Materials/Woods.

DavidR

In a recent Acoustic thread (I've been trying to find it again and can't) somebody said that instead of concentrating too much on precisely what wood to use, we should be concentrating on what an instrument actually sounded like and whether it matched the tone we were looking for.

I've been thinking about that and it's entirely right isn't it. For a long time as customers we seem to have been fixated on a small, very small, set of woods. Essentially Spruce (Adirondack or Sitka), Mahogany, Ebony, Cedar, Maple and Rosewood. Why? In my view we should, in the modern world, be concentrating on sustainability and prioritising that to the same extent as we emphasise our search for tonal qualities. In the case of woods, we should be looking at just how many large 'specimen' trees are left in the forests we source wood from.

Its not that people haven't been doing stuff, e.g. -

+ Taylor's Urban Wood project.
+ Richlite for fretboards
+ Martin's use of Stratabond for necks which looks nice and seems rock solid
+ Australia's use of Bunya Pine for tops; a wood which is widespread and sustainable
+ The much debated use of laminates and the semantic 'better/not better/same' debate
+ Emerald's (and others) ground-breaking use of Carbon Fibre
+ Mahogany 'alternatives' like Sapele or Koa
+ Lowden's championing of Walnut.

But, for the most part, we still keep demanding solid woods and the same small stable of trees to make from. Perhaps we are not pushing forwards the literally hundreds of other woods and alternative materials available. Neither the seemingly ever decreasing number of retail outlets nor the 'appointment only to try the guitar you want to buy' fashion help us try out all these options either.

I am suggesting that we should be more open minded about woods and materials we might never have heard of. Buying on the basis of tone, not wood, brand or price.

Not buying an acoustic, just because the back and sides are not solid mahogany or solid rosewood might be a bit strange!

MikeP

Why? Because most people aren't really concerned about a great sounding guitar, they want it to look and sound like so and so on such and such a record.

Tannin

Top post, @DavidR and I agree with all of it bar some minor details which do not in any way detract from your main thrust. 

But because I'm a pedant, I'll mention them briefly. Bunya isn't all that widespread and its sustainability is debatable. There is little or no sensibly harvestable Bunya in the wild but it is readily and easily plantation grown. Bunya-top guitars are indeed made from plantation-grown stock. It, along with Queensland Maple, comes from plantations put in by far-sighted government foresters many years ago. Unfortunately, far too little Bunya is replanted after harvest because greedy idiots in charge of the (mostly privatised) forests now are only interested in planting low-value timbers for the shortest possible re-harvest time, species like Radiata Pine and Flooded Gum and Tasmanian Blue Gum. So there is a live sustainability issue here, not today and not next year, but unless these fools start replanting high-value specialty timbers like Bunya, Australian Red Cedar, Queensland Walnut and Queensland Maple there will be none left for our children.

I would not regard Koa as a "mahogany alternative": it is a wonderful timber which sounds just like itself. (It is also grossly overharvested and in very short supply.) 

Lowden seem to mostly use Black Walnut, an American timber which is well-established and is used by many makers, including Gibson and various others. But there are lots of other walnuts. (I am very much looking forward to my new Brook which will use European Walnut for the back and neck.)

Moving on from pedant mode now, my particular bent is exploring the many different timbers and what they do for guitars. Right now I have 8 guitars with 6 different top timbers and none use the same back and sides timber. One can make a first class back and sides from any of at least dozens, probably hundreds, of different timbers. Necks the same applies, and to a lesser extent fretboards.

Tops are a bit trickier though. There are specialty tops which are lovely in their own different ways, but for a mainstream, do-everything guitar it is very hard to go past the various spruces, simply because little else offers the same strength to weight ratio. Spruce shouldn't be difficult to get hold of: it is moderately fast growing and grows over truly vast areas of three different continents. The trouble is we humans use huge amounts of it in wasteful ways that don't require the special qualities of spruce. Radiata Pine (for example) would do every bit as well to make kitchen chairs out of, but not so much a guitar top. Or Baltic Pine (aka "Scots Pine", "European Redwood").

Anyway, none of this is to take away from your main point, which I thoroughly endorse.

rustneversleeps

This one was new to me.My most recent acoustic is figured Burl back and sides spruce top.As far as l know I think it’s a type of ash.I have a all mahogany OM which is bassy and warm sounding.I Also have a concert size mahogany back and sides spruce top sounds more bright.The Burl sits nicely between the two.I am pleased I found it.

SlopeSoarer

I get what you are saying but think it is leaning towards a perfect world scenario.

Many local guitar shops have closed or if still going have limited choices of brands/range of guitars and increasingly people are buying online... so the opportunities of being able to go and find the instrument that suits the sound you are looking for isn't likely to be there, certainly if you live outside of a major city.

Not everyone knows what sound they are looking for but most people know that using certain quality materials are more likely to produce better tone and to a degree some will be more knowledgeable about combinations of wood and better able predict the likely sound.

Personally I can see why people go the tried and tested route, it is a safer route.

As said there are lots of different woods out there and some are being tried. I have an all okoume (which doesn't seem to me to be that common) parlour guitar, which sounds and feels great, it was a bargain as well! @Tannin pointed out a few likely drawbacks in the properties according to figures on wood database and I've read that some think that okoume for a guitar neck isn't necessarily the best choice, possible stability issues. Who knows only time will tell.... it's all good up to now but if I'd read some of this info before I may not have bought it and in my opinion missed a very good guitar.

Wood and tone is often debated and causes many frustrations. I can see why people take the easy route, even if it isn't necessarily the correct route.

Dr_Necessiter

I have to say that this has been on my mind recently - why do we not use more European wood species in guitars? I'm relatively new to this subject so please go easy if I'm being stupid but, whilst I'm aware of spruce, ash, alder and occasionaly cherry being used I've never heard of walnut, chestnut or oak as a tone wood. 

I guess there are potential weight issues but has anyone made or played a guitar with these woods included?

drofluf

Dr_Necessiter said:

I have to say that this has been on my mind recently - why do we not use more European wood species in guitars? I'm relatively new to this subject so please go easy if I'm being stupid but, whilst I'm aware of spruce, ash, alder and occasionaly cherry being used I've never heard of walnut, chestnut or oak as a tone wood. 

I guess there are potential weight issues but has anyone made or played a guitar with these woods included?

I think there’s more European wood used than you think. I’ve got a walnut bodied European spruce topped acoustic and another one that is European spruce topped. I think @Tannin is having something built with English woods. 

In terms of volume though most guitars are built in the Far East so it makes less sense to use European woods. The only major European manufacturer I can think of is Furch, there may be others, not sure if Lowden produce enough to be consider major in terms of volume. Most European builders are smaller operations. 

But back to the question. My Brook walnut/spruce is light and great sounding. 

Roland

Dr_Necessiter said:

I have to say that this has been on my mind recently - why do we not use more European wood species in guitars? I'm relatively new to this subject so please go easy if I'm being stupid but, whilst I'm aware of spruce, ash, alder and occasionaly cherry being used I've never heard of walnut, chestnut or oak as a tone wood. 

I guess there are potential weight issues but has anyone made or played a guitar with these woods included?

To the list I would add English Sycamore. IMHO it’s better than Maple.

chickenbonejohn

I know of one UK builder using exclusively English timbers, Turnstone Guitars.

bertie

chickenbonejohn said:

I know of one UK builder using exclusively English timbers, Turnstone Guitars.

only in her E series, she does use other woods

"Rosie is renowned in the industry for her use of English timbers and building all-English guitars that are beautifully presented inside and out, sonically and ergonomically. This range of faithfully English instruments are named her ‘E-series’, and remain a popular choice for many who choose Rosie for this speciality."

I know there are quite a few others in the UK that try to use, where possible,  native species  -  I guess its a fine line between "ethical mission" and making a living out of it

Shadow

Adrian Lucas uses a lot of native and reclaimed woods https://www.lucasguitars.co.uk/woods

Soupman

^^ Interesting guitars, lovely ethos, but I don't think I could live with that headstock! 

bertie

Soupman said:

^^ Interesting guitars, lovely ethos, but I don't think I could live with that headstock! 

* bites lip *   

Soupman

We shallow people stick together Bertie.....
 

 

bertie

Soupman said:

We shallow people stick together Bertie.....
 

 

maltingsaudio

bertie said:

Soupman said:

^^ Interesting guitars, lovely ethos, but I don't think I could live with that headstock! 

* bites lip *   

Well I like the headstock!

Shadow

maltingsaudio said:

bertie said:

Soupman said:

^^ Interesting guitars, lovely ethos, but I don't think I could live with that headstock! 

* bites lip *   

Well I like the headstock!

So do I. I think I read somewhere that it's a representation of Lincoln Cathedral which is where he's from. 

If I like a guitar the headstock is irrelevant. When I'm playing I can't see the headstock and when I'm not the the guitar is in its case.

DavidR

Gallery | A.J.Lucas luthier (lucasguitars.co.uk)




Yeh that's good. The tradition of unique headstock shapes comes from classical luthiers who each have a distinctive headstock, especially the outline at the top, by which their instruments can be recognised. It's fun!

(Love the lute-like sound port he puts on the side of some of his instruments btw.)

guitarjack66

drofluf said:

Dr_Necessiter said:

I have to say that this has been on my mind recently - why do we not use more European wood species in guitars? I'm relatively new to this subject so please go easy if I'm being stupid but, whilst I'm aware of spruce, ash, alder and occasionaly cherry being used I've never heard of walnut, chestnut or oak as a tone wood. 

I guess there are potential weight issues but has anyone made or played a guitar with these woods included?

I think there’s more European wood used than you think. I’ve got a walnut bodied European spruce topped acoustic and another one that is European spruce topped. I think @Tannin is having something built with English woods. 

In terms of volume though most guitars are built in the Far East so it makes less sense to use European woods. The only major European manufacturer I can think of is Furch, there may be others, not sure if Lowden produce enough to be consider major in terms of volume. Most European builders are smaller operations. 

But back to the question. My Brook walnut/spruce is light and great sounding. 

Maybe EU regulations prohibit the destruction of forests without replacement trees whereas the less developed countries basically don't give a toss? This is not completely the fault of those poorer countries however but more the mindset of the developed countries looking for a way around any legislation and punishment. The guitar industry is just one of many that use wood where this thinking has become common. The way it is now even if say a diamond mine was discovered in France or Spain they'd still mine the crap out of Zambia or South Africa etc. 
Where there is a will there is a scrounging relative...I mean a way. The will is not there among the people who can change it and likely never will.

thomasross20

I am very, very interested in Chechen as a back and sides wood. The new Lowdens with Lutz and Chechen sound fantastic. I keep wanting an EIR but the mids dip kills me. Chechen seems very balanced.

Dr_Necessiter

Thanks for the comments everyone.