Narrow vs Wide grain
Sven
growing spruce produced thh most resonate tops. Yet I've heard from
some guitar sellers (not builders however) that claimed the opposite is
true (i.e. that wide grained is better then narrow).
What's the consensus?
WadeIn...@aol.com
The main thing you want on a top is strength, and the narrow, tight
grain stuff is presumably strong because it took a long time for that
tree to grow.
But I know some builders who deliberately put wider grain tops on
smaller body guitars, saying it gives them a fuller bass response.
So I dunno....it's one of those "trust your ears, trust your luthier"
kind of deals. Both wide grain and narrow grain tops can work well on
guitars.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Ken Cashion
I remember someone taking a ruler to one of my guitars, counting, and
then exclaiming, "Wow! Eight lines to an inch exactly! That is
perfect!"
He explained what he meant but I wasn't particularly convinced,
however, he was impressed. All I noticed was how straight the grain
was.
Ken
----
For images of music, models, etc., --
http://www.photos.windmillpro.com
For Luddite Publishers --
"Ball Turret Gunner; Weather Bad/Flak Heavy"
http://www.windmillpro.com
Tom from Texas
news:j9aa525aljfh3pma0...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700, "Sven" <russ.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the violin world I've heard it claimed that narrow grain, slow
>>growing spruce produced thh most resonate tops. Yet I've heard from
>>some guitar sellers (not builders however) that claimed the opposite is
>>true (i.e. that wide grained is better then narrow).
>>
>>What's the consensus?
>
> I remember someone taking a ruler to one of my guitars, counting, and
> then exclaiming, "Wow! Eight lines to an inch exactly! That is
> perfect!"
>
> He explained what he meant but I wasn't particularly convinced,
> however, he was impressed. All I noticed was how straight the grain
> was.
>
> Ken
Damn glad he limited using that ruler to just yer guitar.
--
Tom from Texas
(The Tom Risner Fund for Deserving North Texas Guitarplayers takes no
responsibility for any hurt feelings, damage to equipment or pets due to
spewed beverages, or the opinions expressed in posts. And if yall don't
like it ye can kiss my grits.)
Tony Done
"Sven" <russ.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146412092....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
A few years ago there was a lot of talk about fine-grained tops (and
rosewood b&s come to that), then there was a shift towards "evenness of
grain is good" and now it seems to be "anything that sounds good". This may
be because of increasing scarcity of fine and/or even types, and factories
and luthiers may have found that less attractive looking timbers really do
sound just as good. I have an open mind on this. It may be true that
luthiers who take the trouble to select on tone and match the top to the
rest of the guitar can get very good tone out of any reasonable top, and it
also may be true that a lot of the "fine, even" policy of the factories was
cosmetic (a lot of Martins now seem to have ugly looking tops). A few years
ago, I would have looked at the grain in a guitar top, but these days I just
concentrate on how it sounds and constructional details such as neck angle.
My Bourgeois has a pretty ugly top and it sounds **good*.
Tony D
Peter Jorgensen
Ken Cashion wrote:
> I remember someone taking a ruler to one of my guitars, counting, and
> then exclaiming, "Wow! Eight lines to an inch exactly! That is
> perfect!"
I assume this was not the Maccaferri.
---
Peter Jorgensen
pejorg2000[at]yahoo.com
You can hear some of my music at
http://www.soundclick.com/pejorg2000
but why would you want to?
Steve
I bought a Rosewood Parlor Larrivee through Elderly. (They said I could
return it, only paying shipping, if I didn't like it.) When I received
it, it was very nice and all, but I was disappointed to see very broad
grain across the spruce top. I had always been told 'the tighter the
grain, the better.' But the thing sounds great and it has amazing bass
for such a small box.
Of course, there's no way of knowing what it would sound like with
tighter grain...unless....Actually, I really like it the way it is.
Ken Cashion
<pejor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>> I remember someone taking a ruler to one of my guitars, counting, and
>> then exclaiming, "Wow! Eight lines to an inch exactly! That is
>> perfect!"
>
>I assume this was not the Maccaferri.
That is funny. <g> Nope...Maccaferri does not have grain lines, nor
does it need to age. It is made out of that best of all tone
materials...old growth Styron.
alcarruth
time. It's only recently that anybody has tried to come up with a
theory about it, and actually done any measurements. First; theory.
The basic problem with the guitar is that there is not much available
horsepower. Most poeple would really apreciate some more sound from
their guitar, though, so we have to make the best of what we've got. As
in cars, the rule is, small engine; light car, so we're trying to keep
the top light. The way to do this is to find wood that has a high ratio
of stiffness to weight, which is why low-density woods like spruce and
cedar are the most common choices.Still, there's a lot of variation
within a given species, or even within a given tree, so luthiers are
always looking for some sort of test. Grain counting is one such test.
A few years ago Brian Burns in California decided to check out how
valid that test might be. He got hold of a couple of hundred pieces of
top wood from one of the major suppliers, and ran some tests of
stiffness, density and damping factor, which tells you how much energy
the top will 'waste'. His results were interesting.
Softwoods like spruce tend to grow fast early in the season when
there's lots of water available, putting on soft, light colored wood.
Later, as the weather gets drier, the growth slows, and the wood gets
denser and darker. The dark 'latewood' is quite strong, but also
dense, while the soft 'earlywood' is much lighter weight, but also
weaker. Smaller trees tend to grow faster, and have wider 'earlywood'
lines, and are also more variable, as they are more effected by yearly
weather changes owing to shallower root systems. The big old trees only
put on wood slowly, and it's more dense, but also stiffer.
It turns out that when the grain lines are wide the low density does
not make up for the low stiffness; you need to leave the top thicker
top get the strength you need and it ends up a little heavier. As the
growth lines tighten up the stiffness tends to rise faster than the
density, up to a point. Eventually the sheer number of latewood lines,
even though they are narrow, contributes more weight than stiffness,
and you start getting heavy tops again. Brian's data showed that the
'best' stiffness/weight ratio was at about 24 grain lines to the inch,
iirc. By the time you get to 32 lpi the density is getting too high, in
general.
One thing to remember is that this is a _general_ rule. It holds
statistically in that same way that the one about families having 2.7
kids does: you might never find an actual instance that matches
precisely, but if you're looking at a lot of examples it can help in a
general way. Some woods, such as Red spruce, just have really high
cross grain stiffness, no matter how open grained they are, or so it
seems, but you can still screw it up by cutting it off quarter. In the
end we luthiers don't make guitars out of statistical abstractions, we
use actual pieces of wood, and a good luthier will develop a 'feel' or
even use some sort of testing, such as what Brian did, to get an idea
of what _this_ peice of wood does. All _you_ need to worry about is how
it sounds, and whether it's going to hold up.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier
alcarruth
<<But why are some tops mahogany? >>
Because some people like the way it looks and sounds. Generally
speaking (and remember, there can always be exceptions!) a mahogany top
will tend to have less power than a well-made spruce or cedar one.
'Power' is not the same thing as 'loudness': loudness is a perception,
while power is something you can measure. Since our ears are much more
sensitive at some frequencies than others it's quite possible to make a
guitar that has less output overall than usual, but sounds louder.
Ditto for 'carrying power'.
A good example, although a bit less pronounced, is the difference
beween Englemann and Red spruce. Red tends to be denser than Englemann,
sometimes as much as twice as dense. It's stiffer too, of course, but
even if a given piece of Red is twice as dense and twice as stiff as a
piece of Englemann it will still end up making a somwhat heavier top.
Most poeple feel that Red gives you more 'headroom' than Englemann: you
can drive it harder before the sound breaks up. We needn't go into why
it might work that way, let alone whether this is true or not in an
objective sense. The point is that for whatever reason it seems to be a
good idea to use a somewhat denser and stiffer wood for some tops than
others: you'd tend to pick Red for a Bluegrass Dread, and Englemann for
a fingerstyle parlor. There might be perfectly good reasons for
choosing to use mahogany, koa, or walnut for a top, but you need to
keep in mind that you are likely to sacrifice some power when you do.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Valerie L Magee
My D-18GL (Lightfoot) has an incredibly tight grain. Dick Boak commented
on it, saying the narrow grain was a very good thing, plus it was
probably one of the most beautiful tops of the entire edition (for once
I was lucky - I just got the guitar assigned to my order by whatever
means they assign them).
Every musician who has played my guitar loves the sound and those who
have played more than one from the edition say it has the best sound.
This is just more empirical evidence, plus Dick Boak obviously finds
that the narrower grain is a good indication of sound.
Pete
Personally, I think it depends what you do with the guitar.
A tighter grain will give you a tighter, more precise sound, whereas a
wider grain will give you a richer, softer sound.
It wouild be interesting to hear what some of our fingerpickers think
about this. Howard Emerson, for instance, goes for a very rich tone
but uses an ancient Gibson (which are in my experience are as dry as a
bone but give a very clear tone). Is that tight or loose grained?
On the other hand, Bill Chandler plays his big old Guild 12's which
have a booming but not exactly well defined sound - are they close or
wide grained?
Another point - how much of this comes from the guitar and how much
comes from the recording/P.A.? I can make any of my guitars sound as
if they are coming from the bottom of a well with enough reverb...:-)
Strings make a difference - Elixirs are dry, Bronzes are rich. This
makes me feel that the construction and playability of the guitar are
merely the platform. What it sounds like is up to the player.
Pete
Bill Chandler
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
>On the other hand, Bill Chandler plays his big old Guild 12's which
>have a booming but not exactly well defined sound - are they close or
>wide grained?
Good question, there. I'm in the office right now (hence, no guitar
with me...*sigh*...), so I can't really tell you, but IIRC, the top on
my Guild 12 is spruce, with a fairly tight grain; whereas the top on
my Guild 6 is mahogany, and a wider grain--but the 6 has a more
defined sound than the 12. (Not sure if this helps or not...)
<snip>
--------
Look, Ma! No sig!
...bc...
alcarruth
you, from my own experience of years of comparing nearly indentical
guitars that I've made, that there are lots of things that have much
more effect on the tone than the tightness of grain. Sometimes shifting
one brace a little bit, or even using wood in the braces that has
slightly different grain, can effect things like the 'clarity' of the
tone, irrespective of the grain of the top.
And suppose you _do_ notice a consistant difference? Are you sure that
the guitars are otherwise 'identical'? Given that the belief in the
effects of wide vs. narrow grain is so widely accepted among luthiers,
it's entirely likely that builders make changes in the structure of the
tops depending on the tightness of grain. My understanding is that even
the manufacturers do this, to some extent; using wider grained tops on
certain models, but also using different bracing or wood combinations.
Given how difficult it is to isolate variables in this business, that
just confuses things too much for me.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
Bill Chandler
up the following, and served it to the group:
>I think we're venturing onto very treacherous ground here. I can tell
Alan--your guess is bound to be far better than mine. In my case, the
guitars are quite different--one's a mahogany b/s spruce top
12-string, the other's an all mahogany 6-string. I was actually being
somewhat facetious in my response, because there really isn't much
basis for comparison between the two guitars.
And I wouldn't have a clue...I just like the way they sound and play.
David Mason
think again about how the sound is ultimately produced from my beloved bits
of wood and steel.
Regards,
Dave
"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
news:or4k525pv14hc008n...@4ax.com...
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Kevin Hall
pinpoint the source of individual characteristics. For instance, unless
the all-mahog. 6 string is pretty aged, its' back is probably wood of the
dreaded ply tree which is going to have far more effect on sound than
variations in annular ring spacing.
I honestly believe that about 90% of the ' skinny lines are best' hype is a
purely cosmetic thing, heavily promoted by self-styled 'expert' writers
rather than most working luthiers. Some of the very best sounding guitars
I've ever played have had very widely spaced lines, and some of the worst
have had spacing finer than frog hair.
The market has come to expect tight 'grain' spacing ( which is technically a
misnomer anyway) on expensive instruments, so most builders make them happy
by using their tightest material on the most expensive boxes. Lots of the
long-time builders I've gossipped with over the decades have privately
admitted that things like stiffness of the blank is far more important in
real terms, but they still lay the big pitch on potential clients who want
visible proof that the materials in their pet project will be 'your very
best'. As one guy put it; ' Even an idiot can be right if he pays me
enough money'.
Until players learn to trust their own ears and judgement about their
instruments, myths continue to go unchallenged.
To my mind, what a builder does with any particular stick is of far greater
importance than the stick itself.
KH
"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
news:2vfh52l962chgst4m...@4ax.com...
Tony Done
> greater importance than the stick itself.
>
> KH
lesson. I'm ashamed to admit how much it has cost me, in cash and time.
Tony D
rock...@chariot.com.au
I bought my HD28V because I had always wanted one, without thinking
about how much my playing had changed over that time, or about whether
a Martin was what I needed, not just some young man's dream.
The Martin is a great guitar, but my two locally made ones leave it for
dead in all respects at half the price.
As you say, it's what the luthier puts into the wood, not what name is
on it or what wood it is, though that is an important factor in your
discussions about the guitar that he (or she) is building for you.
MJRB
Bill Chandler
<timbe...@webhart.net> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
>There are just way too many variables in play between those two guitars to
>pinpoint the source of individual characteristics. For instance, unless
>the all-mahog. 6 string is pretty aged, its' back is probably wood of the
>dreaded ply tree which is going to have far more effect on sound than
>variations in annular ring spacing.
Kevin--The 6 is a 1985, with the Guild arched back (indeed made from
the dreaded ply tree...the guitar is a dread, it seems
appropriate...). 21, old enough to drink (finally)...
>I honestly believe that about 90% of the ' skinny lines are best' hype is a
>purely cosmetic thing, heavily promoted by self-styled 'expert' writers
>rather than most working luthiers. Some of the very best sounding guitars
>I've ever played have had very widely spaced lines, and some of the worst
>have had spacing finer than frog hair.
To be perfectly honest, I've never even given the whole grain issue
much thought.
I'm home now, and looking at the grain, it's right there--the 12 is
pretty tight-grained (I guess; hell, I'm a DBA and a musician, not a
luthier...).
>The market has come to expect tight 'grain' spacing ( which is technically a
>misnomer anyway) on expensive instruments, so most builders make them happy
>by using their tightest material on the most expensive boxes. Lots of the
>long-time builders I've gossipped with over the decades have privately
>admitted that things like stiffness of the blank is far more important in
>real terms, but they still lay the big pitch on potential clients who want
>visible proof that the materials in their pet project will be 'your very
>best'. As one guy put it; ' Even an idiot can be right if he pays me
>enough money'.
>
>Until players learn to trust their own ears and judgement about their
>instruments, myths continue to go unchallenged.
>
>To my mind, what a builder does with any particular stick is of far greater
>importance than the stick itself.
>
>KH
And I've played some fine instruments by some fine builders, and I
don't recall ever even paying attention to the grain.
Thanks, Kevin. (Hell, I don't even know how my name came up...oh,
yeah, Pete...)
--------
"The world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed." -- Sean O'Casey
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out my music at http://www.soundclick.com/billchandler some time...
...Pictures and such at http://bc9424.cnc.net/txpicslinks.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...