| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19974 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Frei [ Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
Just for giggles: I am wondering what are the darkest woods for guitars, I think Sapele fits the bill pretty good, I am liking it more and more. How about tops>/ (Cedar, -German)? I'm not into bright, Im thinking Honduran Rosewood would be the high end, and maple. Would you care to make a list? (Sapele at the bottom? Maple at the top for bright?) (" brightest to darkest") 1. Maple (?) x x x 12. Sapele 
|
|
| Author: | Jeremy Douglas [ Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
I'm always surprised at what people will call 'dark' or 'bright'. I would never have considered EI rosewood brighter than mahogany but I've heard people describe it that way. Even if we agree that 'bright' is defined by an emphasis on the treble or highs there are plenty of people who don't know midrange from highs. Just post a question asking 'which strings are brighter - 80/20 or Phosphor Bronze?' and you'll find out real quick people use the term bright differently. I personally don't consider sapele dark(when used on back and sides). The sapele guitars I've heard maybe have a little emphasis on the high end than mahogany. I would consider EIR dark. For a dark top try mahogany...or sapele. |
|
| Author: | TRein [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
Jeremy has it right. I am convinced each person has a proprietary set of ears, and terms like "bright" and "dark" have a wide range of interpretations. I don't know who said it but it is true: "Talking about sound is like dancing about architecture." |
|
| Author: | jfmckenna [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
Yeah I have always struggled with that language too. But in my limited experience it's the top that counts. My Sitka guitars have a bright metallic edge while the Cedar guitars are softer rounder notes that I guess could be determined as dark. In other words I have no idea 
|
|
| Author: | Erik Hauri [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
+1 "Tone" is subjective and personal - one man's midrange is another man's mud. And English is a poor substitute for a frequency response curve. Not to mention that there are clear differences in bonk tone even within single species. |
|
| Author: | Frei [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Darkest, brightest woods (on average?) |
Ok, but I AM prefering Sapele over mahogany (now), and I generally don't like maple, as alot of people don't. I prefer Sapele because it "seems to have a darker tone" - Maybe a lower pitch, but woody like mahogany and Koa. Tone may be subjective, just like movies, but if you find someone who likes 9 of your 'top 10 ' movies, then you go to that person for movie recommends over some guy off the street, or a girl so to speak. I was thinking tonewoods on the AVERAGE will have an average pitch that differenciates one from another or something along those lines just as tops will. I would also not buy into the generalization that there is as much difference in say mahogany (some may sound like rosewood) as that some EIR rosewood may sound like mahogany. That is not average, on average, mahogany sounds like mahogany. You may get a tree that has closed pores and high mica content as a freak or something, and you could get a freak EIR tree that was softer or whatever....... Certain woods are known for certain characteristics. Or you could say that you had an EIR set that for you was better than any Brazilian you've ever done, and you've done lots of Brazilian... 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|