Official Luthiers Forum!

I was thinking mainly about back and side woods and wondered if your aiming to achieve a certain style of sound how the back and sides affect it

eg a dreadnought produces a lot of bass and needs help with mids and trebles, to a brittle wood like brazillian rosewood, wenge, indian rosewood would help there

whereas a parlour guitar can be very trebley so a wood with more damping say mahogany, oak, maple.. would be more suited?

The flaw though in my thinking also is in a small guitar where you need all the energy it can produce using woods that are more damping some of that energy would be lost.

Another though I had would be using a heavy bridge to act almost like a flywheel and keep the top pumping, again I guess the flaw here would be the energy lost in getting it moving and the damping it too would provide.

Anyone else had similar ideas ideas? As I need bounce ideas off you good people here to point any other flaws suggestions alternatives I haven't thought of, like various methods for bracing the back other than ladder bracing..

All input welcome

Cheers Guys

_________________
Formerly JJH

I learn more from my mistakes than my successes

Actually, it's easier to make a loud small guitar than a loud big one, if shear power is your criterion. Small guitars also tend to 'project' better because they are more 'treble balanced' than big ones, and your ears are more sensitive to the higher frequencies. So the high damping woods are really going to hurt the smaller box less by comparison to the big one.

There are, of course, a lot of folks who love their D-18s, with the mahogany B&S. It seems to me that the lighter and more flexible wood helps pump more air through the soundhole, and gives them more of the 'whomp' that is wanted in some styles. There also may not be as many upper partials ringing away to confuse things. At the same time, the sharper attack gives the impression of 'brightness', perhaps. Can you tell I'm not entirely sure?

Which points up the fact that sound is a very complicated thing. In the end, if you want the sound of a Gibson 'Gospel' guitar, maybe the easy way to get it is to do what they did: use maple for the B&S.

While your way may have actual Merit..... it is not how I decide what wood to use for a particular body size....

The usual "Matching Wood to the Body size" goes like this for me:

Board #1 = 7" wide.
Guitar I make from Said Board = Cannot be more than 14" wide

Board #2 = 5" wide.
Guitar I make from Said board = Cannot have sides deeper than 5"

And yes... Cherry makes a Fine Parlor guitar.... and In the next month or two, we will verify whether Oak makes a fine parlor guitar too!

Thanks

John

My answer would be: play a bunch of guitars of different woods and different sizes, listen to others playing them, and draw your conclusions from what you hear rather than what you imagine the answer to be.

I'm guessing that everyone ears are going to be different. That's one BIG reason why we can't just scientifically design the "perfect" guitar. I have preferences per tone woods and body sizes, but I've got clients who see things differently. Like Alan said, I love old D18's even though they kinda don't make sense. For me, bigger guitars with Rosewoods, and Rosewood like woods get to many overtones and lose....focus. I guess focus is right. I thought about saying muddy but that's not really what happens. I love Mahogany, Walnut, Maple, ect for dreads, and other bigger guitars. Smaller guitars, to my ears sound kinda one dimensional with these woods, and I prefer Rosewoods, and Rosewood like woods for them. Again, everyone ears, and building styles are different. Of course the top wood makes a big difference. I love Mahogany with an Adi top, but, at least in my mind this shouldn't work.

_________________
I didn't mean to say it, but I meant what I said.
http://www.brackettinstruments.com/