life savings. .