Guitar woods
pete_u...@my-deja.com
sustainable woods? And I mean serious usage, not gestures. I find it
quite hard to believe that Walnut and Oak which were used extensively
by the Chicago Companies last century (it's so cool to say that now
isn't it?) are not considered worthy in the new millenium. I must
clarify here - I am not talking about the highly figured and equally
highly priced walnut and myrtle you see on Breedlove's instruments or
the specialist one of a kind builders' guitars. I am talking nice grain
but maybe no figure - workhorse type wood, the sort that could stand
along side Martin's '15' range.
And while you all ponder this mystery, there is also cherry and maple
in abundance in North America waiting to be turned into fabulous
production instruments. Kevin Hall and I have both used these woods for
guitars and the results are never disappointing.
So why?
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SuperSoup
White and Black Spruces have been used as topwoods to some success. Does
anyone have any experiences with these woods they can share?
It would be interested to note just how much 'better' Sitka, Engellman and
Adirondack is compared to White and Black Spruces which are range over most
of N America and grow in highly sustainable sources.
<pete_u...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8roort$8c4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No Busking
About a year ago, I took a friend out to help him buy his first "real"
guitar...he wound up with a Martin made of Cherry, from their Certified Wood
program. It was a gorgeous instrument, and he preferred the sound to the
other Martins, Taylors, and Larrivees that he played in the price range
(about $800, I think). Since that time, I've noticed quite a few Martins
made of alternative woods...I don't know if they've increased the size of
the program, or if I'd just been overlooking them before on my way to the
000-28's and stuff.
Most of the Simon and Patrick guitars that I used to see on Denmark Street
in London were made of alternative woods...mostly cherry.
Taylor has issued quite a few instruments in Walnut, although a lot of them
may be disqualified from your list because or ornamental figuring. Taylor's
300 and 400 series are made from Sapele and Ovangkol...and are probably
their largest selling lines. With those kinds of volumes, it's much more
than a token effort.
I've seen a few oak guitars, but not liked the sound of any of
them...whether that's a function of the wood or the maker, I don't know. I
do know that they were ugly as sin (IMO).
I believe that instrument makers have a lot of economic incentive to use
alternative renewable woods, but that the biggest hurdle to overcome is the
tendency of the buying public to look for Mahogany and Rosewood in high-line
instruments. On the other hand...maybe that's appropriate. There aren't
THAT many $1500+ guitars sold that they seriously impact the global wood
supply.
The situation isn't likely to change without an extended and intensive
marketing program from one or more major industry players. Guitarists are
traditionalists, and buying habits are difficult to change. From a
marketing perspective, the difficult bit will be to position "alternative"
woods as "preferred" woods.
--
Michael Pugh
neil harpe
I agree with you when you suggest the serious consideration of oak, walnut,
maple and cherry in guitar production. How about adding birch to the mix?
Gibson used birch (and called it "maple") during the 1920s...I understand
they did this even on the early L-5s!
I have a number of Stellas and other guitars (mostly made by O. Schmidt, in
Jersey City)from the 1920s and 30s. A great many of these guitars were made
with either birch, not only for sides & backs (in the case of many of their
spruce top models) but for tops, as well. I have found it quite remarkable
that ladder braced guitars with birch tops can have such a rich, loud and
responsive tone. Serious tone! It quite destroys my former belief that a
guitar top had to be spruce, cedar, koa or mahogany....as well as shooting a
big, fat hole in the theory that x-bracing is king.
Neil Harpe
http://www.stellaguitars.com
pete_u...@my-deja.com
"neil harpe" <ha...@toad.net> wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I agree with you when you suggest the serious consideration of oak,
walnut,
> maple and cherry in guitar production. How about adding birch to the
mix?
of course - previous poster talking about Ovangkol and sapele missed
the point of the guitars ought to be made from indigenous woods part
of the argument.
Why don't we see the certified wood program used by Martin more widely
publicised?
Greg Thomas
> sustainable woods?
First, Pete, I think a lot of builders in small shops, such as yourself and
some of the other resident luthiers of this group, have indeed looked at the
woods to which you refer. I too find it interesting that walnut is beginning
to make a comeback. Until about a year ago I owned a 1947 Epiphone Trojan
archtop: walnut back and sides, maple top. Beautiful instrument.
But I think the real issue is "sustainable." All wood is sustainable. We
simply keep an adequate supply of trees growing. 8-) Demand for the woods
mentioned has far outpaced supply, and in our lifetime we've seen the supply
of trees diminish pretty significantly(I know, I know, rainforests and
embargos.) Since it is very doubtful that instrument making of any sort
seriously impacts the demand for these woods, or that we could as guitarists
make a serious dent in the supply, it stands to reason that other uses of
the woods has caused the problem we see. I make the point for a reason: as
luthiers begin looking toward alternative tone woods, won't every other
industry as well? You mentioned I believe walnut and cherry. How long will
these woods be "sustainable" once they are seen as a viable alternative to
other rare woods?
I am aware that certain trees will only grow in certain places: Brazilian
rosewood, I am told, simply won't grow outside of its native habitat, and
its a very slow growing tree. Walnut, by comparison, grows to maturity at a
much faster rate. Still, it takes quite a few years for either a walnut or
oak tree to reach the stage where it will yield boards large enough for our
wants as luthiers and guitarists.
This is a sticky problem, and one not easily solved. Just my 2 cents.
Greg
Al Carruth
<<Guitarists are
traditionalists, and buying habits are difficult to change. From a
marketing perspective, the difficult bit will be to position "alternative"
woods as "preferred" woods.>>
Amen! I've been trying for years to get people interested in alternative wood
guitars with very little success. Sometimes they won't even touch them, just
look for a while and walk away. Sigh.
I'm sorry that Michael doesn't like the look of oak: it's one of my favorites,
and I've been using it for years. Have you seen any quartered oak: the kind
with the extravagant rays? It's not only the most attractive IMO, but also the
most stable ad the best acoustically. Ask Larry Pattis about my oak 12-fret
000.If you like it brown, it can be ammonia fumed.
A good builder should be able to get a decent tone out of almost any reasonable
wood, particularly in a steel string guitar. I'm of the opinion that Brazilian
rosewood doesn't do all that much for a steel string, particularly considering
the really bad qualty of some of the BRW I've seen lately. Thank goodness I've
got an old stash.
'Adirondack' spruce, AKA red spruce, is really common throughout the northeast,
but it's hard to find big trees. If you guys would accept 3- and 4-piece tops
life would be easier.....White anf Black are also good, I'm told.
The hard one to replace will be ebony. The 'local' variety, persimmon, is most
usually white, although you can find logs with some dark grey streaking. Look
at Henry's myrtle/spruce classical in the 'Student Gallery' on my web site to
see a nice piece of persimmon used as a fingerboard. The white stuff is nice
and hard, we just have to figure out how to stain it.
Indian rosewood is mostly from 'sustainable' sources these days. They grow it
as a shade tree in tea plantations.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com
David
think the luthier trade is impacting the consciousness about rare and
beautiful woods in more of a positive way then not. Despite a lack of
serious money in most of the poorer countries where a lot of this wood comes
from, there are many programs being established to replant seeds,
selectively harvest, and to maintain the balance of the ecosystems. Despite
taking perhaps a hundred years for some of these trees to be useful, the
people are still wanting to invest in the future supplies.
I am not suggesting that things are fine as they are, but I do think there
is more appreciation for the cause from luthiers than from people who panel
their offices with rosewood just because it is rare and expensive.
Society is slow to change for a lot of reasons. We have been aware (en mass)
of the finite availability of fossil fuels since the early seventies, but we
are buying gas-hog SUV's more than ever.
There is such an incredible variety of needs, motives, and agendas in the
world, and very little consensus about positive solutions.
I don't buy the common excuse that alternative energy is not economically
feasible. It seems more likely to me that subsidizing the development and
widespread use of alternative energy would upset the apple-cart too much.
When we became aware that freon was destroying the ozone, the change to
other gasses was pretty swift in this country, but the freon industry did
not quit, they still sold it to countries who didn't have laws against it.
Same thing with DDT.
I think that in an ideal sense, rather than have more laws, people would be
capable of sustaining a much bigger perspective on their actions and the
impacts on the future, the environment, and other people. If people could
see the totality of their life deeds from a more objective, big picture
standpoint, they would obviously adjust their behavior in the moment for the
better.
This is not the case most of the time.
Consciousness is considered a luxury. It is too easily destroyed by fear,
stress, greed, and insecurity, that most people only have flashes of it when
a disaster strikes.
My hope is that the age of information will help give people the bigger view
that we desperately need.
I am opposed to excessive controls and laws, but unless we begin to conduct
ourselves in a more constructive manor towards life in general, we might
risk loosing the free will we currently enjoy, and be subjected to
innumerable political lawmakers who will force us to control our
self-destructive behavior. At this point, there are very few political
parties that are objective enough to make me want to surrender my freedom.
Sorry for the rant-
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
pic...@rmi.net
800-375-2656
MICHAEL BOISSEVAIN
seriously leaning toward walnut as a tonewood for a guitar
which I hope to order in the next few months. I just liked
the *idea* of walnut, i.e. its origin, its appearance, etc.
Well, recently I spoke to a (relatively new) luthier who worked
for a large high-end guitar company. (I won't mention names or
locations here, so as to avoid any flaming anyone.)He said that
this company had a large run of Oregon walnut guitars in a number
of sizes, and that they had mostly all been "duds". He felt that
walnut was an excellent sound absorber (kind of like teak), rather
than a sound reflecter, and provided the example of rifle stocks,
where walnut is the most common wood, ostensibly because of its
ability to absorb vibration. For this reason, he does not offer
walnut as a choice in his guitars.
It would be great to hear some comments on this from experienced
luthiers. I still like the idea of walnut, but I would
hate to order the guitar of a lifetime, and end up with a "dud".
pete_u...@my-deja.com
MICHAEL BOISSEVAIN <mbois...@home.com> wrote:
> Well, recently I spoke to a (relatively new) luthier who worked
> for a large high-end guitar company. (I won't mention names or
> locations here, so as to avoid any flaming anyone.)He said that
> this company had a large run of Oregon walnut guitars in a number
> of sizes, and that they had mostly all been "duds".
I have built loads of guitars in English and American walnut, ukuleles
and mandolins too and they have all been killers. I believe Kevin Hall
has had similar experiences with American Walnut and Cherry.
To reiterate the point I made at first- I am talking indigenous
hardwoods - not pretty, high end stuff but just your well seasoned,
perfectly quartered local hardwood. I know there is a keen interest in
the visually pleasing and there is a placed for all the flame, curl and
quilt! Now can someone answer the question. Why aren't oak and walnut
used more in guiatrs today. If it was fine for Lyon and Healey then it
should be good enough for everyone else.
I also have a private wish that we get away from this 'pretty wood is
best' mentality. It has its place but surely the sound should be the
holy grail?
hotater
<mbois...@home.com> wrote:
>I have a serious question here about walnut. I have been
>seriously leaning toward walnut as a tonewood for a guitar
>which I hope to order in the next few months. I just liked
>the *idea* of walnut, i.e. its origin, its appearance, etc.
>
>Well, recently I spoke to a (relatively new) luthier who worked
>for a large high-end guitar company. (I won't mention names or
>locations here, so as to avoid any flaming anyone.)He said that
>this company had a large run of Oregon walnut guitars in a number
>of sizes, and that they had mostly all been "duds". He felt that
>walnut was an excellent sound absorber (kind of like teak), rather
>than a sound reflecter, and provided the example of rifle stocks,
>where walnut is the most common wood, ostensibly because of its
>ability to absorb vibration. For this reason, he does not offer
>walnut as a choice in his guitars.
>
>It would be great to hear some comments on this from experienced
>luthiers. I still like the idea of walnut, but I would
>hate to order the guitar of a lifetime, and end up with a "dud".
>
I certainly can't answer as a luthier but can as a gunmaker.
Walnut (in several different kinds) is used as gunstock woods for
its strength, stability, beauty, and ability to take and hold
checkering.
The recoil absorption is taken with the end grain and there is
little difference between walnut, maple, koa, myrtle, and many
others.
The strongest and most desirable gunstock woods are the Juglans
Regia (French, English, Circassian, "thin shell") walnuts originally
found by Marco Polo in the southern Caucus mountains and planted all
over the world.
The "Claro" walnuts I've seen pictured in fine guitars is native to
California and used extensively as root-stock for grafted English
trees. This walnut is very colorful and is used by many firearms
companies in their "higher" grade guns. It is considered too soft and
gaudy for truly fine firearms but does have a following for those that
like flashy and don't mind a softer and more open grain wood. It is
derisively referred to as "California Corkwood" by some stockmakers
because it tends to be very open-pored and brittle.
I'd love to have a guitar from it, but will pass on it as a stock
wood.
hotater
Adrian Legg
(in message <Id1E5.2083$r6.11...@den-news1.rmi.net>):
> [...] We have been aware (en mass)
> of the finite availability of fossil fuels since the early seventies, but we
> are buying gas-hog SUV's more than ever.
And bitching about gas prices.
> There is such an incredible variety of needs, motives, and agendas in the
> world, and very little consensus about positive solutions.
There's quite a lot of consensus actually, until it affects the pockets of
the well-off,noisy and powerful.
> I don't buy the common excuse that alternative energy is not economically
> feasible.
It's not - for the oil companies. And it's probably not good for General
Motors.
> It seems more likely to me that subsidizing the development and
> widespread use of alternative energy would upset the apple-cart too much.
Precisely. See www.corpwatch.org for details of one of your current
presidential contender's oil industry relationships.
> When we became aware that freon was destroying the ozone, the change to
> other gasses was pretty swift in this country, but the freon industry did
> not quit, they still sold it to countries who didn't have laws against it.
> Same thing with DDT.
And tobacco. Meanwhile your country is bombing large chunks of Columbia with
toxins that destroy any hope of regular farming in a vain attempt to cure
some of its own [US] citizens' problematic fascination with getting as out of
their head as possible; happilly deforming foetuses abroad while it squabbles
about abortion at home.
>[...]
> My hope is that the age of information will help give people the bigger view
> that we desperately need.
Well, so far, the age of information has produced better games, pirate music
downloads and cheaper spamming. But there are hopeful signs - the GM revolt
here in the UK probably owes its origins to on-line info., and there is a new
young generation in open and splendid revolt against transnational
corporatism.
> I am opposed to excessive controls and laws, but unless we begin to conduct
> ourselves in a more constructive manor towards life in general, we might
> risk loosing the free will we currently enjoy, and be subjected to
> innumerable political lawmakers who will force us to control our
> self-destructive behavior.
I doubt it. The self-destructive behaviour emanates largely from the
coporations who finance the election campaigns of the people who tell you
what to do and then inflict it on the rest of us via the WTO. There's no sign
of campaign finance reform ever becoming more than a feeble gesture, and it's
usually the biggest spender who wins elections.
If you actually had any kind of news service that wasn't subject to corporate
control, you might stand a chance [pace Studs Terkel].
>At this point, there are very few political
> parties that are objective enough to make me want to surrender my freedom.
Without radical electoral reform and a real alternative to a clapped out and
unrepresentative two-party system, there probably won't ever be anyway.
Now, I know where there's a mature black walnut on the edge of Harrisburg PA
with a clear bole that reaches two stories.
Who's got a chainsaw ? Could be tricky getting it down; there are houses all
around it, but they're old......
Adrian Legg
(in message <01HW.B6069ECA0...@news.u-net.com>):
[..]
> Precisely. See www.corpwatch.org for details of one of your current
> presidential contender's oil industry relationships.
Pardon me. Gas. Getting my fossil fuels mixed up.
Slip of the brain. It all burns....
There's a good chunk on the other guy too....
--
www.adrianlegg.com
PaulC
walnut top, walnut neck, and even walnut tuning knobs. Believe me, it is not
a dud. The walnut top is clear, distinct, cannot be overdriven, highs and
lows are very seperate, each with great fundementals. The overtones are
certainly not as dominant as one would find on redwood or englemen, but they
are there.
Despite what I have heard some say about walnut aws a tone wood, it does not
sound like any mahogany top I have ever played.
Paul C.
"MICHAEL BOISSEVAIN" <mbois...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39E0C0B8...@home.com...
> I have a serious question here about walnut. I have been
> seriously leaning toward walnut as a tonewood for a guitar
> which I hope to order in the next few months. I just liked
> the *idea* of walnut, i.e. its origin, its appearance, etc.
>
> Well, recently I spoke to a (relatively new) luthier who worked
> for a large high-end guitar company. (I won't mention names or
> locations here, so as to avoid any flaming anyone.)He said that
> this company had a large run of Oregon walnut guitars in a number
> of sizes, and that they had mostly all been "duds". He felt that
> walnut was an excellent sound absorber (kind of like teak), rather
> than a sound reflecter, and provided the example of rifle stocks,
> where walnut is the most common wood, ostensibly because of its
> ability to absorb vibration. For this reason, he does not offer
> walnut as a choice in his guitars.
>
> It would be great to hear some comments on this from experienced
> luthiers. I still like the idea of walnut, but I would
> hate to order the guitar of a lifetime, and end up with a "dud".
>
No Busking
> I'm sorry that Michael doesn't like the look of oak: it's one of my
favorites,
> and I've been using it for years. Have you seen any quartered oak: the
kind
> with the extravagant rays? It's not only the most attractive IMO, but also
the
> most stable ad the best acoustically. Ask Larry Pattis about my oak
12-fret
> 000.If you like it brown, it can be ammonia fumed.
Actually, I'm a big fan of Arts and Crafts furniture, and I'm very fond of
furniture made from quartered and fumed oak with rays across the grain.
But I really don't like it on guitars...just my preference. Cherry and
maple, however, I like a lot.
--
Michael Pugh
No Busking
> the point of the guitars ought to be made from indigenous woods part
> of the argument.
Actually Pete, I didn't miss your comment on the indigenous woods. But
since you started your posting with a statement about global awareness and
sustainable woods (which are obviously not the same thing as indigenous),
and didn't mention the indigenous angle until the final paragraph, I assumed
that wasn't the primary thrust of your essay.
You'll also notice that I spent a bit of time referring to Cherry and
Walnut.
I suppose I *could* be offended that you've implied my reading skills are
lacking in a public forum. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, however. Best
to assume pure motives, don't you think? ;-)
> Why don't we see the certified wood program used by Martin more widely
> publicised?
To me, it appears that Martin spends more time on brand awareness
advertising than on specific models, which is pretty typical of a market
leader. They're successful in their market position as it is, so it's not
really in their interest to change the perception of their brand as
"eco-friendly" until someone else takes the market in that direction. I
suppose you could classify their certified wood program as pre-positioning
for that eventuality. Rational and typical marketing behaviour.
--
Michael Pugh
SteveWLB40
>marketing perspective, the difficult bit will be to position "alternative"
>woods as "preferred" woods.>>
>
>Amen! I've been trying for years to get people interested in alternative wood
>guitars with very little success. Sometimes they won't even touch them, just
>look for a while and walk away. Sigh.
>
I'm not sure where you guys are coming from, or even living, but I see
guitars in alternate woods everywhere I go! Maple, walnut, myrtle, cherry, you
name it. I think Harvey Leach & Lance McCollum, James Goodall, as well as many
others, are selling walnuts very frequently as compared to a few years ago. I
think we're moving very quickly in this "alternative woods" direction.
Steve Barker
Hojo2x
>Well, recently I spoke to a (relatively new) luthier who worked >for a large
high-end guitar company.
>He said that >this company had a large run of Oregon walnut guitars in a
number
>of sizes, and that they had mostly all been "duds".
Interesting. Was this the opinion of the company itself, or of this former and
possibly disgruntled employee?
>He felt that >walnut was an excellent sound absorber (kind of like teak),
rather
>than a sound reflecter,
etc., etc., further speculations snipped.
Michael, having met more than a couple of newly self-employed luthiers who got
their start working for guitar companies, I can tell you that a little
knowledge is often a dangerous thing.
I don't doubt that a lot of these production-line walnut guitars were duds, at
least as they were set up at the factory.
My experience indicates that walnut is among the touchiest of all tonewoods
when it comes to getting the setup right, and that the setup on them has more
effect on the sound than on anything else except banjos. Differences in string
gauge and alloy are much more noticeable than on most guitars, and even saddle
composition plays a larger role - my walnut Larrivee OM sounds great with the
stock Graphtech synthetic saddle it came with, but unbearably bright with a
bone saddle it got fitted with (I went back to the Graphtech.)
As I've indicated, I've never had a guitar more sensitive to little changes
like this, and it might just be that the guitar company in question just built
those walnut guitars with their company's standard appointments, without
pausing to listen to the walnut guitars themselves and to think about what the
walnut might require to get it optimized.
I know that luthier Roy McAlister, who used to work for Santa Cruz, never cared
much for the walnut guitars that company made when he worked there. He walked
away from that production line experience with a similar attitude toward walnut
as your guy; it wasn't until later, when custom guitar customers started
ordering walnut instruments, that he finally worked through the problems and
learned how to get a reliably good sound from them.
Just as I found that bridge saddle and string composition were key to getting a
good sound on my walnut Larrivee, Roy had to fiddle fairly extensively with the
saddle. He ended up laminating a thin strip of spruce to the bottom of the
bone saddle, and this mellowed things out while retaining the clarity of the
bone.
Walnut can often display a tendency to be overly bright from a tonal
standpoint, brash, even, but if you can get past that and get it tweaked just
right, it can make some outstanding musical instruments.
Hope that makes sense.
Wade Hampton Miller
Al Carruth
<<I think we're moving very quickly in this "alternative woods" direction.>>
Finally.... I built my first oak guitar about fifteen years ago, and had used
walnut before that. From my perspective it's been a long slog.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
htt:/www.alcarruthluthier.com
Jerry Dallal
One of the beauties of cherry is the way it darkens over time.
All other things being (nearly) equal, T'd go with cherry for this reason
alone.
Sound does vary with tonewood, though. When it comes to mountain
dulcimers, I believe WHM prefers walnut, whereas I prefer cherry's
somewhat thinner sound. Still, I wouldn't refuse to try an instrument
simply because it wasn't cherry.
Others have said that players have fixed notions
of what they're willing to play, yet I can't recall any firesales of
runs of instruments simply because they were made of a particular type of
wood.
Al Carruth
<< Despite taking perhaps a hundred years for some of these trees to be useful,
the people are still wanting to invest in the future supplies.>>
and Adrian Legg replied:
<<The self-destructive behaviour emanates largely from the coporations who
finance the election campaigns of the people who tell you what to do and then
inflict it on the rest of us via the WTO.>>
While I don't deny that there are large and well-financed corporate interests
that are very destructive of the enviornment, I don't think we can lay all of
the blame on them. An awful lot of the problem is simply a classic 'tragedy of
the commons'.
Forests in many places are effectively common property, over which there is no
effective adminitrative day-to-day control. A lot of ready cash can be made by
cutting the trees and selling them, and there is little chance of getting
caught and punished. For many poor people it comes down to a choice of cutting
the tree yourself and getting the money so that your family can eat, or
watching your neighbor do it while you starve. A no-brainer. When local people
gain effective control they quite often act rationally in their own long-term
self interest. The problems are wresting nominal control away from the
ineffective vested interests, and then establishing real and effective
controls.
Most of the indigenous peoples in Africa and South America realize perfectly
well that the forest is more valuable in the long run standing than cut, but
they don't have the level of control that allows them to leave it standing.
This is where big corporations and corrupt governments do a lot of damage. Most
of the Phillipine mahogany was cut illegaly ten or fifteen years ago durng the
Japanese building bubble to make concrete forms, through collusion of corrupt
government officials and large landowners. The result was thousands of deaths
among poor villiagers in subsequent mud slides.We all know what the result was
in the Japanese economy, which is only now starting to recover.
Some of the destruction is simple stupidity. The treaty with Japan that ended
WW II has a provision that allows the Japanese to buy spruce at what was then a
very low price. We were just developing the Sitka spruce as a resource then,
and felt guilty about destroying so much housing in fire bomb raids.
Traditional Japanese housing is framed in spruce, so... The result is that
Japanese companies buy up much of the best spruce and chip it for flakeboard or
pulp. The only way to stop it would be to denounce the treaty, essentialy
declaring war on Japan.
BTW, don't get me wrong; I don't have an axe to grind specifically against the
Japanese. It's just that these are such clear cases.
I have to agree with something Daniel Shorr said during the Gulf War: that
there is far more evidence of stupidity than conspiracy in the workings of the
world. We don't need to evoke corporate greed to account for it; our own
private greed will do just fine.
Al Carruth
<<... I've never had a guitar more sensitive to little changes like this<snip>
[maybe] the guitar company in question just built
those walnut guitars with their company's standard appointments, without
walnut might require to get it optimized.>>
Thanks Wade.
Walnut and maple have in common that they are both very 'trasnparent' woods
acoustically. They don't add in a lot of color of their own, and rely on a
good setup and good playing for the final tone more than rosewod or mahogany or
koa. This is realy cool if the luthier knows how to set up, and the player to
play, since it gives you a world of control over the tone. 'Course, it won't
hide any of your clams either....
I ws always told that one reson the walnuts are prefered for gunstocks is that
they combine stability with a good strength/weight ratio. You can inlet the
barrel and action of the gun so that the fit is nice and tight, and it stays
nice and tight. This is what helps it absorb the shock of the recoil, far more
than any intrinsic damping of the wood. There's just no extraneous rattling
going on. Sounds like a good property for a guitar wood to me.
I do think that walnut has a somewhat 'open' or 'forward' tone. I've used it
with Red spruce on some classical guitars, and it makes a great instrument; the
bright tone of the walnut and the red spruce helps keep the trebles 'out
there'. On a steel string I find the combination a little too bright; sort of
an 'Ethyl Merman' sound. I'd tend to go with Englemann or cedar for the top on
a walnut guitar, unless it was a 12-fret 000, and maybe even then.... But
that's just my thought.
cwt...@my-deja.com
northeast, but it's hard to find big trees. If you guys would accept 3-
and 4-piece tops life would be easier.....White anf Black are also good,
I'm told.
Alan,
Great reply-question for you-So it is your opinion that 3 or 4 piece tops
are in no way inferior in tone to two piece tops? This would certainly be
great news!
The hard one to replace will be ebony. The 'local' variety, persimmon, is
most usually white, although you can find logs with some dark grey
streaking. Look at Henry's myrtle/spruce classical in the 'Student
Gallery' on my web site to
see a nice piece of persimmon used as a fingerboard. The white stuff is
nice and hard, we just have to figure out how to stain it.
Have you tried Black saddle dye in coats? I am not a luthier but I bought
a bum-around guitar-a Martin DM and stained the Indian rosewood
fingerboard and bridge with this dye and it looks like ebony from a few
feet away-of course, white wood may not take the dye.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pete_u...@my-deja.com
alca...@aol.com (Al Carruth) wrote:
> Wade Hampton Miller wrote:
> <<... I've never had a guitar more sensitive to little changes like
this<
I really respect these posts and the high sophistication expressed by
y'all. To me, I don't quite know what the subltle tonalities of woods
are. I don't like working barazilian for steel strings, and have
recently got turned onto cherry - 'nuff said.
And without irony, I wish I could understand half of what the other
luthiers say, maybe then I could contribute better to the arguments.
I mean, proudnigga's postings have been easier to unravel than some of
the stuff said on here. Boy you guys is way above me!
thanks again.
Hojo2x
>Sound does vary with tonewood, though. When it comes to mountain>dulcimers, I
believe WHM prefers walnut, whereas I prefer cherry's>somewhat thinner sound.
Still, I wouldn't refuse to try an instrument
>simply because it wasn't cherry.
I won't refuse to play ANYthing, so long as I don't have to buy it. The father
of one of my students very proudly showed me a dulcimer he'd made out of
formica left over from a kitchen remodeling - it sounded about as ghastly as
you might expect.
I like cherry and walnut about equally on dulcimers, and include maple right in
there with those. I own a dulcimer in each cherry and walnut, and two in
maple.
But the wood I like most for that inistrument is koa with a Sitka spruce top -
to me that combination sings better than any other.
One wood I really dislike for dulcimers is mahogany, even though I really like
mahogany guitars. But every mahogany mountain dulcimer I've ever heard has
just sounded muddy and lame.
Either it's not as suited for the instrument, or I just haven't run across a
dulcimer design that takes advantages of whatever benefits mahogany might
bring.
Either way, I'll stick with koa for myself - though I have a Tasmanian
blackwood dulcimer in the works. As another acacia, Tasmanian blackwood is
supposed to be tonally similar to koa, so we'll see.
Wade Hampton Miller
Paul K
> Walnut and maple have in common that they are both very 'trasnparent'
woods
> acoustically. They don't add in a lot of color of their own, and
rely on a
> good setup and good playing for the final tone more than rosewod or
mahogany or
> koa. This is realy cool if the luthier knows how to set up, and the
player to
> play, since it gives you a world of control over the tone. 'Course,
it won't
> hide any of your clams either....
>
> I do think that walnut has a somewhat 'open' or 'forward' tone. I've
used it
> with Red spruce on some classical guitars, and it makes a great
instrument; the
> bright tone of the walnut and the red spruce helps keep the
trebles 'out
> there'. On a steel string I find the combination a little too bright;
sort of
> an 'Ethyl Merman' sound. I'd tend to go with Englemann or cedar for
the top on
> a walnut guitar, unless it was a 12-fret 000, and maybe even then....
But
> that's just my thought.
>
I have two walnut backed guitars; a Robertson 7-string with a Sitka top
and a Froggy Bottom K with an Adirondack top. Both are great sounding
guitars. Both instruments have the small jumbo/grand auditorium body
size. Having had the opportunity to compare two different instances of
Walnut backed guitars (both Claro Walnut) with different tops, I am of
the opinion that Walnut works very well on the larger body sizes. The
GA body size tends to add extra bass to the overall sound, but the
extra brightness afforded by the spruce/walnut combination helps to
balance the sound greatly. Both of these guitars are very well
balanced. I don't think these same instruments would sound as good
with a Cedar top in my opinion; but it might with an OM size. Also to
Wades point, I do notice that what strings I use makes a big difference
in the sound. Millard believes that very bright strings sound best on
his Adirondack/Walnut K. You'd think that if Walnut was overly bright,
that wouldn't be the case, and I tend to agree with his assessment in
this case.
I had read that Walnut is suppose to be tonally transparent, which I
assume means that what you hear is entirely due to the sound generated
by the top wood. Or said another way, that the Walnut doesn't modify
the sound by absorbing some frequencies and not others; it reflects
everything across the whole tone spectrum. However, I can't help but
believe that this is greatly effected by the particular cut used and
how the luthier builds the instrument. It seems too convenient to
generalize that all walnut backs will have total transparency across
the whole frequency range. I find it very difficult to say with any
certainty how much of what I hear in my instruments comes strictly from
the top or is colored by the back. The only thing I can say is that
they both have tremendous sustain and that on the Robertson I can
notice a distinctive "propagation delay" in the sound waves during the
sustain; almost like a rolling wave of sound. It's almost like the
back takes a second to absorb the vibration and spit it back out.
Hope some of that makes sense.
Paul Kucharski
--
Acoustic Fingerstyle Guitar
http://www.execpc.com/~pgkuchar/index.html
Adrian Legg
(in message <20001009091018...@ng-co1.aol.com>):
>[....] An awful lot of the problem is simply a classic 'tragedy
> of
> the commons'.
> [...] For many poor people it comes down to a choice of
> cutting
> the tree yourself and getting the money so that your family can eat, or
> watching your neighbor do it while you starve. A no-brainer. When local
> people
> gain effective control they quite often act rationally in their own long-term
> self interest. The problems are wresting nominal control away from the
> ineffective vested interests, and then establishing real and effective
> controls.
Well, wresting _actual_ control rather than nominal control,
otherwise,indeed. However, local democracies do not survive long in the face
of corporate interest, especially if they're living on an island full of
profitable minerals, for example. Or living in Houston and watching the
asthma figures go up. But of course, asthma is a big earner for the health
care trade.
[...]
>
> I have to agree with something Daniel Shorr said during the Gulf War: that
> there is far more evidence of stupidity than conspiracy in the workings of
> the
> world.
There has often been evidence of conspiracy, but I don't subscribe to an
overall conspiracy theory. It's not necessary; there is an undoubted
coincidence of attitude and financial interest which Terkel demonstrated
clearly affects which news stories you are told and which you are not, for
example. If a tv director is also on the board of a bank, you're not going to
hear anything uncomplimentary about the bank.
For further example, All Things Considered gets a good chunk of money from
ADM, so I'd be very surprised if they ran much on the actual quite serious
toxicity of soya. And the commercial news bulletins are so anodyne and
chauvinist as to have become utterly farcical.
www.corpwatch.org has some interesting points to make about Lieberman's Ct
constituency and its dependency on the arms industry. Lieberman and Gore were
among the few democrats to vote for the Gulf war, apparently.
> We don't need to evoke corporate greed to account for it; our own
> private greed will do just fine.
Individual private greed tends to be more subject to regulation than
corporate, and is less able to buy government decision. But of course,
private greed is the motivator behind corporate greed - whether it be the
CEO's bonus or someone's fat pension. And individual employment
opportunities in Connecticut owe a lot to dead arabs and the continuation of
unenforceable drugs laws now the cold war is over.
It wasn't just Larry King that had a good Gulf war.
But about that tree - we'd need a decent size truck....
james...@my-deja.com
> Alan Carruth wrote:
>
> > I'd tend to go with Englemann or cedar for the top on
> > on a walnut guitar, unless it was a 12-fret 000,
> > and maybe even then....
>
> Having had the opportunity to compare two different
> instances of Walnut backed guitars (both Claro Walnut)
> with different tops, I am of the opinion that Walnut
> works very well on the larger body sizes. The GA body
> size tends to add extra bass to the overall sound, but
> the extra brightness afforded by the spruce/walnut
> combination helps to balance the sound greatly. Both
> of these guitars are very well balanced. I don't think
> these same instruments would sound as good with a Cedar
> top in my opinion; but it might with an OM size.
Now I must ask -- anybody caring to share an opinion in
this group and not just the two posters above -- what
about Lowden's O-23 (jumbo cedar-walnut) and why don't
they make a spruce-walnut combo?
James Wendy.
BrianMcCar
>opportunities in Connecticut owe a lot to dead arabs and the continuation of
>unenforceable drugs laws now the cold war is over.
>It wasn't just Larry King that had a good Gulf war.
>
>But about that tree - we'd need a decent size truck....
>
Nah, just a K-Max (tm) helicopter from our favorite Connecticut
aerospace/guitar/guide dog company. Lift that sucker right outta there!
Brian McCarthy