Guitar top grain myth busters needed.

[headsup]

If this discussion has made the rounds, please point me to the thread.
If this question belongs in another section, mods will send it there I suspect,
however:

Just this evening, while reading a very reputable store's description of a used Larrivee D-60, I found the following phrase intriguing.

"This last detail set the D-60 apart from other Larrivée dreadnoughts which traditionally feature tightly grained tops. The wider grain loosens the top up, which does wonders in opening up the bass register."

Decades ago, I recall some-one saying this every thing about Martin Guitars, and had all but forgotten it until reading this.

So many luthiers (including JCL) pride themselves on searching out the perfect tops for their guitars, "perfect" in that they have even, and extremely tight grain, the theory being- the tighter the grain, the "better" the top.

So some-one who wants a stronger bass response from their guitar might merely have to shop around to simply find a guitar with a wider grain to the top?

Maybe not so aesthetically pleasing (?), but grain width/spacing can actually be attributed to different sound vibrations?


Perhaps this is merely a "mind over matter" argument.
It's ok, I don't have a mind, so it doesn't matter. 

This theory, with the "less finish-bigger sound", could conceivably put the low end, "poor" grade tops, with satin finishes (economy model) guitars up against the higher grade materials and flashy ones and technically blow them out of the water tone and sound wise.

Sorta changes mindset a bit doesn't it?

just asking, thanks.

[prof_stack]

Some have said that the best spruce tops have wide grain at the sides and narrow in the middle. 

It used to be said that bear claw and medial rays were flaws. 

With the amount of available spruce diminishing, it really is less about the aesthetic and more about the sound.

[Mikeymac]

Somewhere I believe there's a video clip or written article with Jean saying that wider grained tops (something like 12-16 lines per inch) do sound better.

Sorry, don't have time to look for the link...

[Chasjax]

I have that article that Mikey references (somewhere).  When I find it I will post it -

chas

[unclrob]

What the top grain looked like always came second to me,it has always been the sound.

[broKen]

Somewhere I believe there's a video clip or written article with Jean saying that wider grained tops (something like 12-16 lines per inch) do sound better.

Sorry, don't have time to look for the link...

I read it too. He said 3mm spacing. Like this

[Matthew Larrivee]

There is definitely some myth out there about wide grain and narrow grain. I don't think the equation is as simple as wide v. narrow though. wide grain tops can be very soft and flexible, which tend to sound woofy and lack treble. Narrow grain tops on the other hand can be so dense and overly rigid as to sound overly bright and thin. When wide grain tops have good natural rigidity with thin grain lines, you sort of hit a sweet spot. I personally like mid to wide grade soundboards as long as they are quite rigid. We grade these soundboards out more for -40, -50, and -60 series guitars for the traditional look.

High altitude spruce also hits a sweet spot. right below the tree line at altitude the trees grow really slowly and evenly, and with very small grain lines. The grain tends to be very close together (tight) but lacks a denseness that typically comes with grain that tight in other spruces. This is one of the main reasons we use Swiss and Italian alpine spruce in custom guitars often. It performs very similarly to Adirondack (which oppositely is often wide grain).

[broKen]

Another wide grain sitka. You described this guitar well Matthew. Woody, smooth, and somewhat subdued trebles.

[L07 Shooting Star]

My L-07's spacing varies quite a bit across the board.  Some areas are very close and others medium close, but nowhere is it particularly wide.  The individual grain lines wouldn't be classified as real thin, I don't think.  The sound is very well-balanced to my ears.  Definitely not "woofy", yet not overly bright.  The notes are very clean and crisp.  I presume the rosewood back and sides have their influence as well.

(click on the pics to get a better look)

[rockstar_not]

IF this mattered so much, then those bearclaw wonders that some show on here should sound terrible, as the bearclaw would ruin the 'tightness/looseness' of the grain more than anything.  Haven't heard anyone complain about their bearclaw beauties.

[L07 Shooting Star]

IF this mattered so much, then those bearclaw wonders that some show on here should sound terrible, as the bearclaw would ruin the 'tightness/looseness' of the grain more than anything.  Haven't heard anyone complain about their bearclaw beauties.

I think you may be missing the point, though.  Reading the thread again, I don't get the impression anyone said the grain pattern "mattered" that much, only that some tops are more bassy (woofy?), and others are more trebly and thin sounding, based on density and flexibility.  If a potential top has the right combination of those physical features, it would make the best sounding guitar regardless of the grain pattern and the amount of "bear-claw" or knots or "silking" or whatever other descriptions of purely visual characteristics we can come up with.

I defer to Matt, the expert in this discussion by far.  If I understand him, there are wide grained tops that are dense enough to sound sweet, and narrow grained tops that aren't too dense to sound sweet.  I imagine the same goes for tops with various degrees of "bear-claw".  From what I know about it, all tops are tested for stiffness and flexibility and even resonance frequency.  Then they are classified/graded into groups based on those characteristics more than their appearance.  I'm guessing the premium grade group (in terms of physical characteristics) has tops with grain patterns that are all over the map in terms of grain spacing and amount of bear-claw or other visual aspects.  In other words, I bet there are bear-claw tops that sound fantastic and others that don't make the grade.  I would guess the same goes for wide-grained tops and narrow-grained tops, as well.

Take my L-07 for example.  To me, it has about as nice a tone as any guitar I've ever heard.  It has a little bit of "bear-claw" on it.  Until I heard of that term, I just thought it had some knots in the top and it was no big deal.  I considered them as flaws, in a way.  Although I have no idea of knowing for sure, I always imagined it's particular top was chosen because of how it tested out before it was used for the guitar and not because of how it looked or how many grain lines per inch it had or how many knots (visual flaws) were in it.

So maybe we are basically saying the same thing.  The presence of "bear-claw" or lack thereof doesn't really matter.  What matters is if the top passes the test in terms of physical characteristics which hopefully translates into a sweet sounding guitar in spite of how it looks. 

[rockstar_not]

I think you may be missing the point, though.  Reading the thread again, I don't get the impression anyone said the grain pattern "mattered" that much, only that some tops are more bassy (woofy?), and others are more trebly and thin sounding, based on density and flexibility.  If a potential top has the right combination of those physical features, it would make the best sounding guitar regardless of the grain pattern and the amount of "bear-claw" or knots or "silking" or whatever other descriptions of purely visual characteristics we can come up with.

I defer to Matt, the expert in this discussion by far.  If I understand him, there are wide grained tops that are dense enough to sound sweet, and narrow grained tops that aren't too dense to sound sweet.  I imagine the same goes for tops with various degrees of "bear-claw".  From what I know about it, all tops are tested for stiffness and flexibility and even resonance frequency.  Then they are classified/graded into groups based on those characteristics more than their appearance.  I'm guessing the premium grade group (in terms of physical characteristics) has tops with grain patterns that are all over the map in terms of grain spacing and amount of bear-claw or other visual aspects.  In other words, I bet there are bear-claw tops that sound fantastic and others that don't make the grade.  I would guess the same goes for wide-grained tops and narrow-grained tops, as well.

Take my L-07 for example.  To me, it has about as nice a tone as any guitar I've ever heard.  It has a little bit of "bear-claw" on it.  Until I heard of that term, I just thought it had some knots in the top and it was no big deal.  I considered them as flaws, in a way.  Although I have no idea of knowing for sure, I always imagined it's particular top was chosen because of how it tested out before it was used for the guitar and not because of how it looked or how many grain lines per inch it had or how many knots (visual flaws) were in it.

So maybe we are basically saying the same thing.  The presence of "bear-claw" or lack thereof doesn't really matter.  What matters is if the top passes the test in terms of physical characteristics which hopefully translates into a sweet sounding guitar in spite of how it looks. 

We agree.  My L-03 has a few examples of bear claw - I believe it was made before bear claw became boutique.

-Scott

[Walkerman]

Woofy, or....woody?

[L07 Shooting Star]

Woofy, or....woody?

Woofy is what I typed and what I meant.  Matt used the term which I immediately understood.

[Walkerman]

Woofy is what I typed and what I meant.  Matt used the term which I immediately understood.

Actually, I was referring to what Matty typed, and not what you typed.  Sorry .

[L07 Shooting Star]

Actually, I was referring to what Matty typed, and not what you typed.  Sorry .

Oh I see.  No worries.  One of those misunderstandings courtesy of internet chatting. 

[headsup]

got dogs?
woofy  woofy.

heck i was just talking about grain.

[headsup]

Somewhere I believe there's a video clip or written article with Jean saying that wider grained tops (something like 12-16 lines per inch) do sound better.

Sorry, don't have time to look for the link...

So if that is correct, coming from JCL himself, why is there so much "importance" put on extremely tight grained tops, with the cross rippling effect, when better "sounding" tops are clearly the ones used on lower priced models?
I recently played a Vancouver D-03 Satin finish, (Since my OP) and every guitar in the store was vibrating after wards.
huge tone monster, tons of sustain, very impressed, under 1k.
Just on a bit of a personal research about how we judge our guitars , quality of woods, finish, and ultimately sound.
I might try a some kind of blindfold test at a local store if I can figure out some kind of bench mark for conditions.
ie. same model guitars all with same strings changed at the same time, but guitars having wider grain tops, satin or gloss finish etc.
I would use Larrivee guitars for this experiment.
I hardly mean prattle on about this, except it's opened up a place of interest in me around perceived "values" and the ultimate importance of the sound of the instrument.

[Mr_LV19E]

My LS 03 F-III has grain that is wide at the edges narrowing as it moves toward the sound hole and my LV-19 is narrow grained at the edges widening as it moves toward the sound hole.  I've always wondered why the difference, they both are outstanding guitars.

Grain is easy to see on the LS but the LV is a little harder, it is very tight at the edges though.

[Tuba Mike]

... and for what it is worth, both of the aforementioned guitars that belong to Mr_LV19E sound and play great!