Spruce vs. Cedar. Is it really a big difference?
Darrell Walisser
more "romantic" tone, while spruce-top guitars are slow to break in in but
have a much more consistent sound across registers, which makes them great
for Bach. With the cedar guitar I have now, the low-a-e-d range is the
loudest, which is where most of the bass lies in the Bach I am working on,
which tends to at times envelope the upper melodic lines. (has dropped d) I
was wondering if the difference is worth the price tag, especially for Bach,
which is my favorite music to play. My guitar is a Suzuki model s-1, its
about 20 years old.
Steve
I just bought an Alhambra cedar-topped cutaway, and it almost sounds to me
like a spruce-topped guitar. However, I tend to play Bach on my Kohno because
it has a sweeter overall tone. But I have noticed that as you get up there in
price, especially in the "concert" level, the spruce shows up more often.
Steve
Al Carruth
cedar than spruce, for example. But what a particular top will do on a given
guitar depends on a lot of things, most especially the skill and experience of
the luthier working with that particular wood. From the player's standpoint the
thing to believe is your ears; if the guitar does what you want, then don't
worry to much about the wood species.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Ray Schieber
While we've seen a lot of opinion, fact and myth about differences
between spruce and cedar, my question is, does one or the other
act differently to variations in heat/humidity? That is, is one more
apt to react to extremes of summer vs. winter humidity changes in
a typical northern hemisphere heated home?
Ray S.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Schramm
One thing to remember is that nobody can do a blind test and pick out which
guitar is a cedar and which is a spruce. I do not believe one is better then
the other for Bach. Listen to Scott Tennant's recording of Bach's 1006a, sounds
great on a cedar top guitar to me!
Dave Schramm
Schramm Guitars
http://www.schrammguitars.com
Gutmeier
<act differently to variations in <heat/humidity? That is, is one more
<apt to react to extremes of summer vs. <winter humidity changes in
<a typical northern hemisphere heated <home?
<Ray S.
Ray,
According to the information in Jose Oribe's book spruce will move nearly twice
as much as cedar with the same change in himidity. While I haven't done any
controlled tests this seems to be my experience as well. I order to reduce the
likelyhood of cracking I now give the inside of all my soundboards a very thin
sealer coat of varnish.
I would strongly advise all of you out there (especially those of you with new
guitars) to prepare for the cold, dry winter months with a good dampit, a
hydrometer, and an awareness of the dry heat in your homes. If your guitar is
going to crack this is more then likely when it will happen.
Ross Gutmeier
David Schramm
DS
Steve wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I'd challenge that by saying that I know people who can. I even think I could
> to some degree.
>
> Steve
>
> In article <37FCB7EC...@juno.com>, David Schramm
David Schramm
Gutmeier wrote:
> I order to reduce the
> likelyhood of cracking I now give the inside of all my soundboards a very thin
> sealer coat of varnish.
I've never been convinced that a sealer coat helps. With your scrap wood or extra
cut offs from a top, back , or side, apply your normal seal coat then take a moist
sponge to it. Guess what happens? Just what you hoped wouldn't . The wood absorbed
the moisture and curled up in your hand.
>
>
> I would strongly advise all of you out there (especially those of you with new
> guitars) to prepare for the cold, dry winter months with a good dampit, a
> hydrometer, and an awareness of the dry heat in your homes. If your guitar is
> going to crack this is more then likely when it will happen.
And a good sling psychrometer to make sure those gauges are calibrated. I just
checked mine and they were off 10%. Good thing I wasn't doing any bracing!
Now there down to only 1%+/-.
Al Carruth
splitting at any given level of stress. That is, a spruce top that shrinks 1/8"
probably won't crack, but a cedar top with the same shrinkage might. I think
it's probably a wash....
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Steve
Dave,
I'd challenge that by saying that I know people who can. I even think I could
to some degree.
Steve
In article <37FCB7EC...@juno.com>, David Schramm
<schramm...@juno.com> wrote:
>There shouldn't be any difference in the price tag between spruce and cedar.
>One thing to remember is that nobody can do a blind test and pick out which
>guitar is a cedar and which is a spruce. I do not believe one is better then
>the other for Bach. Listen to Scott Tennant's recording of Bach's 1006a, sounds
>great on a cedar top guitar to me!
>
>Dave Schramm
>Schramm Guitars
>http://www.schrammguitars.com
>
Steve
I have a 25 year old cedar-topped guitar that has been through a lot, and its
still flat.
Steve
Gutmeier
David Schramm wrote;
<I've never been convinced that a sealer <coat helps. With your scrap wood or
<extra
<cut offs from a top, back , or side, apply <your normal seal coat then take a
moist
<sponge to it. Guess what happens? Just <what you hoped wouldn't . The wood
<absorbed
<the moisture and curled up in your hand.
David,
I consider the sealer coat to more of a help then a cure. We are filling some
of the pores not all of them. To attempt to seal the soundboard completely
would mean that we have to use a prohibitively thick coat. If I can reduce wood
movement by half using a simple wash coat then I've done plenty.
I've seen a lot of production guitars (like Yamaha) where a sealer is used so
there has to be some merit to it.
I think a better way to test the idea of a wash coat is to seal one side of a
reject soundboard and place it in a more humid eviroment (like my basement) and
see if it curls. I'll seal oposite sides of matching halves of a reject
soundboard (in order to eliminate the variable of the wood's influence) and see
if they curl in the same manner. If they do then we should have some evidence.
If you want I can let you know how things turn out. (you've piqued my interest
here David now I gotta know for sure)
Ross
Al Carruth
could get through. Not possible.
Inside wash coats do help to slow the exchange of moisture, and that can be
critical in areas where the humidity varies a lot, particularly from moist to
dry. Wood gains moisture slowly as the humidity rises, and looses it very fast
when it falls, so that moving a guitar from a moist to a dry place causes a lot
of stress. This is particularly true since the top and back are relatively thin
compared to the bracing, which is glued across them in a way that tends to
build up stress anyway. Wash coats even out the process.
There is stil no substitute for a careful owner....
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Steve
From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in a
guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
STEVE
>I seriously doubt it!
>
>DS
>
>Steve wrote:
>
Matanya Ophee
>
>From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in a
>guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
Better believe it. Torres proved the point once by making a guitar
from papier-mache. In the last GFA festival in Montreal, Arnaud Dumond
played a guitar where the top was neither spruce nor cedar by rather
some kind of artificial press board. Crazy design, but there was
plenty of sound. Some of the best guitars in my collection are made
from maple, curly maple, and other woods I am not sure I can identify.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphée, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH, 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
Check out the Orphée Catalogue at:
http://www.orphee.com
Including the on-line guitar magazine titled: Guitar And Lute Issues
Jim Holler
>>From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in
a
>>guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
>
>Better believe it.
Better not. Woods do influnce the sound of a guitar. There is no question
about that. The skill of a good builder can also influnce the out come of
the sound of the guitar. One of the very hard things to do is to maintaine
the sound that you want using different woods. Changes need to be made in
the construction and design of the guitar with different woods. Yes a
skilled builder can make differents woods sound the same, but there is
always some of the orginal character of the wood in the sound of the guitar.
As for the Torres paper Mache guitar.. I would like to have seen and heard
this guitar and to have felt its weight and stifffness. If it trully sounded
like a Torres, than The Paper Macha must have been constructed in a way to
have its sound influnced by the Master Builder to sound like wood. I use the
term Master Builder with great respect for the work of Torres.
Jim Holler Luthier
Trinity Guitars
Steve
>s...@randomc.com (Steve) wrote:
>
>>
>>From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in a
>>guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
>
>from papier-mache. In the last GFA festival in Montreal, Arnaud Dumond
>played a guitar where the top was neither spruce nor cedar by rather
>some kind of artificial press board. Crazy design, but there was
>plenty of sound. Some of the best guitars in my collection are made
>from maple, curly maple, and other woods I am not sure I can identify.
I don't buy it. I've played identical Taylors for instance, the only
difference being the back and sides material. I also had someone play them
seperately for me with my back turned. I could tell which one was Koa, which
was Mahogany, and which one was Indian Rosewood. I was able to tell the
woods, not just that they were different, but which one was which. Thats a
pretty objective test, and not that hard. (I bought the Koa)
The only problem with being objective about the difference between cedar tops
and spruce tops is the fact that its hard to get two identical guitars except
for the top. Between to fairly similar guitars, there is often a very
noticable differnce between spruce and cedar. The difference between two
types of spruce is often hard to distinguish; Taylor guitars with Engleman
spruce tops and Collings with sitka spruce sound very similar.
And I believe that Torres' experiment wasn't meant to prove that the guitar
material didn't affect the tone, but that the top was the major contributor
over the back. I don't know percentages of contribution, but the back seems
to contribute mostly color and not volume (if its built well). Look at
Ovations for instance.
Steve
Bob Ashley
> s...@randomc.com (Steve) wrote:
>
> >
> >From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in a
> >guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
>
> Better believe it. Torres proved the point once by making a guitar
> from papier-mache. In the last GFA festival in Montreal, Arnaud Dumond
> played a guitar where the top was neither spruce nor cedar by rather
> some kind of artificial press board. Crazy design, but there was
> plenty of sound. Some of the best guitars in my collection are made
> from maple, curly maple, and other woods I am not sure I can identify.
And don't forget the aboriginal aberrations. I think once in Northern
Ontario I saw a classical guitar lying by a river. It was made out of
birch bark. It had oar-locks and the oars lay nearby on a sunny rock.
Once, when I was little, I saw a funny guitar in 'National Geographic'
magazine; it was made in Lapland by a Laplander and the picture showed a
bare-breasted Laplander (could it be elsewise?) lady with a guitar made
out of ice, sitting there, right in her lap. Crazy design: I wonder if it
had plenty of sound. And I can tell you, I KNOW she was COLD!
All I know is that on seeing this picture of the Laplander Lady of the
Guitar, my fingers, my hands, were quite inspired to move. And then to
move again and again and again. I imagined this Laplander playing
romantically, just for me. And I loved her.
Thusly, had I discovered a new land where things of pleasure happen in
your lap, with your hands. I speak, of course of my marvellous discovery
of masterbation.
Regards,
Rib
Vivienne McLaughlin
> Thusly, had I discovered a new land where things of pleasure happen in
> your lap, with your hands. I speak, of course of my marvellous discovery
> of masterbation.
Ah yes, the joys of playing with things between your lap. I am referring of course
to the guitar, and to a lesser extent the Kponlogo and Donno drums. Do you need a
hanky?
V.
Gutmeier
<<I don't buy it. I've played identical Taylors for instance, the only
difference being the back and sides material. I also had someone play them
seperately for me with my back turned. I could tell which one was Koa, which
was Mahogany, and which one was Indian Rosewood. I was able to tell the
woods, not just that they were different, but which one was which. Thats a
pretty objective test, and not that hard.>>
I think if you are going to be able to tell the tonal differences of different
woods this would probably be the best test you could come up with. The same
design built under strict controls with very exacting specifications. But this
will only be the case with this design.
I think what folks are trying to say is that while there are tonal differences
in the different woods these are not absolutes.
It varies depending on the design and the maker. For instance a cedar Fleta has
more of a spruce quality then a spruce Rodriguez.
The different qualities of these woods can either be utilized or built out
depended on what the builder is looking for. There are some designs like a
Hauser or Rodiquez that I won't make with cedar because the sound (in my
opinion) would be just too muddy. But if I'm, looking for a bigger more
bombastic sound I may go with a cedar because of it's light crisp texture,
though I'll have to brace and thickness the top differently than I would with a
spruce in order to prevent the unfocused quality that cedar can have.
Every piece of wood is different even within it's own species and even within
the same tree and each piece has it's own potential. How it's utilized depends
on the luthier's skill in assessing that piece, bracing it, tuning it and
assembling it in conjunction with all of the functioning systems of the guitar.
It can get a bit complicated but that's where the magic is. Remember it's the
luthier that creates the voice not the wood, the wood is only the raw material,
a controlled participant (unless of course you're just slapping it together,
like on a production line).
Hope I haven't rambled on too much.
Ross
Gutmeier
Steve wrote;
<<I don't buy it. I've played identical Taylors for instance, the only
difference being the back and sides material. I also had someone play them
seperately for me with my back turned. I could tell which one was Koa, which
was Mahogany, and which one was Indian Rosewood. I was able to tell the
woods, not just that they were different, but which one was which. Thats a
pretty objective test, and not that hard.>>
I think if you are going to be able to tell the tonal differences of different
woods this would probably be the best test you could come up with. The same
design built under strict controls with very exacting specifications. But this
will only be the case with this design.
I think what folks are trying to say is that while there are tonal differences
in the different woods these are not absolutes.
It varies depending on the design and the maker. For instance a cedar Fleta has
more of a spruce quality then a spruce Rodriguez.
The different qualities of these woods can either be utilized or built out
depended on what the builder is looking for. There are some designs like a
Hauser or Rodiquez that I won't make with cedar because the sound (in my
opinion) would be just too muddy. But if with another design I'm, looking for a
bigger more bombastic sound I may go with cedar because of it's light crisp
texture,
though I'll have to brace and thickness the top differently than I would with a
spruce in order to prevent the unfocused quality that cedar can have.
Every piece of wood is different even within it's own species and even within
the same tree and each piece has it's own potential. How it's utilized depends
on the luthier's skill in assessing that piece, bracing it, tuning it and
assembling it in conjunction with all of the functioning systems of the guitar.
It can get a bit complicated but that's where the magic is. Remember it's the
luthier that creates the voice not the wood, the wood is only the raw material,
a controlled participant (unless of course you're just slapping it together,
like on a production line).
Ross
Matanya Ophee
>I don't buy it. I've played identical Taylors for instance, the only
>difference being the back and sides material. I also had someone play them
>seperately for me with my back turned. I could tell which one was Koa, which
>was Mahogany, and which one was Indian Rosewood. I was able to tell the
>woods, not just that they were different, but which one was which. Thats a
>pretty objective test, and not that hard. (I bought the Koa)
You ought to get into blind wine-tasting, and when you learned the
true meaning of objectivity from John Sloan, you could easily tell
which is a Taylor wine and which is a Chateau Lafitte.
You could also become a concert reviewer, or an NG advisor on the best
guitarist, the best recording of Leyenda, and the best strings fro
your Taylor Koa.
Bob Ashley
> Ah yes, the joys of playing with things between your lap. I am referring
> of course to the guitar, and to a lesser extent the Kponlogo and Donno
> drums. Do you need a hanky?
Yes, thanks.
Regards,
Rib
Al Carruth
<<I think if you are going to be able to tell the tonal differences of
different woods this would probably be the best test you could come up with.
The same design built under strict controls with very exacting
specifications.>>
I've published a paper (in the 'Journal' of the Catgut Acoustical Society) on
the tonal differences between 'identical' guitars with different back woods
(oak vs. BRW). The differences were fairly clear, although small, and could
readily be attributed to measurable characteristics of the woods, such as
density and damping factor.
It would be possible to do the same sort of experiment with top woods. However,
the degree of control needed to be able to say they are really 'alike' in terms
of structure, resonance, and so forth, is pretty stringent. It's not an easy
experiment to do, and there will always be somebody who will question the
results unless you do it enough times to generate a statistically valid data
base. Lotsa woik...
Speaking from my experience as a builder, and based on what I know about the
properties of spruce and cedar, I would _expect_ them to tend to sound
different. I would also _expect_ that I could overcome at least part of that
difference by changes in structure. This fits in well with my own experience
and that of other luthiers whom I respect. So, much as I hate to argue with
Matanya, in the absence of better data, I'm going to say that there is a
difference between spruce and cedar tops in general.
YMMV
Alan Carruth / Luthier
GuitarsWeB
that's an opinion as you stated about cedar being a "muddy sound".
Paul
Gutmeier
that's an opinion as you stated about cedar being a "muddy sound".
Paul>>
If used improperly I believe that cedar, more so that spruce, CAN have these
qualities, as well as a lack of clarity in the trebles and an overall haziness.
Mind you this is only if it's improperly used. Just one of the negative aspects
of the wood which needs to be taken into account when working with it. With
slightly taller braces, a little bit thicker soundboard, or a smaller treble
area (just to name a few) these negative aspects can be countered.
Just my humble opinion,
Ross
Matanya Ophee
> there will always be somebody who will question the
>results unless you do it enough times to generate a statistically valid data
>base.
Here is one: I am not an expert in statistics, but I do understand
that the 60-70 guitars that I have owned over the last 45 years, are
not a large enough data base. Besides, most of them are no longer
here, and I am sure that my recollection of their qualities may not be
reliable. I do remember though that the seven Fletas I owned were all
made of exactly the same woods, all made in the same location (calle
Angeles 4, Barcelona) and were as different as any set of 7 sisters.
So, in your opinion. what would be a statistically valid data base? a
thousand identical guitars?
> So, much as I hate to argue with
>Matanya, in the absence of better data, I'm going to say that there is a
>difference between spruce and cedar tops in general.
There is no argument here. And that is not subject I was reacting to.
All I wanted to do is to support David's assertion that the
craftsman's skill and knowledge is a much important determinant in the
quality of the sound than the choice of woods.
GuitarsWeB
tons of Jose Oribe cedar guitars over the years and I don't find any muddy or
lacking in the trebles. I own an old Oribe,1970, redwood with old Brazilian and
the trebles will crack a water glass. Well, maybe with a fishing sinker tied on
the end. But, you get my point. I really feel it's the maker and how he works
with the material (wood). I see even Humphrey from New York is building with
cedar. He railed against it for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong Tom. But
remember Sharom Isbin's Q&A in _Acoustic Guitar Magazine_ a few years back. As
I remember(ask Richard Brune) she passed the buck your way. That's a woman for
you. Right Viv? But really, I feel it's a lot more the maker than the woods
used. Even Oribe says he can do things to give Cedar more Spruce qualities and
the other way around. I thing John Gilbert has also second what Oribe said.
What about it Dave Schramm? Segovia once made the statement that we in America
are more interested in the instrument(guitar) than the music we play on them.
I'm sure as hell guilty of that.
Paul Mcguffin
Gutmeier
<< I really feel it's the maker and how he works with the material (wood).>>
<<I feel it's a lot more the maker than the woods used. Even Oribe says he can
do things to give Cedar more Spruce qualities and the other way around.>>
<<I feel it's a lot more the maker than the woods used. Even Oribe says he can
do things to give Cedar more Spruce qualities and the other way around.>>
GUTMEIER WROTE;
<<It varies depending on the design and the maker. For instance a cedar Fleta
has
more of a spruce quality then a spruce Rodriguez.>>
<<The different qualities of these woods can either be utilized or built out
depended on what the builder is looking for.>>
<<Remember it's the luthier that creates the voice not the wood, the wood is
only the raw material,a controlled participant>>
<<If used improperly I believe that cedar, more so then spruce, CAN have these
qualities, as well as a lack of clarity in the trebles and an overall haziness.
Mind you this is only if it's improperly used. Just one of the negative aspects
of the wood which needs to be taken into account when working with it.>>
Okay Paul, so where do we differ in opinion?
Ross Gutmeier
Gutmeier
<< I really feel it's the maker and how he works with the material (wood).>>
<<I feel it's a lot more the maker than the woods used. Even Oribe says he can
do things to give Cedar more Spruce qualities and the other way around.>>
GUTMEIER WROTE;
<<It varies depending on the design and the maker. For instance a cedar Fleta
has
more of a spruce quality then a spruce Rodriguez.>>
<<The different qualities of these woods can either be utilized or built out
depended on what the builder is looking for.>>
<<Remember it's the luthier that creates the voice not the wood, the wood is
only the raw material,a controlled participant>>
<<If used improperly I believe that cedar, more so then spruce, CAN have these
qualities, as well as a lack of clarity in the trebles and an overall haziness.
Mind you this is only if it's improperly used. Just one of the negative aspects
of the wood which needs to be taken into account when working with it.>>
Okay Paul, so where do we differ in opinion? (this is quickly becoming absurd)
Ross Gutmeier
Gutmeier
Paul wrote;
GUTMEIER WROTE;
Ross
Gutmeier
drawn between luthiers and players. We luthiers are trying to tell you about
the differences in the woods that we have to consider when building a guitar
and what you players seem to be saying is that the differences really aren't
that great. If the guitars you play don't show any of the weaknesses that may
exhist within a certain type of wood then I think you should go give your
luthier a pat on the back.
GuitarsWeB
I felt you were pointing more toward cedar. My main point was and is that
these are our opinions. I hate it when I hear people say or especially write in
books and magazines that, cedar does this,spruce sounds like this,650mm scales
are the best, long scales(what's long) are hard to play,high tension strings
are the best,etc. That's what I'm getting at. We are actualy in accord. Not a
Honda.
Paul
David Schramm
GuitarsWeB wrote:
> .... I hate it when I hear people say or especially write in
> books and magazines that, cedar does this,spruce sounds like this,650mm scales
> are the best, long scales(what's long) are hard to play,high tension strings
> are the best,etc. That's what I'm getting at. We are actualy in accord. Not a
> Honda.
> Paul
I second that!
David Schramm
Steve wrote:
> In article <380166bd...@news2.ee.net>, m.o...@orphee.com (Matanya Ophee) wrote:
> >s...@randomc.com (Steve) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>From what I've read on your posts, you'd have us believe that the woods in a
> >>guitar don't make any difference in the sound, only the way its built.
> >
> >Better believe it. Torres proved the point once by making a guitar
> >from papier-mache. In the last GFA festival in Montreal, Arnaud Dumond
> >played a guitar where the top was neither spruce nor cedar by rather
> >some kind of artificial press board. Crazy design, but there was
> >plenty of sound. Some of the best guitars in my collection are made
> >from maple, curly maple, and other woods I am not sure I can identify.
>
> I don't buy it. I've played identical Taylors for instance, the only
> difference being the back and sides material. I also had someone play them
> seperately for me with my back turned. I could tell which one was Koa, which
> was Mahogany, and which one was Indian Rosewood. I was able to tell the
> woods, not just that they were different, but which one was which. Thats a
> pretty objective test, and not that hard. (I bought the Koa)
Are you sure it was the wood you were hearing and not the design? Did all the tops have
the same strength, weight, and thickness? What about the braces? Did they all have the
same strength and weight? What about the backs? Did they all have the same weight,
strength, and thickness? Did the back braces have the same weight and strength? Was the
finish the same thickness on each instrument? Were the same construction methods used on
each guitar?
Was this a real blind test in which you walked into a room and someone said I'm going to
play 3 guitars, you tell me what materials they are made from without previously seeing,
hearing or playing these instruments?
What classical guitars have you done this test with?
Larry Deack
> Was this a real blind test in which you walked into a room and someone
said I'm going to
> play 3 guitars, you tell me what materials they are made from without
previously seeing,
> hearing or playing these instruments?
Actually, you need to make it a double blind test so that the person
playing has no idea which is which either ( nobody in the room should know
which is which). You also have to do it with a larger sample that just one
person to get meaningful results. After you've done that then someone else
has to do the same thing independently. After you have done that we may be
able to derive some kind of conclusions from the data. Let's face it we
won't fund something as silly as this so we probably will never be able to
say for sure one way or the other.
It does seem reasonable that construction factors would account for more of
the sound than the materials but I wonder how much the material affects the
construction? Would one use the same bracing for both woods? Maybe the
natural properties of the wood would tend to create certain qualities in the
construction and that would be what one heard rather than the real tonal
differences in the wood itself. This is purely conjecture on my part but I'd
like to know from you, David, if this could be a contributing factor to the
perceived sound differences in Spruce and Cedar.
David Schramm
known John for a while now and we chat frequently on the phone. I do not build
a Gilbert copy or try to duplicate their instruments, just their approach.
Now, let me quote John from a lecture he gave a few years back.
"Make a guitar out of cedar and make one out of spruce. Don't vary other
things. We don't vary our sticks(bracing) underneath. The sticks all go in the
same. We don't vary any of that junk. And all the guitars sound the same. The
reason they sound the same is that all the bracewood is calibrated-indicators,
calipers, and so forth- all that wood is calibrated. So we know a #1 strut from
a #2 and a #3, they all go in their proper places. That's all that counts. If
the face had a certain weight, thickness and strength to it, and we put our
braces where they should be, they all sound the same" -J.Gilbert, 1993.
If you want to be consistent with a design you have to be able to repeat it.
Bill Gilbert told me a few years ago, "Measure strength weight and thickness and
keep a note of it. That way when you make your "Home run" guitar, the one
everyone wants, you have your formula so you can duplicate it."
Of course it is difficult to repeat the data exactly so you have to set up
parameters that will not alter the sound. Say for example a top is a little
stiffer you might want to make the braces weaker. This comes with experience.
Just a couple days ago John and I were talking about 8 string guitars. He told
me not to change a thing . Leave the top and the braces exactly the same as you
would for a 6 string. The biggest mistake he told me was that builders try to
beef up the bracing and increase the top thickness. Also keep the bridge the
same size and weight. Do not make it bigger. If you do make it bigger it will
not weigh the same. This will change your sound.
Dave Schramm
Schramm Guitars
http://www.schrammguitars.com
Al Carruth
<<All I wanted to do is to support David's assertion that the craftsman's skill
the choice of woods.>>
You'll get no argument there from me.
Alan Caruth / Luthier
Tburmas
If good luthiers can make a quality instrument out of any material that they
choose, how come no luthiers use laminate-top instruments?
Just asking,
Ted
Al Carruth
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Matanya Ophee
If I understood this correctly, Mathias Damman, one of the most sought
after new makers (David Russell plays one, among others) uses some
sort of honeycomb laminate for the top.
Phil Read
April and he played a Dammen. He said that his one had two laminates of point 9
of a mm joined by a lattice of around two hundred fine struts. The instrument
was beautifully crafted but I found the tone a little cold though well balanced
across the strings and loud and clear up to the highest register. It carried
well in the venues.
All in all I preferred my Ferrer with its greater and more available sensitivity.
Phil Read
Matanya Ophee wrote:
Jason Villarreal
>Yeah, categorical statements _always_ bug me, too.....
>
Yes, but Toyotas are quite nice.
Jason
Of course it's hard, if it wasn't hard everyone would be able to do it. The
hard is what makes it great.
steve ganz
in airplanes, in a spruce sandwich (hold the mayo) soundboard. The first time I
heard a Damman was in a guitar trio. The Damman was a distinctive sound. Very
loud, fast attack, and quick decay. A very tight "spruce sound". I haven't
heard a cedar version of this construction. (I hope it would sound different.)
As for telling the difference between cedar and spruce, I'll have to chip in
here and say that there is a difference! I can often hear it, but not always.
At last year's Guild of American Luthiers conference Al Carruth showed an archtop
classical. Was it spruce or cedar? I remember the sound. Cedar. Al, which was
it?
The two species have different characteristics in weight, stiffness (with and
across the grain) and strength. Even different spruces have these differences.
I am pretty sure (not positive) that I can distinguish sitka from engelmann.
Even sets from the same log have some differences. That said, there are overlaps
between cedar and spruce in the properties mentioned. However, do luthiers ever
find two pieces of wood, even braces for the soundboard, with exactly equal
weight, stiffness, and strength? If one varies you can't hold them all constant.
For sound purposes, assume that we can ignore strength and just pay attention to
weight and stiffness, and limit the latter to stiffness with the grain. Is it
possible to achieve equal weight, stiffness, and dimensions in a cedar brace and
a spruce brace? How hard is it to do? David Schramm, do you always measure
these variables for each piece of wood? Feel free to comment here, kids. Can
you ignore one (say dimensions of a brace) in favor of two others? How can you
make an 8 string bridge that weighs the same and has exactly the same dimensions
of six string bridge? I think that the luthier's judgement always enters into
the equation.
The luthier makes minute adjustments to the "formula" for the instrument. I
believe that this is how really good luthiers achieve a consistency between
instruments.
This leads me to ask another question. How much consistency do we want from
different instruments?
Matanya Ophee wrote:
> >My only problem with this whole thread is this:
> >
> >If good luthiers can make a quality instrument out of any material that they
> >choose, how come no luthiers use laminate-top instruments?
>
> If I understood this correctly, Mathias Damman, one of the most sought
> after new makers (David Russell plays one, among others) uses some
> sort of honeycomb laminate for the top.
--
Steve Ganz sganz_...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/sganz_guitars
Take a guitar to lunch.
Larry Deack
whispered in your ear as you work the wood.
David Schramm
DS
Tburmas wrote:
> My only problem with this whole thread is this:
>
> If good luthiers can make a quality instrument out of any material that they
> choose, how come no luthiers use laminate-top instruments?
>
> Just asking,
> Ted
Gutmeier
If there were no difference in the woods why would we use one over another?
Ross
Larry Deack
> If there were no difference in the woods why would we use one over
another?
That's easy... it's exactly like why some use Microsoft rather than Netscape
browsers... marketing :-)
David Schramm
steve ganz wrote:
However, do luthiers ever
> find two pieces of wood, even braces for the soundboard, with exactly equal
> weight, stiffness, and strength?
As far as the brace's weight ,yes that is simple. The difference in strength are
minor. My main concern is the weight.
>
>
>
> For sound purposes, assume that we can ignore strength and just pay attention to
> weight and stiffness, and limit the latter to stiffness with the grain. Is it
> possible to achieve equal weight, stiffness, and dimensions in a cedar brace and
> a spruce brace?
I only use spruces. Some builders that I know are have good results with poplar.
With the braces I'm more concerned about the weight.
> How hard is it to do? David Schramm, do you always measure
> these variables for each piece of wood?
It is pretty easy to measure the woods. The hard part for me is to remember to weigh
them and record the data. I might be in my guitar building groove and glue a top on
and forget to weigh it. This recently happened to me and the guitar is one of the
best I've ever built. John would kick me in the butt if I ever told him about it.
> Can
> you ignore one (say dimensions of a brace) in favor of two others? How can you
> make an 8 string bridge that weighs the same and has exactly the same dimensions
> of six string bridge?
Very simple. If your 6 string Brazilian rosewood bridge blank is 7 1/8" long, 1 1/8"
wide, 1/2" thick and weighs 50grams, you can find another blank that is slightly
lighter, maybe walnut that might weigh around 40 grams and use that for the 8
string. Since the eight string bridge will have more wood due to the 2 extra
strings you end up compensating that by using a lighter blank. These numbers are just
for example, but you get the point. When I make a Gilbert saddle pin bridge it
usually weighs around 18-20grams when finished. Traditional Flamenco bridges are
usually around 14grams.
> I think that the luthier's judgement always enters into
> the equation.
>
> The luthier makes minute adjustments to the "formula" for the instrument. I
> believe that this is how really good luthiers achieve a consistency between
> instruments.
You got it!
>
>
> This leads me to ask another question. How much consistency do we want from
> different instruments?
IF the guitar is your "Home Run" guitar that everyone has to have you better be able
to duplicate it. The only way is by keeping data.
This is what works for me and has been my experience with building guitars.
Gutmeier
browsers... marketing :-)>>
This is just getting just too funny
Al Carruth
<<Bill Gilbert told me a few years ago, "Measure strength weight and thickness
and keep a note of it. That way when you make your "Home run" guitar, the one
everyone wants, you have your formula so you can duplicate it.">>
I built this one particular pair of guitars a couple of years ago that were
*supposed* to be matched. I cut the wood from the same planks of mahogany and
redwood, thicknessed them the same (+/- .1mm), tey weighted the same, had the
same mode frequencies both before and after bracing, the bracing and all other
wood was matched as closely as possible, etc., etc. They still sounded
different...... I *think* I know why, but it's pretty arcane, and I will have
to do the experiment again to be sure.
It's not really all that simple..... You can get close, but an exact match is
pretty difficult.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Al Carruth
<<If good luthiers can make a quality instrument out of any material that they
As I have said before; each wood has characteristics that set a limit as to the
sound you can get. Very few of us _ever_ consistantly aproach that limit with
solid wood, but it's there. Unless you are riat the limit, there's a lot of
leeway in terms of timbre. IMO, a laminate top sets the bar too low; I'd be
bumping my head against it all the time.
Steve Ganz asked:
<<At last year's Guild of American Luthiers conference Al Carruth showed an
archtop classical. Was it spruce or cedar?>>
That was a Sitka spruce top with Padauk back and sides. It was an experiment to
see if a guitar could be made with more projection and power that would still
sound like a guitar. (A lot of the new 'power guitars' don't, to me) I've made
a lot of changes to it since then, and it really is starting to sound pretty
good, although it is more 'lute-like' in some ways than 'guitar-like'. I have
since made another of Redwood/Walnut, that has more of a 'guitar' sound, but
still a little 'lutish'. It's been an interesting experiment, and I've learned
a lot.
Thanks for asking!
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Bob Ashley
> Thanks David. It must be fun to build a guitar and hear those sylvan secrets
> whispered in your ear as you work the wood.
I'd say that soon as those secrets got out, you'd have to call it a
'leak'. Probably some sap did it.
Regards,
Rib
GuitarsWeB
sides and back. Have Dave Schramm go into detail on that.
Paul
Gutmeier
While we're on the subject of laminating, has anyone ever tried to increase
stiffness by laminating two or more layers of soundboard material to increase
strength?
Would this actually increase strength enough so that we could decrease mass or
would it just improve stability?
Ross
Larry stamm
>We really don't differ that much. I've heard spruce sound "honky" and "muddy".
>I felt you were pointing more toward cedar. My main point was and is that
>these are our opinions. I hate it when I hear people say or especially write in
>books and magazines that, cedar does this,spruce sounds like this,650mm scales
>are the best, long scales(what's long) are hard to play,high tension strings
>are the best,etc. That's what I'm getting at. We are actualy in accord. Not a
>Honda.
>Paul
I guess I'll jump in here with my observations on a couple of
experiments I did to try to settle this question for myself.
Last year I built 3 classical guitars, one with an Engelmann spruce
top, one with a cedar top, and one with a Douglas fir top. The
back/sides of all were bubinga cut from the same plank. The bracing,
neck, and other woods were all the same too. My original goal was to
try and make the three guitars sound as alike as possible. It quickly
became apparent that I wasn't going to be able to that, nor even come
close. The inherent differences in the structures of the different
tops made the resonant properties of each very different, even when
the first few resonance modes were at the same frequencies. This
resulted in different tones for each guitar, and I see no way to get
around that completely.
Earlier this year I built 3 more guitars, this time with tops all of
cedar cut from the same billet, but differing woods for the
back/sides,neck, and everywhere else. Again I tried to get them to
sound the same; the completed tops weighed within a gram of each other
and their resonances were pretty close to each other. The weight and
resonances of the backs were wildly different. Guess what? These
guitars sound pretty much the same, although they each have their own
flavour.
These results impress me, because they were so different from what I
expected. So I believe the sort of top wood used has a pretty big
impact on the final sound now, no matter what techniques you may use
to manipulate the results.
Larry Stamm
http://www.mcbridebc.com/luthier
micheal_...@my-deja.com
How 'bout Silicon? Check out:
http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/nanotar.htm
regds
Mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve
<38055510...@newsread.cancom.net>:
>On 12 Oct 1999 13:12:36 GMT, guita...@aol.com (GuitarsWeB) wrote:
>
>>We really don't differ that much. I've heard spruce sound "honky"
and "muddy".
>>I felt you were pointing more toward cedar. My main point was and
is that
>>these are our opinions. I hate it when I hear people say or
especially write in
>>books and magazines that, cedar does this,spruce sounds like
this,650mm scales
>>are the best, long scales(what's long) are hard to play,high tension
strings
>>are the best,etc. That's what I'm getting at. We are actualy in
accord. Not a
>>Honda.
>>Paul
>I guess I'll jump in here with my observations on a couple of
>experiments I did to try to settle this question for myself.
> Last year I built 3 classical guitars, one with an Engelmann spruce
>top, one with a cedar top, and one with a Douglas fir top. The
>back/sides of all were bubinga cut from the same plank. The bracing,
>neck, and other woods were all the same too. My original goal was to
>try and make the three guitars sound as alike as possible. It
>became apparent that I wasn't going to be able to that, nor even come
>close. The inherent differences in the structures of the different
>tops made the resonant properties of each very different, even when
>the first few resonance modes were at the same frequencies. This
>resulted in different tones for each guitar, and I see no way to get
>around that completely.
>Earlier this year I built 3 more guitars, this time with tops all of
>cedar cut from the same billet, but differing woods for the
>back/sides,neck, and everywhere else. Again I tried to get them to
>sound the same; the completed tops weighed within a gram of each
other
>and their resonances were pretty close to each other. The weight and
>resonances of the backs were wildly different. Guess what? These
>guitars sound pretty much the same, although they each have their own
>flavour.
>These results impress me, because they were so different from what I
>expected. So I believe the sort of top wood used has a pretty big
>impact on the final sound now, no matter what techniques you may use
>to manipulate the results.
I'm beginning to think that people who can't hear the differences are
just not able to hear it! Even between several cedar topped guitars
that all sound different, there seems to be a cedar quality to the
sound. My teacher certainly believes this and has demonstrated it
several times.
Steve
GuitarsWeB
Paul
David Schramm
DS