| Official Luthiers Forum! http://luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19060 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Todd Rose [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
I'm designing a guitar-bouzouki for an Irish player for whom LOUDNESS, with strong projection, is one of the highest priorities. He also wants it to emphasize mids and highs, for a bright, ringing, cutting tone. There are many things I'm planning to do to achieve these objectives, and among them is choosing an appropriate wood for the back and sides. If any of you have any suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it. This will be a "flattop" instrument (probably 15' radius dome to both the top and back, actually), with a fixed bridge. Along with the volume and bright tone, he wants the sustain and harmonic richness of a flattop/fixed bridge instrument, not the bark of an archtop/floating bridge. I'm somewhat on the fence between choosing a wood that has very low damping but typically tends to give a strong low end to an instrument, such as a rosewood or ziricote - in which case I would try to compensate for the low end emphasis with other aspects of the design and construction - or, on the other hand, choosing a wood that tends to contribute to the tone we're after and may also help with loudness, such as maple. The ideal wood, it seems to me, would have very low damping AND also tend to contribute to a bright, cutting sound, strong in mids and highs. I'm not sure if such a wood exists. Whaddaya think? |
|
| Author: | Sam Price [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Good question. A pal of mine had a lutz spruce/flamed sycamore Phil Davidson flattop mando built a couple of years ago..and oh boy, doesn't it project!! She has also acquired a redwood/walnut parlor built by a relatively unknown UK luthier recently with astounding projection and volume...the trebles have masses of character and the highs are pronounced. I found European Spruce a wonderful wood for guitar-bouzoukis; still being at the beginner end of the craft, the wood was recommended to me by a luthier supplier as being ideal for the project. I tried it- and it's fabulous, handling powerful strumming without losing any definition. For the back/sides, I would have said to you something like a good quality mahogany or maple... |
|
| Author: | JJ Donohue [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd Rose wrote: There are many things I'm planning to do to achieve these objectives, and among them is choosing an appropriate wood for the back and sides. What are you planning for the top? IMO, that and your top bracing are where the main effort of your plans should be focused. But I'll make a suggestion on the B&S...Mahogany...because I like the looks of that wood.  
|
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd, The 15' radiused top/back and fixed rather than floating bridge is taking you in the right direction for projection and richness of tone. Euro spruce for the top as Sam suggests is a good choice. I agree with JJ - I don't think that the b/s wood choice will give you a huge contribution to the loudness as much as the design, top and it's construction. The mids-treble emphasis will come anyway as if - as I suspect - yuur customer plays in GDAD this is like the 5th, 4th, 2nd and 1st strings from a six string guitar suitably tuned. If your friend likes the playing of Andy Irvine and James Fagan who play Stefan Sobell guitar bouzoukis then Brazilian or East Indian Rosewood would be a good choice for b/s eith a Euro spruce (or Lutz) top.. I'm not clear about the exact sound you are after but check ot this Euro spruce/EIR guitar bouzouki I made here on my website with a soundclip. If that's in the ball park of what you are after then I can tell you more abot its design/construction. No one has complained yet about my instruments not being loud enough  Hope this helps. |
|
| Author: | Mark Groza [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Loud & bright is what you get with ash.Very loud & very bright with great projection. |
|
| Author: | Arnt Rian [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
I've only made one guitar bouzouki, and the concern in that case was to make an instrument that had a richer, more complex tone and more bottom end that usually associated with Irish 'zouks as it is being used in a duo with a Hardanger fiddle, among other things. Projection was never a big concern, but like Dave I agree that a smaller than 'normal' top dome is probably moving in the right direction for that. Perhaps tighten the X up a bit? Add a resilient, dense rosewood b/s and a light, stiff spruce top for more 'top and bottom' and you should be well on your way. The guitar shape is going to make is sound more guitar like ...  I used IRW / Euro spurce, and built it pretty much like a lightly braced, scalloped Martin style guitar. Here's a clip to give you an idea of how it sounds (alas, the sound recording leaves something to be desired.) |
|
| Author: | Kent Chasson [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Wenge! Extremely low damping. Very loud. Tons of sustain. Lots of sparkle in the mids and highs. |
|
| Author: | Brad T [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
The loudest, brightest, most cutting guitar I have made has been an adirondack topped, honduran rosewood dreadnought, with scalloped bracing. That's what the bluegrass crowd around here seem to like. The honduran rosewood rings like a bell when tapped, and the adi gives a cut to the guitar. Just my 2 cents, don't know if it would help or not. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
I just made a classical guitar with black locust B&S, and it has brightness and cut, and it's reasonably loud. This particular back has rather lower density than IRW in general, and lower damping, so it's got some similarities to the Med. cypress they use on Flamencos. Nothing will help in the volume department as much as using a low density piece of top wood, and leaving it a bit thick, although the low damping of Red spruce seems to help on the 'cut' end of things. And, of course, a shallow box and a large soundhole moved a bit up toward the neck end will help. |
|
| Author: | Ricardo [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd, there is a good article on the characteristics of different body and top woods in the latest edition of Wood & Steel from Taylor Guitars. |
|
| Author: | joel Thompson [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
a second here for honduran rosewood. it produces a very load guitar with all the quality,s you are looking for. couple that with a lutz top and you should be on to a winner, Joel. |
|
| Author: | Burton LeGeyt [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd, you know I am in the HRW camp. I would use Stevensonii over Tucarensis for even a little more cut. And red Spruce. |
|
| Author: | Hesh [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd my friend several of us have had very good luck producing a very loud instrument using Tasmanian Tiger Myrtle for the back and sides. That is what I used on my L-OO that you played last weekend. |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd, So there you have it - a multi-piece back of Rio/EIR/Ash/Wenge/Black Locust/HRW/Tasmanian Tiger Myrtle and they'll hear it all the way across the ocean in Erin's fair shore
|
|
| Author: | Ken McKay [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd, I am extremely interested in your project, I hope it turns out well. This is an often posed question in violin family construction. Now don't tune out yet! How to make an instrument that projects well or sticks out in a chamber ensemble versus a good sounding instrument to the player. Loudness doesn't always project, where projection can be defined as being able to be heard with, or over the others in the ensemble. I am picturing an Irish ensemble and your client trying to insert sound in the mix, right? And I am also assuming it is acoustic only. Maybe your client needs an instrument sounding somewhat nasal, bright yet not necessarily with much fundamental support. This might be a bad sounding instrument if played alone like Arnt's. But in the ensemble it has a quality that makes it add a few db in the right place. Am I on the right track here, or is it possible to achieve all of your objectives. And I vote for good old maple, but should only get a 1/32 vote since I have never made a bouzouki. |
|
| Author: | Jeremy Douglas [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Arnt, that video was well done. I always cringe a little when I see people post video clips they made with their cheap camera(audio is terrible). It's refreshing to see some high quality work. Nice playing too. |
|
| Author: | JJ Donohue [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Dave White wrote: Todd, So there you have it - a multi-piece back of Rio/EIR/Ash/Wenge/Black Locust/HRW/Tasmanian Tiger Myrtle and they'll hear it all the way across the ocean in Erin's fair shore Well stated, Dave...a veritable medley of psychoacoustic tonewood. I still like Mahogany...and when I like the B&S wood, it tends to sound any way I want. |
|
| Author: | Arnt Rian [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
jeremy3220 wrote: Arnt, that video was well done. I always cringe a little when I see people post video clips they made with their cheap camera(audio is terrible). It's refreshing to see some high quality work. Nice playing too. Thanks, but I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that I had anything to do with the video, because I didn't (other than making the featured instrument, that is). That is Andreas Aase playing, the fellow I built the 'zouk for. Glad you liked it, though! |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
JJ Donohue wrote: Dave White wrote: Todd, So there you have it - a multi-piece back of Rio/EIR/Ash/Wenge/Black Locust/HRW/Tasmanian Tiger Myrtle and they'll hear it all the way across the ocean in Erin's fair shore Well stated, Dave...a veritable medley of psychoacoustic tonewood. I still like Mahogany...and when I like the B&S wood, it tends to sound any way I want. Sorry JJ - I meant to say that that back should be combined with mahogany sides  .Mind you, if you want to be heard with a guitar-bouzouki in a room full of fiddles, accordians, pipes and bhodrans, then behind the "loud" b/s woods you choose, one of these will probably be necessary (I say this from experience on many such occasions  ):
|
|
| Author: | Rod True [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Dave, is that the set up they use for the beginners rock guitar school 
|
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Having lived and played with a violinist for more than 30years, believe me you will only be heard above the violinist if they want you to be! Colin |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Did anyone reads Alan C's response??????? You got my attention Al!! I think it a total combination ! Top ,Back,size of box ,etc...... All the guitars I make are loud!!!! You have to thickness & voice all pieces for each guitar your making!!! There is NO this is loud that's NOT woods!!!!!! Only careful guitarmaking!!!!!! Mike |
|
| Author: | Ken McKay [ Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Al's advice...low density wood with low damping both top and back is what I got from him relating his classical guitar to this. He did not say anything about tuning each part of the guitar although he might have an opinion on that, I don't know. I always listen to Al. Most every experimental project I have made since I knew of him as something in it from his input. Do you wonder why his suggestions were mostly related to the wood properties plus a shallow box with a soundhole moved up? Loud doesn't always get heard in an ensemble. And what does "low damping in the wood have to do loudness or projection? Mike, I love your guitar photos, great stuff! |
|
| Author: | Todd Rose [ Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I've had a busy weekend, but I'm back. I had a feeling this thread wouldn't keep on the subject of back and side woods, but that's fine! Back and side wood choice is just one part of the equation. Al, my current understanding (to be revised as I learn more) is that, with top woods (spruces, etc), there is generally a very close correlation between density and stiffness (within a species). I.e. a denser piece of Sitka spruce is a stiffer piece of Sitka spruce, and a less dense piece is less stiff. This suggests that an equal mass and stiffness can generally be achieved with either a denser, stiffer top made thinner, or a less dense, less stiff top made thicker - and perhaps that the sonic results are similar as well. Now, you're saying, "Nothing will help in the volume department as much as using a low density piece of top wood, and leaving it a bit thick". In this statement, I read, "low density, therefore less stiff; appropriate stiffness achieved by making it thicker; thicker makes it heavier; end result is essentially the same as a higher density piece made thinner". But you're asserting that the end result is not the same, acoustically; rather, the end result is a louder guitar - and I'll bet you've got some data to back this up! Can you elaborate, please? BTW, I'm leaning toward Adirondack spruce for the top, though I haven't yet ruled out either Sitka or Lutz. As for back and side woods, Al, you mention Med. cypress, which I hadn't thought about. Does that wood generally have very low damping? I know it's a standard wood for flamencos, and I'm familiar with that sound. This will be a very different instrument, with steel strings (five double courses)... I wonder if that might be a good choice for the volume and tone I'm after. This would get to be a very long post if I went into everything I'm planning for the design, materials, and construction of this instrument. I do believe the choice of back and sides wood is a significant piece of the puzzle, albeit just one of many pieces, and not as central as other considerations. One part of the equation is certainly that the player has to play with a heavy pick and a strong attack, which he does, and that I have to give him an instrument with plenty of headroom. Also, he understands that an instrument designed for projection and cutting power probably won't be the sweetest sounding thing to play by himself in his living room. But he wants it to be heard (acoustically) as well as possible - significantly better than your average Irish bouzouki - in a band that includes uilleann pipes and flute (no fiddle in his current band, but I want his guit-zouk to do as well as possible alongside a fiddle as well). Thanks again to everyone who's posted responses so far. I'll respond to more of the specifics some of you brought up later. I'll have to wait till I get a chance to log on with a high speed connection before I can listen/watch the audio and video stuff. |
|
| Author: | Andy Birko [ Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Back & side wood for LOUDNESS and bright sound? |
Todd Rose wrote: Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I've had a busy weekend, but I'm back. Now, you're saying, "Nothing will help in the volume department as much as using a low density piece of top wood, and leaving it a bit thick". In this statement, I read, "low density, therefore less stiff; appropriate stiffness achieved by making it thicker; thicker makes it heavier; end result is essentially the same as a higher density piece made thinner". But you're asserting that the end result is not the same, acoustically; rather, the end result is a louder guitar - and I'll bet you've got some data to back this up! Can you elaborate, please? Perhaps this belongs in the other thread at this point, but don't forget that stiffness increases geometrically with thickness, while mostly linearly with density. Therefore, a thicker top with a less dense wood should be lighter than the denser top of the same stiffness. (You probably already know why I say should )
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|