Beat a dead horse...

[ffinke]

I ran across this treatise on tonewoods (yes, that's the dead horse) and found some of John Calkins observations to be quite enlightening. Especially having just read about Muriel Anderson in the Fretboard Journal last night and her "preferred" tonewoods. Anyhow, here's some gasoline for the fire: http://www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htm

Comments?

f

[cke]

Wow!  I have concluded much the same - "the sound of an instrument is in the hands of the maker, not in the wood." My ears tell me there is more tonal difference in woods than does the author, but  it is small.  And it is not due to which bridge pins! Wow! Great article. Thanks!   

[jeremy3220]

This has been posted too many times already http://www.larriveeforum.com/smf/index.php?topic=34732.0

[guitom]

First time I've seen it, so I'd say it has been posted just the right number of times.  I enjoyed it very much. 

[ffinke]

I'm sorry. It was only meant for "first-timers" (me included).

[jeremy3220]

I meant once was too many. Here are my comments from the other thread.

I've commented on this article before. This has to be the worst guitar building article I've read. I really think he is overstating his position and doesn't even believe what he wrote(or he just has terrible hearing). Unfortunately it was published and made its way to the internet where it gets linked over and over as proof for something. Besides being full of vague statements and contradictions, it's devoid of anything remotely scientific. The acoustic properties of different woods are a real and measurable thing (damping constants, velocity of sound, modulus of elasticity).

[Mr_LV19E]

- "the sound of an instrument is in the hands of the maker, not in the wood."

I think the real sound of an instrument is in the hands of the player.

[rockstar_not]

I think the real sound of an instrument is in the hands of the player.

Agreed - but also agree that it is somewhat in the hands of the maker as well.

Also agree that most arguments on this topic are entirely devoid of scientific fact - which I think Jeremy is referring to.  In the end, it is nearly impossible to make a mathematical/technical description of how to make the best sounding guitar.

There are instruments that can be closely emulated with formulaic descriptions.  The Pianoteq piano simulation is entirely believable  http://www.pianoteq.com/listen  , and entirely formula described.  A mathematical description of how a piano generates sound.   The synthesis technique is known as Physical Modeling.

Big difference between pianos and guitars, however, is in the way that the strings are activated and subsequently manipulated.  Piano is much much simpler to describe than the guitar as a result.

With Pianoteq, you can actually synthesize many of the physical properties of a piano.  If a guitar version of this kind of an simulation existed, you could plug in the various damping factors, masses, moduli of elasticities, etc.  But you would probably fall down with how to do palm muting, bending of notes, fingerpad flesh vs. nail, vs. pick 1 vs. pick 2, fretboard pressure, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I raise my head here now and then and say general 'hogwash' to many claims made here by supposed A/B comparisons of bridge pins, strings, etc.  I think very few folks actually do their A/B in a double-blind fashion, with new product in both A and B categories.  It's too expensive in general to waste sets of strings just to pick out one type that you like. 

-Scott

[abalone at last]

Just beat it...just beat it.....seems to be a rash of EIR guitars around here with cracked sides yet the article says rosewood is the most stable? Mahog...Mahog...Mahog......

[jeremy3220]

Agreed - but also agree that it is somewhat in the hands of the maker as well.

Also agree that most arguments on this topic are entirely devoid of scientific fact - which I think Jeremy is referring to. 

Right, we don't even need a player to analyze the tone of an instrument. The maker, wood and player all contribute. At what proportions? It doesn't matter. It's not an issue we need to pick sides on.

[cke]

I think the real sound of an instrument is in the hands of the player.

Yeah, but I am the same which ever instrument I pick up so the difference is the instrument - as made by the luthier 

[GGBB]

I've read that article before and I'm afraid I simply don't buy it.  I do agree that a great guitar builder can make a particular tonewood sound almost any way he/she wants, but build two guitars the same way using different woods and the inherent tonal qualities of the individual woods will be plainly evident.  Blindfold me and play an L-05 and an L-09 and I'll tell you which is which - every time.  Unless I've had too many 

[Danny]

  Well I'm no luthier, but I have a few different guitars and they definitely sound different when I play each one.

[Randy_R]

  Well I'm no luthier, but I have a few different guitars and they definitely sound different when I play each one.

Thats sort-of what led me to build up a collection of Larrivees over time. They all sounded good, but there were differences, some subtle, between them all that kept me going, an experiment if you will.

[GGBB]

Thats sort-of what led me to build up a collection of Larrivees over time. They all sounded good, but there were differences, some subtle, between them all that kept me going, an experiment if you will.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I think every L-09 sounds exactly the same (or L-05).  (But thanks to JCL there is remarkable consistency.)  I'm saying that there are general tonal characteristics of L-09s that distinguish it from L-05s, and that these tonal differences come from the body woods.  My assumption of course is that there are no other differences between L-09s and L-05s - which is why they make a great pair for studying this topic.  During my years long quest to find a guitar I could both afford and love, I played many, many L-05s and L-09s as well as other guitars of various makes and woods.  Consistently, without exception, when playing an L-05 and an L-09 in the same sitting, there was an unmistakable difference each time.  The fact that rosewood and mahogany have both remained popular for so long - more popular than any other steel-string flat-top body wood - attests to their inherent differences I think.