Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

What about the other woods?
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=46194		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  What about the other woods?
I have been looking over other woods and wondering why they are not called for more, at least here in the states. I don't have a lot of experience working wood. So I am curious about any experiences you might have had with the following woods.

For acoustic soundboards I have been thinking about Bald Cypress, Butternut, and Chestnut. The negatives listed don't sound all that bad to me - especially when working them manually instead of with power tools.
1) Bald Cypress - dulls cutting edges. Light passes of machinery required to avoid tear-out.
2) Butternut - extra fine sanding required.
3) Chestnut - splits easy when nailing or screwing.

For the rest of the instrument (body, neck, and head) I have been considering:
Probably warmer toned:
1) Sassafras (Janka 630)
2) Red Cedar (Janka 900. Not so much for guitars, but psaltery and such.)
3) Hackberry ( Janka 880. Doesn't machine well.)

Probably brighter toned:
4) Magnolia (Janka 1,020) Compare Black Walnut at 1,010.
5) Holly (Janka 1,020) Compare Black Walnut at 1,010.
6) Apricot (Janka 1,390. Easy to chip or tear-out) Compare Rock Maple at 1,450)
7) Apple, Pear, & Quince (Janka 1660 to 1730. Burns easy when machining)
8) Mulberry, Red (Jank 1,680)
8) Pecan/Hickory (Janka 1,820. Easy to tear-out with machines)

For peg plate, fingerboard, and saddle/bridge:
1) Dogwood, flowering (Janka 2,150) Compare East Indian Rosewood at 2,440)
2) Persimmon (Janka 2,300)
3) Osage Orange (Janka 2,700)

I understand that apricot (especially from higher up the mountains where the wood grows even denser) and mulberry are very popular for making instruments in Turkey through Armenia. I am fond of many of these woods - either out of sentimentality from raiding them as a kid, growing up with them, or because of their beauty. Any great or horrific experiences with these woods?

:?:
Author:  B. Howard [ Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Lot's of those will not be found commercially anywhere.
Author:  douglas ingram [ Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
And, if sourced, may not be of usable dimension or quality. Check with your local woodlot association for local sawyers.

But, if you can find usable wood, go for it. I'm all for experimenting and using local woods.

Osage is highly regarded for guitars already, and is reported to be a drop in acoustic substitute for Brazilian Rosewood.
Author:  Rodger Knox [ Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
What you've selected as top woods would probably make better necks. The stiffness to weight ratio is the most important material property for top wood, and spruce is pretty hard to beat. A particularly light piece of any of those woods could make a good top.

Sassafras is gaining popularity as a back/side wood, red cedar is used for tops, and hackberry is too inclined to check and also has stability problems. I might use it if I found a good piece, but I'd take a pretty hard look at it first.

The woods you call brighter toned are all good, the problem is finding large enough pieces for backs/sides. I've used holly for binding and inlay, but have never seen a piece wide enough for backs/sides.

I doubt any flowering dogwood gets large enough for anything except maybe a bridge, and would be difficult to find. Persimmon is good for fingerboards, and works for back/sides, if you can find a large enough piece. Osage orange is BRW without the restrictions or beauty, it works for everything except the top and maybe the neck, it's a little heavy for the neck.
Author:  kencierp [ Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
I believe you could get more constructive input (on all three of your posts) if at least a sketch of the now imaginary instrument was provided. As it is now, it seems any comments by the "acoustic guitar experts" at this forum as you mentioned --- literally would not know what they were talking about. $.02
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
kencierp wrote:
I believe you could get more constructive input (on all three of your posts) if at least a sketch of the now imaginary instrument was provided. As it is now, it seems any comments by the "acoustic guitar experts" at this forum as you mentioned --- literally would not know what they were talking about. $.02

The harder part for me has been figuring out my exact string set to design something around. Currently I have a few instrument ideas: 1) A cigar box style resonator out of sassafras and either ebony or lignum vitae tuned BEAD, 2) A mountain dulcimer out of maple and bloodwood tuned EAD, 3) A small round bodied instrument tuned like an oud C#F#BEAD, and 4) something tuned like a Tsouras in my voice range (D2/D3-A2/A2-E2/E3/E3) in a fruit wood such as mulberry, quince, apricot, etc.

Rodger Knox wrote:
What you've selected as top woods would probably make better necks. The stiffness to weight ratio is the most important material property for top wood, and spruce is pretty hard to beat. A particularly light piece of any of those woods could make a good top.
I have others on my list (Sitka, Adirondack, Redwood, and Port Orford). Butternut and chestnut made my list because they have about the same specific gravity and janka hardness ratings as the others. Cypress is in the hardness range but has a higher gravity.

Quote:
Sassafras is gaining popularity as a back/side wood, red cedar is used for tops, and hackberry is too inclined to check and also has stability problems. I might use it if I found a good piece, but I'd take a pretty hard look at it first.
Thanks for the info on the hackberry. I have not been able to find any pieces with which I could work. My interest in it was in trying to find a naturally white wood for backs and sides. Other than Port Orford and magnolia I have not seen any other wood that looks naturally white-whitish.

Quote:
The woods you call brighter toned are all good, the problem is finding large enough pieces for backs/sides. I've used holly for binding and inlay, but have never seen a piece wide enough for backs/sides.
If I get to where I can bend wood, width won't matter as much since I will learn to make bowl backs out of narrow strips.

Quote:
I doubt any flowering dogwood gets large enough for anything except maybe a bridge, and would be difficult to find. Persimmon is good for fingerboards, and works for back/sides, if you can find a large enough piece.
I was thinking dogwood, persimmon, and Osage for sets (saddle, fingerboard, and peg plate).

Quote:
Osage orange is BRW without the restrictions or beauty, it works for everything except the top and maybe the neck, it's a little heavy for the neck.
Osage is a relative of mulberry, and I might use it as a substitute if it is easier to get. Gluing up multiple strips, as is done for the top on larger balalaikas, doesn't bother me. Some of my choices are thematic, based on either native range or representing historical cultures, or other allusions. For instance, ground Sassafras leaves make-up the seasoning called Filé used in Creole and Cajun cooking. It's hardness and specific gravity seem good for resonance, though it will need a good truss rod system. I am thinking of engineering a little overkill to protect against the neck warping. I would use pecan if I could guarantee I was getting pecan instead of hickory. After all, I like pralines as much as I do gumbo - And sweet or well seasoned bayou flavored music is just as good.
Author:  douglas ingram [ Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
I do believe that you may be overthinking this too much. Just start building, acquire the skills to do what you need to do, reflect upon your success and shortcomings, build some more, improve your skills, reflect again. Repeat. Its what we all do.
Author:  Eric Reid [ Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
You can build any instrument out of any wood. And you'll learn something if you do. Douglas fir should be on your list if it isn't already. Padouk, wenge, and purpleheart, if you're willing to consider imports.

I think you might enjoy taking a look at Fred Carlson's instruments. Bart Hopkin's book is a great source of ideas and general guidelines.
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Janka hardness is not the same thing as Young's modulus, and that's the important measure for top wood. Young's modulus (E) is a measure of potential stiffness; two pieces of wood with the same E value with have the same stiffness at a given thickness. Generally speaking softwoods and hardwoods tend to have similar E values along the grain, but the hardwoods can be twice as dense or more. Worked to the same stiffness a rosewood or walnut top will be about twice as heavy as a spruce one (give or take). Given the low horsepower available in strings added weight really limits performance. You might get lucky with some butternut, and there's always balsa; the hardwood that thinks it's a softwood.
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Don't have the resources to do build experimentation or afford the instruments outright. So, building for myself with each build likely a one shot effort to get what I am after. Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try.

I am curious if a ratio between hardness and elasticity would show preferability for given woods. Any ideas? If I calculate some of the numbers what would you want to see displayed here?
Author:  Alex Kleon [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
[quote="Jaqaliah"]Don't have the resources to do build experimentation or afford the instruments outright. So, building for myself with each build likely a one shot effort to get what I am after. Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try.

Kenneth, you seem to be looking for absolutes where there aren't any. Making an instrument out of disparate materials, and expecting to reach an expected result isn't what I would think to be reasonable. There are too many variables in play, besides the materials that you choose to work with, to get a predictable result.
I don't want to seem harsh, but you seem to be casting a pretty wide net, while looking to get consensus answers to your questions.

Alex
Author:  Rodger Knox [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Quote:
Sassafras is gaining popularity as a back/side wood, red cedar is used for tops, and hackberry is too inclined to check and also has stability problems. I might use it if I found a good piece, but I'd take a pretty hard look at it first.
Thanks for the info on the hackberry. I have not been able to find any pieces with which I could work. My interest in it was in trying to find a naturally white wood for backs and sides. Other than Port Orford and magnolia I have not seen any other wood that looks naturally white-whitish.

Holly is almost pure white, but finding a wide enough piece for a 2 piece back may be difficult.
Author:  ernie [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
The silver coloured hackberry that .I have used an seen in st louis an KC hdwd shops is at least 8in wide an 2in thick .Hard to find 1/4 sawn though
Author:  Greg B [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Alan Carruth wrote:
You might get lucky with some butternut, and there's always balsa; the hardwood that thinks it's a softwood.


I've been intending to build a balsa topped guitar for many years now. It's about #2 on my queue now. Do you know if anyone has tried it before? Seems like someone must have. I know somebody was making balsa violins a few years back.

Jaqaliah wrote:
I am curious if a ratio between hardness and elasticity would show preferability for given woods. Any ideas? If I calculate some of the numbers what would you want to see displayed here?


I don't know. It is sort of an interesting question, but frankly a bit esoteric. I don't normally consider hardness as terribly important for anything but fingerboards. I suspect hardness may track low damping (high Q) somewhat, but that is incidental.

IME the main three material properties that control the sound of an instrument are: mass, stiffness, and damping.
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Rodger Knox wrote:
Holly is almost pure white, but finding a wide enough piece for a 2 piece back may be difficult.
Actually, finding any seems to be difficult. I am thinking of using poplar as the only thing readily available. Fortunately I am not interested in it for large instruments. And I am not above piecing it together as strips for a bowl shape.

Alex Kleon wrote:
Kenneth, you seem to be looking for absolutes where there aren't any. Making an instrument out of disparate materials, and expecting to reach an expected result isn't what I would think to be reasonable.
I am not certain what you mean by 'disparate'. Most instruments seem to be made out of 1-4 materials plus hardware. One usually covers the body, neck, and head and should be stiff enough to deal with the string tension or properly reinforced. Another could used for the soundboard, but does not have to be such as being entirely out of maple. A third wood can be used for the fingerboard. The fingerboard wood also appears in matching saddles and peg head plates. A fourth material, in the form of decorative marquetry and inlay can be out of various woods, shell, or even scrimshaw.

Quote:
There are too many variables in play, besides the materials that you choose to work with, to get a predictable result.
Predictable is one way of describing it, estimating to reduce risk might be another. When a single piece can be as much as half a month's income, it pays to be cautious, prepared, and frugal.

Quote:
I don't want to seem harsh, but you seem to be casting a pretty wide net, while looking to get consensus answers to your questions.
I may need to distinguish more specific questions from more generalized discussion. I will consider hundreds of things for the beauty of the concept though I will most likely never attempt to realize them. Considering possibilities that may shift the end result of projects for which I am still preparing I estimate to be a good thing. More specific questions for a specific build difficulty will come when I get there. I am also not sure there can be any better consensus about many of these preferences than there is about the best way to pick-up dates. Ultimately we all end up doing what works for us personally. ;)
Author:  dzsmith [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Local Pine could make a good top.
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Greg B wrote:
Jaqaliah wrote:
I am curious if a ratio between hardness and elasticity would show preferability for given woods.
I suspect hardness may track low damping (high Q) somewhat, but that is incidental.

IME the main three material properties that control the sound of an instrument are: mass, stiffness, and damping.
Much like a braced soundboard the balance between stability for longevity and elasticity for resonance appears to be the central struggle. I estimate, mayhap incorrectly, that softer woods dampen the tone and longevity of the sound through absorption. Meaning harder woods conduct the energy/vibration more effectively, resulting also in brighter tones. Stradivari made his instruments from high mountain pine grown during a prolonged lack of solar flares - meaning lower temperatures, tighter cellular structure/greater density. Similarly Turkish and Armenian luthiers seek mulberry and apricot trees from higher altitudes for making instruments like the duduk and baglama for their density.
Author:  Haans [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Seems to me you have listed a bunch of wood and a bunch of numbers, but don't have much of a plan of what you will do with any of it.
Most all folks here build guitars with a few building mandolin related instruments, ukeleles, a few violins and not much else. I don't think most folks have much experience with other odd instruments. If you are making a "cigar box" style instrument, you certainly won't get the kind of quality tone that comes from say a good 6 string guitar.
Too bad duh isn't around anymore, but I don't think anyone here can quite grasp or make recommendations based on what your questions are... maybe you are still formulating. Most folks pick an instrument and then figure out the wood they want to use.
Most of the wood you list seems to be local variety, and I wouldn't hesitate to include white oak, maple and walnut. Someone else mentioned Doug Fir and it is a fine top wood.
Whatever you do, it is a very good idea to use quartersawn wood.
Good luck!
Author:  DennisK [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Jaqaliah wrote:
Don't have the resources to do build experimentation or afford the instruments outright. So, building for myself with each build likely a one shot effort to get what I am after. Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try.

It is possible to get to where you can design new instruments and have them turn out good on the first try. Build a variety of things, and focus on developing your senses and intuition. Expect several of them to fail in the process. It takes longer to learn the limits if you play it safe all the time. And it takes longer to learn intuitive building than it does to copy a successful design like the X braced steel string guitar.

Quote:
I am curious if a ratio between hardness and elasticity would show preferability for given woods. Any ideas? If I calculate some of the numbers what would you want to see displayed here?

The number you should be looking at is Young's modulus divided by density. Though even that isn't quite exact, due to the "cube rule of stiffness". That is, the stiffness of a beam or plate is thickness cubed times Young's modulus. Mass is just thickness times density. So stiffness goes up much faster than mass as you make the plate thicker. This is why braces are made tall and thin, to exploit the extreme stiffness of a tall thing, while keeping the weight down by using less material. Guitars use a complex combination of plate stiffness and bracing stiffness to reach their structural and vibrational objectives.

I'm not sure if wood hardness actually has much effect on tone.

There's another property called damping, which refers to how long a piece of wood will continue to vibrate after you tap it, and it does effect tone. It is frequency dependent. Some woods thunk and settle down right away. Others ring for a long time, but only at low frequencies and only if you hold it in the right spot (if you've seen Chladni patterns, the lines where the glitter gathers are the safe places to hold). And others will ring at many frequencies up the spectrum. What I consider to be the best woods are the ones that will find some frequency to ring at nomatter where you hold and where you tap. Very rare, but by no means essential to make a great sounding instrument. Especially one with steel strings, which provide plenty of high frequency input to overcome damping in the wood.
Author:  John Arnold [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Quote:
Lot's of those will not be found commercially anywhere.


That may be true, but I have cut every one listed except for apricot. My experience with hackberry is that it shrinks a lot during seasoning, but is stable enough once dry. I have not noticed any unusual cracking. If anything, the interlocked grain (it's in the elm family) should be a deterrent to cracking.
IMHO, the spalting in hackberry is one of the most attractive, and I do plan to build a guitar with spalted hackberry from my own back yard.

Image

I also plan to build a sassafras guitar someday. I like working with it, and have used it for kerfing. It bends beautifully.

Quote:
You might get lucky with some butternut, and there's always balsa; the hardwood that thinks it's a softwood.


Butternut won't be as stiff as a spruce top of the same weight, but that still doesn't mean it won't make a good soundboard. I built a guitar with butternut back, sides, and neck. It sounded fine.
Another low density hardwood I have tried for soundboards is basswood.
Author:  Jaqaliah [ Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
John Arnold wrote:
... the spalting in hackberry is one of the most attractive
Gorgeous pic.

DennisK wrote:
... it takes longer to learn intuitive building than it does to copy a successful design ...
Working more towards building to my limitations. Starting with tuning, picking the strings, and working out from there influenced by math and sentiment.

Quote:
Especially one with steel strings, which provide plenty of high frequency input to overcome damping in the wood.
Steel strings seem to be played at high tension. I am going for more low tension and mellow tones - except on the resonator.
Author:  truckjohn [ Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
I am going to tell you a dirty little secret about wooden Guitars....

*they are made out of wood*... Shhhh... Don't tell anybody.

There are generally 2 properties of "Wood" that if you don't have them - you can't make a guitar out of them....
1. They won't take glue - several oily tropical hardwoods like lignum vitae fall into this category.
2. They aren't strong enough to hold the glue joints - anything sufficiently rotten, punky, or completely bug eaten to swiss cheese fails this....

All the other questions have more to do with people's whims and/or the suitability of the specific piece of wood in front of them....

So.. To answer the question: "Can I build a guitar out of THIS?" The answer in general is Sure, go right ahead. It will make a guitar and it will sound like a guitar.... It will hold up just fine and play just fine so long as you do your part.

Here are a couple issues you can run into:
too knotty, too rotten, too bug eaten, a lot of runout or burl and it will be hard to bend...
Too rotten/punky and it may crumble....
Flat sawn wood has a tendency to cup with humidity changes where quartersawn wood generally doesn't...
Burly wood tends to crack over time.

Go right ahead and use your persimmon, hackberry, pecan, holly, pawlonia, and whatever other wood you can get your hands on.... If you do your part - it will be a fine playing guitar just like if you used maple or Mahogany...

Me, personally - I have had a whole lot of fun building guitars out of miscellaneous wood...
For example:
Cherry
Oak
Lyptus eucalyptus
Sapele
Plywood
Pallet wood
Casuarina (we call it "Australian pine" in Florida)

All of these make fine guitars.... They play fine, they sound fine...

As Al has pointed out hundreds of times - the issue isn't BUILDING a guitar that sounds great - it's SELLING that guitar... People play them and handle them and say "Oh, this is great, I love it... Can you build one out of Rosewood or Mahogany?"

Thanks
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Jaqaliah wrote:
" I estimate, mayhap incorrectly, that softer woods dampen the tone and longevity of the sound through absorption. Meaning harder woods conduct the energy/vibration more effectively, resulting also in brighter tones."

So let's see; Flamenco guitars use soft cypress for the B&S, but they're not notably 'dead'. Something's wrong with that picture....

It's time to start learning about the REAL physics of these things, which is WAY too complicated to get into in a single post. If you're really serious and don't mind some 'technical' stuff (and the price) get Trevor Gore's books. For a less expensive (FREE!) intro you could go to:
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/
and download the nine .pdf files that make up Erik Jansson's "Acoustics for Violin and Guitar Makers" 4th edition. That will get you started.

"Stradivari made his instruments from high mountain pine grown during a prolonged lack of solar flares - meaning lower temperatures, tighter cellular structure/greater density."

That's a persistent fable that has been as persistently debunked. In general you want the lightest top you can get that will be stiff enough to hold up under the loads,and that points to using a low density piece of soft wood. In fact, if added weight helped why not just go to hardwood for the soundboard, since they tend to be denser and not much stiffer? At any rate, if Strad did use wood from the 'Maunder Mininmum' it was simply because that's what he could get. That's easy to check from dendrochronological data, and at least some of Strad's instruments have been studied that way (the 'Messiah' for one). As one very fine teacher said, it's easy to get denser wood at any time; you just go another hundred meters up the hill, but most makers look for the lighter stuff. It's now possible to get direct readings of the density of Strad's tops from the CAT scans that are being done on them. I don't know if such data has been published, but I'd bet it has.

"Similarly Turkish and Armenian luthiers seek mulberry and apricot trees from higher altitudes for making instruments like the duduk and baglama for their density."

Perhaps they do, but do they use that dense wood for the soundboard?

"Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try."

Builders working within a tradition generally home in on available woods that will produce an acceptable tone and an instrument that will hold up pretty well. A good place to start looking for substitutes is to find out the salient properties of the woods that are already being used, and see if any of the ones you're interested in match those reasonably closely. Thus, for example, I've had very good results making fiddles of various sorts using walnut for the B&S wood instead of the usual soft maple, since walnut is a pretty good match in terms of density, Young's modulus and so on. The Osage Orange I've tested has been practically a drop-in replacement for Brazilian rosewood in terms of it's density, hardness, Young's modulus, and damping, and it makes really nice guitars. Of course, even woods with much different properties can be used in similar designs; you need only look as far as mahogany and rosewood in guitars. Both make good instruments, even if they're different. Hardness is only really a major consideration for things like fingerboards, that tend to wear a lot, although a top that is easy to dent is something of a pain.
Author:  rlrhett [ Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Jaqaliah wrote:
Don't have the resources to do build experimentation or afford the instruments outright. So, building for myself with each build likely a one shot effort to get what I am after. Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try.


I don't want to seem harsh, but over the last ten years I have seen over 100 beginning luthiers build their first instrument. NO ONE gets what they want the way they want it on the first try. Your question is somewhat akin to saying you don't play guitar yet, but would like to know if a G-7b5 chord will sound OK as a substitution for an Eb69 because you want the first piece you play to be a solo chord melody arrangement of some Mingus tune you love.
The first musical instrument you build will be interesting, a real learning experience, fun, possibly surprisingly beautiful. It will NOT be what you want the way you want. Being able to build a one off musical instrument that even remotely sounds like you were expecting takes one thing more than anything else: practice. People like Alan Carruth and Trevor Gore who try to sculpt the sound of the instruments have made hundreds of instruments a piece.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  truckjohn [ Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: What about the other woods?
Jaqaliah wrote:
Don't have the resources to do build experimentation or afford the instruments outright.


You are thinking and "planning" too much when you should be building. 99% of guitar building is fancy carpentry.... Wood can be had very cheap -- and this will afford you the chance to practice on building. You learn to build well by building and practicing....

There are so many people who wait until they accumulate perfection before they start building... They typically end up with a beautiful tragedy... Extra fancy wood, super duper expensive components... A beautiful finish... All built upon a wonky sounding and playing instrument.....

You would be better off starting with a bottom of the barrel paint grade top, cheap soft maple or birch back, sides, and neck, simple plastic bindings.. You could even use plywood for back and sides - it works just fine..... The "Materials" you really need to purchase are a pre-cut fretboard, fret wire, truss rod, and tuners... Literally, all the rest can be sourced out of construction dumpsters if you aren't too proud...

Shoot - buy a $25.00 guitar and cut the neck off the body... Build your own guitar body and bolt on the neck.... Then - you will start off with a neck and fretted fretboard with a trussrod and tuners...

My first "Build" was retopping an Esteban guitar.... I learned a HUGE amount about guitars from that effort....

Jaqaliah wrote:
So, building for myself with each build likely a one shot effort to get what I am after. Hence the research and analysis to try and get what I want the way I want it on the first try.


Sorry... Though we obsess about the magic and fairies that live in the wood and it's impact on tone... The "Wood" itself has a fairly small impact on tone compared to strings, pick, and playing style....

You would be much better off obsessing over perfection in fretting, intonation, setup, and neck profile than with wood..... A plywood guitar with a perfect setup and a comfortable neck plays a whole lot better than an Adi/BRW guitar with horrible intonation, wonky setup, and lumpy neck....

Jaqaliah wrote:
I am curious if a ratio between hardness and elasticity would show preferability for given woods. Any ideas? If I calculate some of the numbers what would you want to see displayed here?

Again, beaten to death.... Not your major problem right now.

Thanks
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/