Alternative Rosewoods

thomasross20

Took a trip into town today and tried a bunch of guitars. East Indian rosewood backed Martin OM21 & OOO28, an expensive and very deep sounding Collings OM02H and others...

What really caught my ear were the Martin custom shop Guatemalan rosewoods with adi tops. Slightly less bass, but far more sparkly mids/trebles (almost 3D)and with more pronounced mids. 

I've got an "alternative" rosewood myself - Bhilwara. The bass is DEEP, it's crisper sounding than EIR, very mellow & warm (woody), mids are there and really lush overtones (the moon spruce top will be a contributing factor). The overtones again are almost "3D." 

Haven't tried Madagascar or any other variants. But I think I prefer the alternatives to the standard EIR. Does anybody have any of these alternatives? 


In terms of mahogany "alternatives" I'd love to try Cuban. The best guitar in the shop was a sapele Larrivee (personal preference, perhaps) - I do think sapele has an extended and more balanced EQ than mahogany with extra sparkle thrown in. I've a custom order some time away (a Halcyon) and I'm thinking to get either Lutz / sapele or (top TBD) / alternative rosewood. 

Other guitars of note were a nice sounding all-blackwood Cole Clark and a Taylor rosewood with a redwood (iirc) top (interesting.......). Martin D18 which was LIGHT but not as loud/bass-y as my L05. Walnut lowden sounded nice but was bass-lite. I hear black walnut is the most consistent and it's hit or miss if you get a bass-y walnut or not. The guitars that sounded the most resonant were satin. Also a guitar that weighed less didn't necessarily sound better - every one was like an individual person.

I'm really loving this Bhilwara that I've got. I had an Avalon spruce/EIR but sold as preferred my mahogany. So I find myself preferring the "alternative" rosewoods to the typical EIR (across multiple body shapes and builders) and would be keen to hear any you've got / tried. 

ArchtopDave

Cocobolo is an excellent variant of Rosewood, though I see it’s one of those now causing concern, because of excess loss of trees. 

I made an Acoustic, under Mark Bailey’s guidance, which turned out sounding very pleasing to me some years back, with a full balanced sound ( Cocobolo back and sides with an Adirondack top).

TheMadMick

It's easy to put the tome of an instrument down to the material of construction. However, it's as much to do with the method of construction and the way the player plays.

Nowt so queer as folk?

thomasross20

I have yet to try cocobolo.... It's on the list lol. 

Agree Mick, and every guitar is different (e.g. I have same model, same brand, same woods and each one is different)... And I have same brand and same model again and the woods 100% give it a different sound compared to those three.. but I hear what you're saying completely

I wonder what's "better..."
Hard softwoods or soft hardwoods lol

Tannin

TheMadMick said:

It's easy to put the tome of an instrument down to the material of construction. However, it's as much to do with the method of construction and the way the player plays.

Indeed. By far the most important factor - far, far, far more important than all the others put together, is the player. That is a given, so much of a given that we seldom discuss it any more than we discuss the fact that we have two ears on our heads, not one or seven.

So let's set that aside and consider other factors. 

The builder's work - design, shape, construction, everything the builder does - is paramount. Ask me to build a guitar out of the finest timbers anyone ever saw and I guarantee the result would be pretty awful. Ask a skilled luthier to build a guitar out of fence posts and packing cases and he or she will find a way to make it work. It won't be quite the magic instrument that same builder can make out of fine spruce and walnut, but it will certainly be way, way better than my effort. 

Now let's set that aside too. It's not something we can quantify or sensibly discuss at a level very far beyond saying "I really like what the chaps at Atkin are doing, and don't much care for Furch". 

So we move on to timbers. Here the top wood is crucial. We seldom talk about this much, I think largely because it is fairly straightforward. If you like the spruce sound (most people do -80% of players, maybe) then we just have to decide between  four or five species, all of them quite similar, and individual examples of each overlapping the others. (I.e., a stiff bit of Sitka sounds more like Red than a floppy bit of Adirondack.) 

There is much, much more to tops than different sorts of spruce, but the delights of Western Red Cedar, Redwood, Bunya, all those different pines and cedars and cypresses are lost on the majority of players, and as for the hardwood tops, they are another thing again, even though they mostly get typecast as "mahogany, and then everything else".

Finally, the back timber. It is generally accepted that the back timber contributes less than 20% of the final tone, but if we are talking a certain body style from a certain builder, and assuming a spruce top (usually Sitka) that last 20% is the the main factor still up for grabs. 

So yes, it IS worth talking about!

Tannin

An interesting post @thomasross20, which throws a different light on things. It prompted me to consider my own little collection from a different angle. What have I got in the rosewood weight and hardness class that isn't Indian Rosewood? Ans: nothing.

I have the rosewood  Furch (and at present still have the rosewood Maton Messiah I plan to sell) but every other guitar I own is neither rosewood not an alternative rosewood, they all use lighter, softer timbers. 

This isn't random chance! While I like the rosewood sound (or something close to it) for a change, I generally prefer the more characterful sounds of timbers like Rock Maple, Blackwood, Queensland Maple, and a dozen others. Insofar as these are the guitars I've liked enough to actually buy, it is interesting to summarise the qualities of the back timbers by considering their hardness. (Hardness is a pretty good rough guide to density and strength - and yes, to sound as well. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all but as a one-number indication it is more than useful. Let's express it in terms relative to Indian Rosewood . We get 100% and 100% (my 2 rosewood guitars, one of them to be sold soon), 59% (Rock Maple), 54%, 50%, 48%, 45%, 37%, 35%, and 33% (Queensland Maple).

Remind me, what the back timbers of your own guitars? I'll do the numbers on them - and I'll make a little prediction that your favourites will average something like 80% or 90% of rosewood hardness when mine are down around 50% or so.

Veteran luthiers often talk about particular bits of timber being "crystaline" and how wonderful this sounds. Well, yes, it's A sound, but it is far from the only sound! 

thomasross20

@Tannin ;
I saw your detailed replies and had to log on to answer you, just before shooting off for Christmas!

Agree the player is top and can bring out greatness in any guitar. 
Then the builder and then the top (and the finish, with satin sounding most resonant to my ear). 
Dimensions, obviously, too... my THIRD 'hog OM has a deeper body than the rest. 
Too deep and it's unplayable for me, but this is just right - it is more resonant, deeper bass and keeps the OM's sweetness - a real winner. And my parlour 12 fret with 24" scale is oh so right and you can't put it down once you've picked it up.

The top... 
There is a (Guitar Gallery) video online comparing moon spruce to sitka spruce. It DOES sound different. 
Adirondack is clearly punchier than sitka and with more harmonics, but it's also brighter, and I think a well-aged sitka sounds better (maybe lol). Or maybe the guitar in my hand is the best guitar... until the next one goes in the hand! I don't really go for Taylors but the redwood top with (surprise!) EIR back & sides sounded good... so I have to watch out for redwood. In general, I prefer spruce to cedar, which is sweet but doesn't do it for me re strumming (and I like a guitar to be versatile). 

I may yet get an EIR - I keep hearing they are fabulous. Just can't find a local OM-09 !
Saying this... I do typically tend to favour mahogany back and sides, e.g. Every D18 I've played has sounded better to me than the equivalent D28. But I get that with a soft touch, fingerstyle, the rosewood can be sweet.

I agree about "characterful" woods - the ones you list really do have a lot of character and I like that. 

Five of mine (ridiculously) are sitka & khaya. 
I am trying to shift the L-05 (which IS glorious, but too much bass for my ears) which would leave me four. 
The problem with so many guitars which are similar is, you rotate through them instead of focusing on playing music, and I think that subconciously, it's my brain trying to find out which one(s) are the best / keepers for me, personally. 

Last one is moon spruce and Bhilwara which is absolutely unbelievable (the feel, the sound, everything about it). it is really nice to get that bit extra bass and overtones, but it remains woody and the mids are present, with no mushiness, no harsh trebles which I sometimes associate with rosewood guitars. It also sounds very mellow, a very distinct voicing. Did I mention it sounds woody? 

Well, enough talk. Christmas time. 

BTW check out Lucas Brar on YouTube - that guy is phenomenal. 
Acoustic sweeped harmonics, amazing grasp of moving through progressions - unreal. 

Have a great Christmas!
But don't chop down the tree to make a guitar (hmmm.... how would that one sound!!)

ArchtopDave

Quite a while ago, I went to a Taylor Roadshow, where you had the same guitarist playing all the particular acoustic guitars. They were all the same Model. 

The only difference was that the Body and Sides of each guitar were made from different woods. Obviously, I accept that, at the end of the day, there is a degree of individuality to each piece of wood, but it was very interesting to carefully listen to the the sound of the different woods used.

It was also possible to spend a bit of time playing these guitars oneself afterwards, and you yourself could also notice the differences.

thomasross20

Where there any you favoured?

thomasross20

Btw re Lucas Brar... 
Tommy Emmanuel's "over the rainbow" is stellar, but Lucas' is on par. This is stunning:

Tannin

I've ben watching Lucas Brar  for a tear or two now. Yes, he's a lot of fun and can seriously play. 

thomasross20

I wish I had focused on acoustic technique like that instead of electric for twenty years.

bertie

@thomasross20 ;;   - check out a bloke called Stephen Yates  -   he was a couple of years older than me at school, started off as a metal head and now a true virtuoso on acoustic (nylon and steel strung)  pretty sure he was guitarist of the year at some point in the past

(and for the athletics fans amongst you, his elder brother threw javelin for GB) 

thomasross20

I will do this over the holidays 100% and report back!