Official Luthiers Forum!

This Gentleman wants an OM, Indian Laurel B&S.
He's a picker, plays mostly at home, although he did do folk clubs when younger.

Top choice is between a couple of quality topwoods - an excellent example, but slightly denser (SG 0.45) Adirondack and Shane's beautiful swansong Lutz (SG 0.37).
Both have been baked and stabilised, and tap very well.

I'm leaning towards the Lutz as I think it might be more suitable for a picker.
1) it's nearly 20% less dense.
2) Adirondack's reputation for strong fundamental but somewhat less "overtones".

What's your experience been?

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

A properly braced Red Spruce top has just about everything you could want.
From the lightest touch to really hammering the strings, my two were really good off the bench but 5/6 months in they really opened up ( it was noticeable over a week) and again at 13 months . My prewar spec D-18 gets played a bunch and I'll put it up against anything

My daughter plays a 13 fret lutz topped Nick Lucas that can hang with anything so you really can't go wrong

+1 to that Clinch said!

Colin you kind of have the problem to have - both are superb tone woods.

Both are excellent but as a picker I'd go with the Adi.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

I'd go with the Lutz.........!
Tom

_________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!!!

Lutz.
Weight plays a big role in tops.
Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

I am clueless -- since I like Sitka and Red Cedar. But when I was purchasing a little bit of Adi from Euphanon I remember that Walter Lipton told me in his opinion Red Spruce was not suitable for smaller body guitars -- I think relative to it being too stiff.

http://www.dreamguitars.com/builder/292-walter-lipton/

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I've never understood that kind of thinking among hand builders... if it's too stiff, just make it thinner. And if it's not stiff enough, leave it thicker or use a more supportive bracing pattern.

If you're a large scale manufacturer and thickness all tops and shape all braces to the same dimensions, then it makes sense. But honestly I don't understand why even manufacturers don't invest a few more seconds into their build time to vary the top thickness. Even just doing a calculation based on the density of the wood should get a decent improvement over the single-thickness strategy. Or thickness to some standard, then do a single deflection test and calculate the proper final thickness from that. Might add a whole minute then, but on a $1000+ guitar, wouldn't customers pay a buck or two extra to have it sound better?

Yeah I get that -- looking at the Lipton guitars it does seem that he and his partner go for the lighter color sound boards might not like the look of Adi to begin with?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I could understand why a large manufacturer would not be for it. You set your sander for a particular thickness and the person just keeps feeding plates on the belt one after another. Say you do 50 at a time, a minute a top is 50 minutes on top of the regular time. (I used to work on an assembly line) Then there is the density measurement time on top of that, probably another half minute so another 25 minutes. It is funny how the time adds up. It is doable with some automation, but is the average public going to notice. Probably less than the nice shiny surface.

The big boys expect each guitar to have it own personality, and that is not considered a bad but rather a good thing. Hence they build to design formula -- not as bad as that may sound since many of us still copy those dimensional formulas and tweak to taste.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I find it hard to resist Red Spruce in general. But it's going to be up to you to coax the sound out of it in the manner that you and the customer are looking for...

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Density is a better predictor of Young's modulus along the grain in softwoods than you might expect, so measuring the density would be a reasonable proxy for a stiffness measurement most of the time. About 2/3 of the samples I've tested fall within 10% plus or minus of the predicted Young's modulus based on density. Some of the outliers, however, are 'way out!

Still, even that simple measurement is probably beyond economic feasibility for the big boys. They'd have to start by making all the tops the same size and thickness, weigh them, and find the density. They'd probably have to sort them into a few piles; low, medium, and high, and too far out to use, and thickness the the usable ones in a given pile the same. Taking each one to it's theoretical 'optimum' would be too much of a hassle, but even just having three different sanders set up for slightly different thicknesses would be a drag. This doesn't even get into the problem that bracing wood varies as much as top wood, and, in theory, should also be treated individually. In the end this would reduce variability in tone a bit. However, it would probably cost big time, since labor is, by far the most expensive input in a production setting. Then there's the question of whether it would be worth the bother.

'Tone' is a subjective thing. That sort of testing and QC is ideally aimed at producing a consistent tone. However, the likelihood is that every buyer wants something a little bit different. Allowing the tone to 'float' by simply making all the wood to the same dimensions probably results in the sort of range of sounds that customers find desirable. It's a different situation from the one hand makers face, where the tone is defined, and the task is to build one guitar to match that. For the manufacturers, it works well to make a range, and then allow the customers to pick out the one that suits them. Eventually everything they make gets sold, and they've got a raft of happy customers, without having to go through the angst of trying to control the tone tightly.

There does seem to be some benefit in matching up the ratio of long grain to cross grain stiffness to suit the design of the particular guitar, but in principle and top can be worked to the correct overall stiffness. There are several ways of determining what that should be.

Once you know how to do that, in my opinion, spruce ends up pretty much being spruce. I think the whole 'magic wood' thing is 'way over blown.