Solid top vs. laminate

[hawkeye21]

I have always been told that solid tops are the way to go, but how important are they and what are the main differences between the two?

[UGB]

The pluses to a solid top, tone and volume, contrast the pluses of a laminate top, durability and less vulnerable to temperature and humidity changes to a point that the tone becomes the overriding factor to many players. You can always take steps to care for a solid top guitar and make it last and last, but there's nothing you can really do to improve the tone of a laminate.

 

As the string vibrates, waves are sent through the top. A solid top allows the waves to travel unimpeded and more purely than a laminated top where the waves have to transition through layers. A transition = a loss of dynamic energy expressed in pleasurable tone and volume.

 

That's what I'd say anyway. Just a theory.

[UGB]

I want to make sure that I don't mislead you; laminates are not bad guitars. Tonight I had the first rehearsal w/my EA11, unplugged fer Pete's sake! The other guy was strummin' a Martin going through the PA. The sound dude said my guitar sounded really good. Is he a knowledgeable, guitar expert? No. He's a dude that listens to people make music. He likes to listen to music. In fact, he's a music teacher. I have 2 acoustics, one that's all solid and one that's all laminate. I'm selling the all solid one 'cause I need an amp for the all laminate one. Does it sound as good as the all solid one? Nope. But it's much more comfortable for me to play so I enjoy playing it more than the solid one. Will I ever upgrade this guitar to an all solid model? Probably, but that's about 3 times the price or more than what I got this one for, so it can wait. Am I happy w/this guitar? Yes; I need to continue to work on the action, but overall I'm very pleased.

 

My point is, to a listening audience, what you do w/the guitar is actually more important that what it's made out of. A player w/inferior gear but who plays w/confidence will always outshine and out entertain the player who has quality gear but plays timidly. It's not just the guitar, it's YOU playing the guitar.

[toymaker]

I agree with UGB that laminate-tops are generally more stable from day to day and also year-to-year. (They also vary much less from one guitar to another within a specific model.) Clearly there are good sounding guitars from both types of material, and you shouldn't dismiss either out-of-hand if you're buying a modestly priced guitar.

 

I know this point won't be popular, but IMHO plywood SHOULD be preferred by any progressive person who wants to optomize performance of manufactured guitars through engineering and design. The popular perception that laminates are categorically inferior suppresses research and development (and subsequently availability of better performing laminates.) Even if they sound great, laminate-top guitars must usually be priced lower than otherwise similar solid-tops, so manufacturers aren't fully rewarded for expending development cost and effort.

 

What's curious is you'll find virtually no discussion anywhere of differences from one luthier-grade plywood to another. If you look carefully along the edge of the soundhole of laminate guitars you can see that different manufacturers use different plywoods. Different core and face species, grades, ply thicknesses, etc. Stands to reason laminators must use different glues, production machinery (like sanders and presses), etc. I wouldn't be surprised, in the future to see laminate-top guitars with plys run at strategic angles (besides 90 degrees) and with less bracing applied under the soundboard (because in a sense plywood can be self bracing). All these variables are things that could be controlled by someone trying to engineer "better" guitars.

 

Plywood utilizes trees more efficiently, and is generally recognized as being more environmentally friendly.

[kwakatak]

I don't want to seem like I'm trolling but I toymaker brings up an interesting point. Unless price is the prime motivation, most people I've seen post here are looking at guitars for their tonal qualities. I'm no acoustical engineer, but don't the different densities of the layers and the layers of glue alter the vibrational properties of a laminated material as opposed to a solid piece of wood that has a unifrom grain?

[UGB]

yep, they sure do. However, makers are getting very good at making laminates that sound good and uniform. To me it's an issue of how the guitar is to be used. If it's an unplugged, 100% acoustic instrument, I'd prefer a solid top at least. If it's an acoustic/electric and will be used amplified, 100% laminate is fine w/me. I know that my solid guitar out sustains my laminate guitar by at least 2:1. Sustain, in an acoustic, is the ability for the sound board to keep transmitting the vibration of the string long after it has been struck. I don't see how a laminate w/multiple layers and transitions could ever sustain as long as a solid top guitar.

[LittleBrother]

I'd rather deal with a solid top any day. Laminates like to do strange things like come apart or delaminate at the bridge. Whenever there is a problem with a laminate guitar theres a great chance the whole guitar is trash. Not worth fixing. Definetely not worth a neck reset or other maintenance to keep them alive. In some cases when you damage laminates (bang) you dont have a repairable crack, you have a shattered splintered mess.

 

I've heard all arguments but there is nothing better than a solid top and back guitar. Sure you have to care for them a little but the rewards are ten fold. I just see no need in buying ANY laminates. I just worked too hard for my money and solid wood sturdy guitars like Larrivees are just too affordable.

 

When I walked around NAMM playing Carvins and other brands with laminates I was really set back. They are heavier and a little more dead and feel out of balance. I just thought to myself "How many dollars did they save?" Not enough to make it worth going with laminates.

 

Give me solids now. I have shifted in my opinions. Unless you are talking about a 99.00 beater I would always choose solid if I am spending 300 or more. And if I couldnt afford that. I'd save my money and wait. You can pickup soda bottles on the road and make up the difference.

 

Just an opinion and how I buy....

 

[LesStrater]

This is an excellent discussion, and Toymaker I found your post to be very thought provoking.

 

I certainly have nothing against laminate tops, and have posted my opinion here in the past about them. As I've stated, because 12-string guitars are prone to self destruction due to string tension, I wouldn't own anything but a laminate top because of the extra strength it provides. My Johnson "Red Cliff" has mahogany plywood construction and it's a wonderfully rich sounding 12-string, besides being one great looking guitar.

 

I think the problem is that I don't see any guitar manufacturer doing research and development into laminate tops beyond making them look good. Surely a laminate top can be engineered to sound BETTER then any solid top material. (Going under the usual assumption that whatever nature makes, man can make better...)

 

How difficult is it really to test the resonate qualities of a piece of wood?: Take a dozen wood samples the same thickness, mount them in a test fixture with some type of vibrating transducer in place, and measure the results with a sound sensor--seems pretty simple.

 

So how come this hasn't been done over the past 50 years? Where's the company who markets their guitars with a statement like, "Our engineered tops sound the best on the market, and we have the scientific test results to prove it!"?

 

Unfortunately the engineering of guitars has nothing to do with sound quality. It's all about aesthetics - how many pearl inlays can you stick in it to make it a "fine" instrument....

[UGB]

Knowing how a good maple cap can shape the tone of a solid mahogany body, I was wondering if anyone tried to mix species of woods for solid tops on acoustics, like have a center stripe of Koa w/wings of maple or something like that.

[Vatican]

Here's my opinion. The main issue is playability. Especially for beginners. People ask: What is a good beginner's guitar? Since beginners don't have callouses or practice, they of all people need a guitar with good action.

 

I am recording right now on a beat up acoustic, no-name brand, and it's had recently repaired gigantic whole in the front. By contrast, I've also been recording with a collection of electrics that are in the $2500 range and up. In the end, the tone doesn't matter that much. It matters, but some of that rich bass or whatever gets lost in the mix and the EQing.

 

In the end, the bottom line is that the fingers need to be expressive and talented. That's where it's at. If there's a problem with a cheap acoustic, it'll be mostly that the action is not comfortable or that the tuners don't stay in tune, or don't tune easily, or are worn down, or that it buzzes, or has uneven volume across the fretboard, etc. Laminate vs all-wood is an issue of aesthetics to me. Of course, I prefer all-wood out of pride and aesthetics and improved tone, but in reality I would settle for a playable laminate if that's all I could get.

[Vatican]

 

Originally posted by LittleBrother Give me solids now. I have shifted in my opinions. Unless you are talking about a 99.00 beater I would always choose solid if I am spending 300 or more.

 

 

I agree with that. I'd play a cheap laminate for $150 or less if it was good in other respects, but for an investment more than that, I want the real thing.

 

That was a good point, too, about how the laminates will not be as easy to fix, due to how they break up.

[Carle]

I prefer solid wood top and B/S for my guitars. I do own a Yamaha laminated guitar and it has a nice tone acoustically. I have tried to sell it several times at guitar shows but have had no takers. The problem with laminated guitars is players know they are low priced new and will not sell well used. They are mostly considered starter guitars. I have played a lot of laminated guitars and some of them sound pretty darn good.

 

I believe that using the right glues and selections of wood a plywood could be made to resonate well. I don't think plywood will ever be better or as good as solid wood for tone and sustain. The lower end guitar builders are always looking for ways to cut cost and get a sellable tone. It all boils down to "how cheap can we make it and still have a sound/tone that players will buy". High end makers are not interested in cutting cost on materials. They are interested in quality, sound/tone and customer satisfaction. They are not after high volume, instead they seek quality in workmanship and materials. High end makers does not necessarily include Gibson, Martin, Taylor, etc. I consider these and others like them high production builders. As a side note, Gibson had an article about their company in the Nashville paper and stated that they are going to try to outsell Yamaha. Well, fat chance of that happening and if you think Gibson quality is bad now just wait and see what happens.

 

As a player gets better he will seek a better guitar or different tone. This may lead him to solid wood or he may find he likes the rugged qualities of the laminated guitar. Lets face it. A solid wood guitar that costs $1000 and higher will get more careful attention than a Laminated guitar. No one wants their guitar dinged, especially the expensive guitars.

 

These are my thoughts about solids vs. laminates. Mull it over and decide for yourself. There is a place for every style guitar and we all have our likes and dislikes.

 

I am looking for a cheap laminated blues tone small body guitar that I don't mind getting dinged. I have a cheap Kay flattop that a friend gave me and a new found friend that builds/repairs guitars said he will make it into a blues killer for me so I may not have to look very hard for it. It will be one I don't mind tuning to open E, etc and worry about the damage it causes.

[UGB]

You know, you'd think the topic would cover preferences pretty well, however you state because you have a nice laminate guitar, because it's laminate you can't sell it. I'm trying to sell a solid wood guitar, solid spruce top w/solid rosewood sides and back, w/a case for $275, but because it says 'Washburn' on it, it's not moving. My point is, if it was a Breedlove laminate or a Taylor laminate, you could probably sell your guitar. Quite often purchase decisions are made by the name and NOT the construction of the guitar.

[Carle]

I don't think it's just because it's a laminate, it's because it only cost $150 in 1988 and is practically worthless now even with a Fishman Matrix Nat. 1 pickup in it. I have always thought of Washburn as good guitars. It just seems that low end guitars are starter guitars and the resell value/market is low. I may take the pickup out and try to sell it. I agreee that a lot of players buy by brand. A friend just bought a solid wood Godin small body for $150 brand new that listed for $250 because they had it for so long they wanted to move it out. He said it sounds great and plans to carry it with him to play on the road. He works for the railroad and lays over a lot. To many people buy by brand name and not quality and tone. What name is on the guitar is not as important as how well it is built, how it sounds to you, is it comfortable to play, and does the little lady catch your eye.

[RolandSM]

A solid top definitely has better tonal acoustic qualities.

 

However, if you are amplifying you instrument to a high level, you may want to consider a laminated top because feedback is less of a problem. The laminated tops are alot less expensive than a solid top, which is important to players too.

[guitarcapo]

I know some people are trying to be broad minded here but really other than cheapness there's really no excuse for a plywood topped acoustic guitar. Spruce isn't rare and expensive. It just plain sounds better than plywood. Plywood tops that do get damaged are impossible to repair well. I can understand their use in amplified guitars trying to control feedback, but in an instrument that's all acoustic...well...lets just say dried glue isn't a great tone generating material.

[UGB]

lets just say dried glue isn't a great tone generating material.

 

 

It's a lot better than wet glue.

 

[toymaker]

LittleBrother wrote: "Definitely not worth a neck reset"... Well, continuing as Devil's advocate, I'd propose Taylor's bolt-on necks perform as well as traditional construction and that other manufacturers will improve on Taylor's design... with bolt-on necks perfected, all the "maintenance" associated with frets, nuts and truss-rods will be simplified. (Imagine being able to install a factory remanufactured or even brand-new neck as easily as you change the alternator on your car!)

 

Maintenance will ultimately favor laminates because laminates will be less likely to need maintenance.

 

LittleBrother also mentioned "They are heavier..." I'd propose that to date most laminate-top guitars are probably way over-braced - or at least braced wrong for the material used - and that bracing has at least as much effect on tonal characteristics as the materials used in construction. Have you ever seen a laminate guitar with really unusual bracing? I doubt it - usually they're braced EXACTLY like a solid-top guitar. (e.g. all those Takamines that came with-or-without an "S" in their model designations...")

 

Guitarcapo wrote "lets just say dried glue isn't a great tone generating material..." IMHO, that's just plain mistaken... the glues are very thin, and they're also very analogous to the cellulose that hold fibers together in ALL woods. We're not talking rubber cement! All woods are composite materials, with fibers held in order and separation by a binding agent. The real fundamental difference between plywoods and solids is that plywoods have wood fibers oriented in a matrix - some going one way and others typically going perpindicular. If that's bad, so be it - but as I said in my first post it's not a law that laminate layers even have to be perpindicular. They also don't have to be wood - carbon, glass, or titanium could be mixed in...

 

Let me apologise here if I've stepped on toes. Just thought it might be fun to provoke a lively discussion. (My next guitar will have a solid top - but twenty years from now, who knows!)

[kwakatak]

 

Let me apologise here if I've stepped on toes. Just thought it might be fun to provoke a lively discussion. (My next guitar will have a solid top - but twenty years from now, who knows!)

 

 

I don't think you stepped on any toes - it's good to see fresh ideas. Luthery is an art form rich in tradition, though. Some of it is the results of generations of experience and certainly there is room for growth with regards to new materials. Laminated guitars do serve good purposes IMO, but there's more to building guitars than using good materials which you also pointed out.

 

As for the quality vs. perceived lack of quality of laminate guitars, I don't know if that will change. Being a satisfied laminate-owner I still know that I will never be able to sell my guitar toward the purchase of a newer one as is the practice with premium solid-wood guitars. I also know that at some point it will just not be cost-effective to repair any structural damage caused by time and neglect. Until it's ready to fall apart I will try and keep it structurally sound, though.

 

BTW, about laminated tops separating - mine seems to be 3 layers of spruce and it's bowing at the bridge, but I doubt that it will crack like a solid top would. I guess there are cheaper types of laminate out there which use inferior woods in the middle layers, maybe? I have another laminated guitar which looks like it may be separating, though. The middle layer looks like it's a softer wood and shows some signs of decay, but the top is still flat as a board.

 

EDIT: one thing that strikes me about the tone of laminates is that when you pick one up in the store, you know what it's going to sound like because it will never change. When you pick up a solid-wood guitar you don't really know. You kind of have to trust your feelings and make a judgement call based on the quality of the workmanship. For example, I've tried a number of Larriv

[LittleBrother]

No problems. I think there's a place for laminates in the market but I would limit them and not try to make them into more than what they are.

[Cortfan]

I think each type has its place. I generally prefer a solid top, back and side guitar, like my Martin. However, I also have a couple of plywood Fenders that serve an important purpose as well. I would never take my Martin to some of the bars we play at, nor would I take it to the beach, campfire deals, etc. The Fenders do those gigs, and they do them quite well. The Martin stays at home, and does the wedding (church type) gigs. We actually record with one of the Fenders, because it just sounds good when recorded. My Martin didn't sound all that great until it "opened up" after about 3 years. Now, its absolutely killer sounding. As far as playability, a good guiter tech can make about any guitar play like butter, if the neck is not warped. Btw, I use identical soundhole pups, and feedback reducers in all my acoustics.

[UGB]

Today while at a music store I noticed they had a Johnson acoustic in stock. It had a solid top. Not a bad tone at all and it played ok too. Compared to the Dean laminates, the Johnson had much more character. The Dean's seemed dead almost. Now, they could have had older strings too.

[Timezarrow]

Yes, it is easier to predict how a laminate will sound, as it will probably continue to sound about like it is new. But, as Cortfan pointed out, the solid wood guitar will eventually open up and become better. This might be an advantage for the laminate, except that the solid guitar already sounds better when it is new. It will just eventually sound even better.

 

As to worries that not enought r&d goes into laminate research, I think you have to look outside of the wood realm to see the research. Rainsong seems to think it has some nice sounding guitars if you go by the prices they charge. I don't know if you call that a laminate, as it is woven carbon fibre, but it is man-made material.

 

Plywood can be improved, and the bracing optimized for it (and I would be surprised if there hasn't been some research done), but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It seems to me more likely, if solid wood is surpassed, that it will be by some more exotic man-made material than wood layers glued together.

 

Someone said something about man always always making better stuff than nature. Do you have a blow-up type girlfriend?

 

I think there are lots of areas where natural will always be better than man-made. Who knows if guitar material will always be one of them, but right now I haven't heard anything to prove otherwise. Laminates have their uses, but they are not likely to displace solid wood for professional quality acoustic sound.

[toymaker]

Blow-up girlfriend - that really is funny!!!

 

(But it's not quite fair, because ALL guitars are man made and the question is really about refining techniques for subbassembly of solid wood layers...)

 

Your "professional quality" guitars from both premium brands and independent luthiers are notoriously inconsistent. There are a lot of threads on this forum where people report they just played a number of some model of guitar and picked the one that sang to them. Sometimes they'll report unexpected results - "today an example of Model A sounded unusually good, even though it's a cheaper version of Model B, which today sounded flat." How many times have you seen "I'd never buy a guitar without playing it first..."? Frankly, some very fancy guitars are duds, or at least dissappointing within their type, and in most industries that would indicate a quality problem.

 

I've been searching around for a technical explanation of what really happens to a guitar to make it "open up". Apparently, the wood gets more flexible over time (seems unlikely!) or it actually gets LESS flexible but vibrates more freely because very tiny cracks are forming parallel to the grain. (Incidentally, I think we can probably agree that relative spacing of growth rings correlates somewhat to tonal quality of otherwise similar wood. Does it then predict the extent and timing of the opening-up phenomena?) The only other explanation that comes to mind is some dampening agent is deteriorating, but I'm not sure what that agent could be. Maybe the finish breaks down, or the glue that secures braces gets less elastic, but in those cases laminate-top guitars should also improve...

 

Of course hearing changes over time, you get used to the sound of your guitar, you learn to play better, and your preferences change. We'd all like to think our guitars are ageing well... and some of them undoubtedly are, but I think I recall seeing a magazine test report where shaker-table vibration of a solid-body electric helped it to "open-up" - which of course is completely ridiculous!!! Maybe the "opening-up" phenomena is a little exaggerated?

 

Would you contend "professional quality" guitars get better and better forever? If not, what stops the progress? I understand they all eventually need their necks reset!

[Timezarrow]

Originally posted by LesStrater Surely a laminate top can be engineered to sound BETTER then any solid top material. (Going under the usual assumption that whatever nature makes, man can make better...)

 

This was the basis for the blow-up girlfriend remark. I think it is a poor assumption that man can make things better than nature. Obviously man has to use nature in order to make anything, and is in fact a product of nature (not intending to arouse any theological discussion by this - substitute "God" for "nature" if you will). Mankind is in the business of molding nature to be more convenient, comfortable, or useful to itself, and has had some success in it. Whether what he makes is "better" depends on perspective.

 

Humanity is at a point where our manipulations of nature are more complex than just finding materials in nature, like wood, and using them. So, even though a guitar is by definition a man-made item, there are now options available for using "man-made" rather than naturally occurring materials in construction.

 

However, due to our relationship with nature, "man-made" materials, even if and when they may be found to be superior in sound amplification and transmission, may not be perceived as better than the wood. We still like the look and feel of wood, and even if a meter tells us some laminate or composite has greater resonance than wood, we may still prefer the "woody" sound. (If and when wood ceases to be used, it is more likely to be because of scarcity than the preference of most humans.)

 

I don't know if a solid wood guitar continues to get better forever. As time goes on, I would imagine whatever transformation is taking place becomes more subtle, and may become undetectable to humans. But many violins hundreds of years old sound great. Is it because of the age of the wood or the quality of the construction? Probably both. Modern luthiers have not been able to quite duplicate the sound of a Stradivarius, even though they copy his designs and methods. Some high-end violins, and no doubt some hand-made guitars, employ wood that is very old, though they are newly made instruments.

 

I believe that, even in cured wood, a gradual drying process continues over time, opening up tiny spaces in the cells of the wood. There may be other processes going on as well - I'm sure someone can tell us exactly what they are.

 

Vibrations from sound seem to enhance or speed up this process, and other vibrational forces may do so as well. It is good to expose your guitar to sound, and may accelerate the rate at which it "opens up". With a solid body guitar, as in your example, I would think any change in sound is going to be very subtle. The solid body works more to dampen vibrations than transmit them, projecting the pure string sound.

 

Likewise, a laminate guitar may have an opening-up process as well, but it is diminished by the nature of the construction - the fact of the layers and the glue over-shadows the change the wood goes through. The different densities which the sound has to transmit through tend to diffuse the sound waves and change the character of the vibrations, which continues regardless of the changes in the wood layers.

 

I'm sure there are those with more direct knowledge of these things than I have. This is just my current understanding of the issues.