Official Luthiers Forum!
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/

Alternative to common woods
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19170		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Akvarn [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Alternative to common woods
This topic might be covered already, but here I go:

I am fortunate enough to have plenty of timer on my own proberty. I'm not sure whether my next project will be a classical or steel string, but I would like to build with timber that I have worked with all the way from cutting down the tree. However, I'm not sure my timber is any good for making an acoustic. I live in Norway, so growing conditions are not unike Canada, I guess. There is plenty of spruce on the property, so could use the it for top and buy mahogany or some other common wood for back/sides. The project would be more interesting, though, if I could use local tiber exclusively.

Apart from spruce there is plenty of ash, alder and oak. Does anyone have experience with these for acoustic guitars? My initial thought was spruce for the top and ash for back/sides and maybe neck, (I've seen manufacturers advertise all ash acoustics) but all suggestions are welcome. I have put away a log of spruce for drying, diameter about 45-50 cm. Only needs to dry a year or two :roll:.
Author:  Mark Groza [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
I think you should be able to use your native woods as long as they are dried properly.I plan to build with native north american woods as well. Which are ASH,Maple,CHEERY,BLACK WALNUT,BEECH,and SPRUCE.Ash is one of the best tone woods i know of.Some of the most highly prized fender guitars had ash bodies for that very reason.I plan on using my native woods for fretboards and bridges as well.
Author:  douglas ingram [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
You should use your native woods! I'm working on some classicals now that use local White Cedar and Ash. Our locally grown Ash is finer grained and textured than what I can get commercially. I'm excited to try it.

Local spruce, our local, is too knotty and small dimension to work with. At least the pieces that I've seen so far. I'm still looking!

What woods do you have available?
Author:  Billy T [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
That all sounds like a good plan to me! I personally like ash a lot!

slabmaster wrote:
Ash is one of the best tone woods i know of.Some of the most highly prized fender guitars had ash bodies for that very reason.


Boy Slab! I sure hope your talking about electrics. Being a big fan of Telecasters/Strats myself. Not to be too perjorative, Fender acoustics create huge amounts of low pressure, if you get my meaning!!!!
Author:  Mark Groza [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
I was talking about fenders electrics being prized guitars with ash bodies.I don't think they made acoustic guitars with ash. Maby they should have.I will be building my next acoustic with ash back and sides as i feel it's a great wood for that as well.I plan to have a beech fretboard and bridge on it also.We'll see what happens when it's finished as i won't be using any forign wood on it. ;) Mark
Author:  Akvarn [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
douglas ingram wrote:
I'm working on some classicals now that use local White Cedar and Ash. Local spruce, our local, is too knotty and small dimension to work with. At least the pieces that I've seen so far. I'm still looking!

What woods do you have available?


Never seen that particular combination, but I hope it works out nicely. The dimensions are good so I should be able to find usable trees.

100 years old spruce, ash, alder and oak are available. Forgot to mention aspen and mountain ash in my first post. The alder that grows here is called Scandinavian mahogany. If it possesses the same characteristics as mahogany it could be a good choice for back/sides.

I know ash is very nice for electrics (as well as alder - I have one) but this time I'll build a classical or steel string acoustic. Maybe next time it will be a Tele with ash body and a couple of twangy pickups. 8-)

Thank you for the replies. :D
Author:  Frank Aarre [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
Akvarn wrote:

100 years old spruce, ash, alder and oak are available. Forgot to mention aspen and mountain ash in my first post. The alder that grows here is called Scandinavian mahogany. If it possesses the same characteristics as mahogany it could be a good choice for back/sides.


Thank you for the replies. :D


scandinavian mahogany only because of appearance, doesn't possess the coveted characteristics of mahogany.(or so i've been told)

i've tried sourcing some local spruce myself but the trees i've found in acceptable width has been fast growing knotty trees, the spruce around here,sør-norge, has an uncanny ability to grow over lost branches so the knots are not visible till you start splitting.

Akvarn wrote:
I have put away a log of spruce for drying, diameter about 45-50 cm. Only needs to dry a year or two :roll:.

are you drying the entire log?
i think your best bet to dry softwoods, would be to split ,resaw and sticker it for a good long while. if you search the archives i think shane neifer has some posts about handling spruce.


Frank
Author:  martinedwards [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
I made an acoustic with oak.

apart from having pores that you could loose a child in, it was great!!

It bent REALLY easily, without doubt the easiest bending wood I've ever worked with, and of course it smells GREAT!!
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
I built a 'matched pair' of classical gutiars several years ago, one of which had European spruce top and Brazilian rosewood B&S, and the other had some spruce from a local back yard, and oak B&S. The two tops matched well. The oak back had curly grain, and was denser and less stiff along the grain than normal oak, and, as a result, it ended up somewhat heavier than the rosewood back.

I did a bunch of measurements of the response (as best I could at the time; the mighty coal-fired 286 I had didn't have a sound card, so some stuff was difficult). The BRW had a bit more output in the treble, and was a little bit more powerful. This matched up well with the subjective impressions: the oak guitar was not quuite as loud, and lacked a littler of the high-end 'ping' that the rosewood guitar had. Both were nice guitars, though, and I had no trouble selling either.

Ash should also be good. I'd go with whatever had the highest density and lowest damping (the longest 'ring' when tapped) for the B&S wood.

Here in New England in North America, we're blessed with some really good local woods. I've used local butternut, a walnut relative, as a substitute for South American cedar as a wood for necks, blocks, and liners. It's lighter colr and less dense than walnut, and softer. Willow and poplar have also been used for the same applications, and you might find some of those nearby. I'm not sure I'd use willow for a neck without some stiffening, though. Mountainh ash might be similar.

I've been using persimmon, the North American member of the Ebony family, for fingerboards, but this summer at the Montreal show I saw some guitars with hop hornbeam fingerboards. I've got that on my back hill!

Cherry is denser than honduras mahogany, and closer in properties to Cuban mahogany. That's why cherry was popular in the US as a substitute for the Carribean wood in furniture based on Chippendale and Hepplewhite furniture a couple of hundred years ago. I've used cherry for necks, and it's great. Walnut also works well, although you don't mention having that locally.

I'd bet that, if you look around, you'll find lots of stuff that you can build fine instruments out of.
Author:  Akvarn [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
Frank: Thanks for your info on alder. I will have a look at those posts about drying woods. Right now I have left the log to dry under a "tent". I don't have the tools to split it now, but it sounds like a much better way to do it.

I don't know about knots in this particular log. The logs are sold as first class lumber to saw mills so I expect them to be well suited for guitar tops as well. At least worth a try.

I'm a little surprised that oak makes a fine tonewood but I might follow Alan's advice and dry and plane several sets of backs/sides from different woods and see which set gives me the best tap tone. Or build two guitars with different sets of b&s woods to compare the result.

Thanks a lot for the input, everyone :D
Author:  Akvarn [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
Found this thread about processing lumber: http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=8316&p=109803&hilit=+processing#p109803

That's what I'll do. [:Y:]
Author:  goofyboy06 [ Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
I live in NY along the shore of Lake Ontario. We have a river gorge with some awesome timber. I was able to get some wood a few years ago when they were doing some cutting along one of the trails. Here comes the tricky thing. I would like to build my first guitar, but only want to use wood from my area. I have done woodworking since I was a youngster, and exclusively use local wood. That being said, I have a question. I need much more than a simple yes or no. I need the why.

Can I join more than 2 pieces to make the top and back of the guitar. I would most likely use 3 pieces maybe 4, but will it hurt the acoustics? Everything I read says that 2 pieces are joined for strength. Does the same hold true for more? This stuff is really straight grained, so appearance should be fine.

I just think that this is something to think about as the prices of lumber are getting a bit steep for a hobbyist like me to afford.
Author:  JRE Productions [ Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
Yes. Many guitars have been built with 4 pieces. The center seem is mostly for looks. It keeps the tight grains togethe where they match better and allow the wide grains to the ends. I have played quite a few 4 piece topped guitars and hear no difference in tone respectively to any other minor changes between any two guitars. I just carved a 4 piece archtop plate that rings for days. I don't think it hurt it at all that it was more than a 1 or 2 piece top.

J
Author:  Akvarn [ Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Alternative to common woods
Goofy: I'm thinking along the same lines. Maybe not the top, but certainly the back. To make it more interesting it is possible to inlay two backstrips and/or join the pieces at an angle (like a wedge in the middle). As far as I know the glue we use for joining the pieces is stronger than the wood itself. If that's thecase a couple of extra seams won't hurt.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/