Maple & cedar guitars

WafflesOnHorseback

Couldn't find much but I did find an Alan Carruth forum post which said: "All of this leads me to believe that it may well be impossible to make 'identical' instruments that sound 'the same' using wood." 

I think it is quite subjective I have to say. For myself, I am finding a big difference in the tone of the wood combinations. But of course, we are all different - our ears are different, our playing is different...so many factors! Which is no bad thing.

malcolmkindness

WafflesOnHorseback said:

Couldn't find much but I did find an Alan Carruth forum post which said: "All of this leads me to believe that it may well be impossible to make 'identical' instruments that sound 'the same' using wood." 

I think it is quite subjective I have to say. For myself, I am finding a big difference in the tone of the wood combinations. But of course, we are all different - our ears are different, our playing is different...so many factors! Which is no bad thing.

Yes, but when you compare wood combinations are you comparing guitars made by the same builder in the same body shape? If one tries to make guitars as similar as possible only using different back and sides wood, as was done in the Roger Bucknall experiment, then there is very little difference between them.

malcolmkindness

I think this is the link I'm referring to:
http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/

Tannin

I have done blind tests myself, and easily picked between very different back timbers (e.g, rosewood and mahogany, Blackwood and Queensland Maple) but been caught out on rather similar-sounding timbers (e.g. maple and mahogany). Many others here have too. Simply, the claim that "tonewoods make no difference" does not stand up.

The claim that there are many other variables, each of which can sometimes be more important than all of the others, does stand up. Builder, shape, size, bracing style, scale length, and so on. 

Note that comparing different-back instruments designed and built with a dead back isn't helpful. Where the back is not free to vibrate, the material it is made from is of little significance. Live-back instruments, however, get a great deal of their sound from the characteristics of the back material. Note also that some builders extract lots of tonal variation from different materials (Cole Clark is an excellent example, but there are many others) while others make instruments that sound very much the same regardless of their back timbers. (Someone here recently linked to one such builder - it was really hard to pick between his three guitars.) 

malcolmkindness

Tannin said:

I have done blind tests myself, and easily picked between very different back timbers (e.g, rosewood and mahogany, Blackwood and Queensland Maple) but been caught out on rather similar-sounding timbers (e.g. maple and mahogany). Many others here have too. Simply, the claim that "tonewoods make no difference" does not stand up.

The claim that there are many other variables, each of which can sometimes be more important than all of the others, does stand up. Builder, shape, size, bracing style, scale length, and so on. 

Note that comparing different-back instruments designed and built with a dead back isn't helpful. Where the back is not free to vibrate, the material it is made from is of little significance. Live-back instruments, however, get a great deal of their sound from the characteristics of the back material. Note also that some builders extract lots of tonal variation from different materials (Cole Clark is an excellent example, but there are many others) while others make instruments that sound very much the same regardless of their back timbers. (Someone here recently linked to one such builder - it was really hard to pick between his three guitars.) 

I didn't say "no difference" I said "much less than we like to believe". It suits us to believe there is a big difference so that we can buy more guitars. It's clever marketing, none of us really need 7 or 8 guitars but many of us have them. If we only had one guitar we would probably spend more time playing it than comparing on the Internet. 

Tannin

Most of us don't need more excuses, we have them to spare. 

WafflesOnHorseback

malcolmkindness said:

I think this is the link I'm referring to:
http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/

Ah, the test is no longer active. Would have been interesting !

TheMadMick

The final chapter:

This guitar is very obviously an Avalon. It has a deep tuneful bass, a wonderfully liquid mid range and a bright but not overbearing treble. But that's what you would expect.

So what's different?:

The instrument responds readily to differing playing styles, has a huge dynamic range and every note sounds out clearly. The sustain is to die for and the tonality couldn’t be bettered to my ear. How much more praise can one instrument invoke!

To say I am impressed would be an understatement - and it’s pretty as well. 

Happy days.