Difference in woods: 01/02/03 etc vs 05 / 09 / 10 / 19 etc

[mrrinse]

Hi,
I know this has been discussed before. I just thought I'd add in some info I've got from Brian Trepanier.
In a nutshell, I asked him if the grading of woods was just purely visual, or based on tone (e.g. tapping) as well. He said "Woods are graded based on visuals like grain straightness and color matching." (hope he doesn't mind my quoting him from private correspondence).
So, as I understand it, whilst visuals can help indicate likely tone, there's no reason why a L01/03 couldn't sound every bit as good (or possibly better, because of the satin finish) than an L19. Hope that doesn't disappoint any high end owners, but should come as a good news for budget buyers.
(FWIW, though, I've got an LV-09 and L-05MT on the way. )
Personally, some of the best sitka I've seen on Larry's has been on 03s (e.g. some great bearclaw examples), so I guess visuals are a question of personal taste too...

Hope this is informative and doesn't rock the boat!
Dan

[Ratishna]

Appearance of the wood can be an indicator, but is certainly not arbiter of tone.  Simply put, ugly wood can sound good.  So an L-01 can sound as good as an L-10.

E. Shoaf

[whiskeyjack]

(hope he doesn't mind my quoting him from private correspondence).

It does feel a little invasive to quote him on the forum and I too have felt reluctant to pass along information from Brian.  But I don't think he's that worried about it.  He is Planet Earth's contact for Larrivee customer service so I believe he knows cusomer service information will be randomly disseminated.
 

So, as I understand it, whilst visuals can help indicate likely tone, there's no reason why a L01/03 couldn't sound every bit as good (or possibly better, because of the satin finish) than an L19

My $700 Martin 000-15S (all mahogany) sounds better than most 000-16's, 18's and 28's I've played - (apples and oranges actually) - and they're WAY more expensive guitars with choice woods, some with gloss finishes.  Price points differ but sometimes expensive doesn't necessarily mean better. And, as you point out, better 'looking' wood doesn't necessarily translate to a better sounding guitar. 

I owned an absolutely beautiful Taylor 314KES (Koa three piece back, spruce top).  'Sounded like crap; thin, poor sustain with hot trebles. . . .and I tried everything to make that guitar sound good: several different string sets, different saddle, different pins.

Another example. . . .compare a Martin 000-16RGT or OM-16R with a Larrivee OM-03R.  Same materials, different price points.  I haven't really had time to get to know my OM-03R very well yet but all indications are that, for the additional expense of a Martin, I'll buy a Larrivee because I feel the build is better and I don't hear a huge difference in tone or sustain.  The overtones and low end might be a little richer on a Martin but I find the Larrivee suits me just fine.

[sutton]

I just bought a Larrivee OM 3 in Mahogany and it's sound is huge , full and bright. In fact the sound is so big that it owes nothing to my j45.  The top is bearclaw which I dont like nearly as much a  tighter grained clear  top but it's sound was much supierior to two others that I tried out that looked better (IMHO) .

[UK Mike]

Sometimes wide-grained spruce may be better than tight (if you need to add a bit more warmth).

I think the right wood in the right design probably is most important and visual grading is probably not that an important indicator. I admit to liking good tone and good looks in wood. There may be other factors affecting the different models as well as the wood visual grading and other visual specs (but maybe there isn't).

Cheers

Mike