Interesting experience at my local luthier's shop

[Guth]

I seem to be in a mood for writing today. So I thought I'd share an interesting experience I had at my local luthier's shop the other day. I recently purchased a used AJ and had taken the guitar to him for a setup. I've spent some time with him in the past when he worked on my J-45 TV.

 

He was quite fascinated with my J-45 iwhen I had it in his shop. At that time he also had a C&W model from the 50's in for some work so we were able to compare the two. The commonalities between the sound of the two guitars was quite amazing. He ended up taking quite a few notes and measurements of my guitar including things like the thickness of the top in various places. It was very interesting to watch how he "experienced" an instrument. He also placed a small light inside of the guitar so that we could view the placement of the top bracing. It was a simple enough idea, but very cool to look at.

 

At any rate, when I went to pick up the AJ I asked if we could once again take a look at the bracing placement as we had done with the J-45. This time it was much harder to see through the top. I immediately made a comment to the effect that the top on the AJ must be quite a bit thicker than the J-45. He indicated that that what we were seeing was not a direct indicator of the thickness of the wood (he didn't take the time to pull out the special measuring device like he did with the J-45). But he did grab a couple of pieces of spruce for various instruments that he was building and held them up to a light source. Some tops, which he knew were thicker than others, actually had a more translucent quality to them. If I understood him correctly this had to do more with things like the molecular structure of the wood (and in some cases the actual minerals that were consumed by the tree) than the thickness of the wood itself.

 

Later on I got to thinking about this and then I realized that the top on the AJ does exhibit some runout in the grain, while the J-45 shows almost none. I wish I had thought to ask him how much influence this had on what we were seeing or for that matter if this is part of what he was talking about. At any rate, I find this type of stuff rather fascinating.

 

Like I said, I felt like writing (um, typing?) today. Hey, at least there is some Gibson content involved.

 

All the best,

Guth

[onewilyfool]

That would be an interesting study, to see if the passage of light correlates at all with sound quality. It would be a great way for luthiers to choose top tone wood, if some relationship could be established.....

[zombywoof]

There are all kinds of theories about grain - the tighter the grain the stiffer the wood or what kind of grain gives more pronouced highs or lows or whatever. What I have heard is that one of the advantages of a stiffer top is you can use lighter bracing.

 

I would think that a comparison between the bracing found in the CW and J-45TV would have alot less to do with what wood was used than the carve. The CW has non-scallop bracing which is is a very different beast from what Bozeman is using in their guitars these days.

[62burst]

Hey Guth-

 

Here's a link that shows some pretty nice Henkograms:

 

http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/reply/840158/t/Re-MARTIN-BRACING-LIBRARY.html

 

Also- some of the translucent ability could definitely be tied into how the

wood was cut; 'silking' usually is more visible in quartersawn stock, allowing

a slightly thicker top to transmit more light.

 

What I'd like to know is what's with the "lighter guitar = better guitar"?

 

All interesting stuff.

[SuperG]

Guth, great post, thanks for sharing. I would have never guessed that the typical top was thin enough for light to transmit through. I may just try this at home to get a better sense of what lurks beneath my SJ and J-185.

[ksdaddy]

A couple years ago I repaired a top crack in a D-41. I used a little light, much like a 60s Christmas bulb, inside the guitar to help me locate the cleats. It was really dramatic. I turned out all the other lights in the room and it looked just like an X-ray. I've done it since on other guitars but none was as transparent as the Martin.

[Guth]

onwilyfool,

 

If I understood things correctly, if anything, there is no correlation at all between the passage of light and sound quality.

 

zombywoof,

 

Yes, you're correct, the CW and the J-45 TV were definitely different beasts from a construction standpoint. Regardless, the tone/volume/responsiveness of the two guitars was eerily similar which was quite remarkable given the numerous differences between the two. Whether the CW or the TV was an anomaly is hard to say, but I personally loved the sound of both guitars (which shouldn't come as a surprise as I forked over the dollars for this particular J-45 based primarily on its tone).

 

62burst,

 

Those "Henkograms" show the exact same effect as what I was attempting to describe. Very interesting — pretty basic, sure, but interesting nevertheless. I'm not sure where the "lighter guitar = better guitar" thing came from. While it's true that a number of great sounding vintage acoustics are indeed extremely light, I personally don't think that a light build automatically equates to great tone. Once again, as far as I can tell, there are very few hard fast rules when it comes to acoustic guitars.

 

SuperG,

 

If you're interested, you should definitely give it a try. The luthier who showed me this used a small fluorescent bulb (the kind that is about the size of a regular bulb, but looks like a twisted tube) and it worked extremely well.

 

ksdaddy,

 

Funny that the first guitar you'd look at this way would exhibit the most transparency. The effect when viewing my J-45 was very dramatic (as far as this sort of thing goes). Much more so than when looking at my Advanced Jumbo this way. I was a bit disappointed when looking at the AJ. As you've already experienced, the images in the link that 62burst included show quite a bit of variability between the different guitars.

 

All the best,

Guth

[ARATSTJ]

I put a bright light behind my Gibson Les Paul and couldn't see jack!

 

So I need a brighter globe?

 

I don't think theres any relationship between a timbers light transmission properties and it's resonance, tonal, sound qualitys....

 

I've a certificate in timber technology and milled dried and machined my own timber for 20 years.

 

If anything the density and dryness (EMC Equilibrium Moisture Content)..are the determiners of what tonal qualities a timber will have. Dry timber generally has a "ring" to it when you tap / hit it - whereas unseasoned is wet and has a dull thud tonal quality.

 

Timbers grown in extremely harsh low rainfall environments that grow slowly and have very tight narrow growth rings, tend to make great stringed and woodwind instruments, because of their tonal qualities.

 

Theres also the difference between softwoods and hardwoods and contrary to popular myth this has NOTHING whatever to do with how dense the timber is or how heavy it weighs.

 

Hardwoods are classified so because the tree reproduces by flowers & seeds

 

Softwoods reproduce by cones nuts and spores.

 

Typically softwoods have two types of growth rings - the normal annual round growth rings that a hardwood also has - but in addition a set of medullary rays, that go from heart of the tree to the outside.

 

How the timber is sawn from the log - whether it contains radial or tangential grain or a mixture of each, can determine the resulting grain pattern in both hardwoods and softwoods and also affects the rate of shrinkage and expansion from season to season (Stability) of the timber.

 

These all have effects on the performance of an instrument & the suitability of the timber for it's intended end use.

 

I've seen some very pretty lamp shades made from very thin veneers of timber with interesting grain patterns, that allow the light to shine thru - and reflect the pattern onto walls within the path of the light for a nice effect.

These timbers could be either hardwood or softwood depending on the pattern of grain effect that you want. Quarter sawn oak (softwood) with its open lace pattern is VERY effective as a light shade - but who knows what sort of instrument tonal properties it might have?.

 

I cannot see any obvious relationship between light transmission properties of a specific timber versus it's tonal qualities for instrument making.

 

Look at some of the reed type woodwind instruments, soft but flexible reeds cut to fit the mouth piece of the instrument create the sound that's then amplified and altered by the body of the instrument.

 

The properties of the reed - compared to the properties of the timber in the body of the instrument (say Clarinets and Oboes etc) are completely different.

 

Would this same timber make a good guitar body? Hollow or solid?

 

I've heard Luthier's carry on like old tarts about the required tonal qualities of timbers for guitars - and more often than not their entire experience of the timber is no more than selling what they have in stock of mahogany or quilted maple etc, than any physical relationship of the timbers density or grain structure or shrinkage rates etc in fact few of them knew how to differentiate a hardwood from a softwood.

 

There's a lot of plain old baldfaced lies, told about timber when it comes down to it and that's how a lot of the top prices are commanded - based on what timbers in the guitar!.

 

Cheers!

[TommyK]

Guess I'm going to have to get the Christmas lights out and X-ray my guitars. Cool story. Great info.

 

"Writing?" "Typing?" Either works as you're doing neither.

[TommyK]

...

I've seen some very pretty lamp shades made from very thin veneers of timber with interesting grain patterns' date=' that allow the light to shine thru - and reflect the pattern onto walls within the path of the light for a nice effect....[/quote']

 

DOOD That's soooo cool. Where do I buy one?

[zombywoof]

Personally I think alot of this "tonewood" obsession is major voodoo bullstuff. A good guitar is a good guitar.

[ARATSTJ]

DOOD Blink That's soooo cool. Where do I buy one?

That's a really good question - I'm still kickin myself for not buying one at the time!.

The old guy who made em was a tooling engineer - used to design and make things like gear boxes complete with gears etc for a job most his life - but in later years would teach engineering and machining steel to tradesmen for his employers because no one could do the things he could on a enginering lathe.

 

I think he;s long since passed - he would take this timber I supplied him (Sheoke a member of the allocasuarina family (fraseriana) and he would take the veneers off at thousandths of an inch thickness - which was the REAL skill.

 

He selected that timber because I had it quarter sawn and dried to his specified 12% EMC, and when dried it has less than 0.5% shrinkage between seasons so retains extreme stability which was important for his end use age.

 

I used to supply the boat building industry with this timber, because of its stability in a marine environment, and because of its beauty with open lace to fish scale grain pattern with the medullary rays (not unlike that of American white oak - except with a very orange hue)....it was used for helm stations and bunks and berths on high end luxury cruise boats in the tourism industry in our country. (You guys would probably use cherry for a similar end use).

 

Anyway - this slightly orange timber with the open lace pattern in very thin section would transmit a wonderful soft orange hue of light. He would treat / finish these panels of Sheoke veneer in his lamp shades, with a natural organic oil made principally from the oil in orange skins to bring out the grain and protect the timber, and then finish by polishing it with beeswax.

 

The warmth from the incandescent globe would drive out a lovely orange citrus smell from the orange oil and a slight "bitter alloe's" smell from the timber which when mixed makes a wonderful perfume (we used to add essence of boronia oil to the orange oil as well - which takes out the sharp citrus tang from the scent and mellows it a lot).

 

These lamps would make the room smell as good as the light made it look.

 

 

Whilst not a lamp shade this little nest of tables - are made from sheoke timber I speak of - you can see the open weave lace grain pattern in the front board of the tops, from quarter sawn sheoke wood, with its medullary rays forming the "lace" effect.

 

Tangentially cut it makes a full on fish scale effect.

It's all in how the board is sawn as to how the grain looks.

 

This particular timber is technically a softwood - yet has a density of about 660kg/M3 - which is 2/3rds of what our dense local "Mahogany" timber Jarrah (Or Swan River Mahogany as it was marketed, Euc marginata) which is about 890 - 920 kg/M3

 

Our Mahogany looks like this!

 

 

I've had luthiers tell me this timber would be "no good" for a guitar due to not having the right "tonal qualities" - yet some of the very best Ginson Customs are made from Mahogany with a maple top... timbers with similar density properties go figure.

 

Sometimes i think local luthiers are maybe too involved in importing their body's blanks from US suppliers to even KNOW what tonal properties our local timbers might have - without investing the time and effort into at least making a few guitars to test it out!!

 

But thats just my opinion - I'm no luthier.

 

Those local luthiers who DO use some of our local hardwoods - select timbers grown in our outback deserts that are even MORE dense than our local mahogany, timber with MORE than 1000Kg/M3 density - i.e. it won't even float in water - it sinks THATS the stuff they look for.

 

 

This seems to be the sort of timber they chase for instrument making - goldfields burl wood.

 

This whole guitar timber selection seems to be a bit of a black art!

 

Cheers!

[ksdaddy]

Personally I think alot of this "tonewood" obsession is major voodoo bullstuff. A good guitar is a good guitar.

 

Definitely been my experience. I've only bought one guitar because of voodoo legend tonewood, the Sycamore J200. No idea if it made any darn difference in the tone but that's what legend says. Jason at Gibson says Sycamore was wonderful to work with but also said it didn't make much difference in tone.

 

Great guitar regardless. I get a little snob satisfaction from it being an early (6/23/89) Bozeman model and maybe Ren's fingers touched it, but I can't say it's better or worse than any other.

 

I've had pig guitars made of holy grail wood and jewel guiitars made of compressed beaver poo. And several good ones made from BASF granules that arrive on the dock in 300 lb barrels (smartass Ovation reference).

 

And my Seagull, made from cedar and cherry, cheap and plentiful. Be still my heart! "Cheap and plentiful", a phrase guaranteed to wrinkle a cork sniffer's nose.

[TommyK]

Even the cork sniffers are forced into having a re-think. I heard that they finally came up with a synthetic cork that doesn't impart a plastic favor to wine. Nor does it dry out or go moldy and ad a musty flavor to the wine. And.... you don't have to store the wine bottle lying down. (keeps the natural cork from drying out). And... you don't have to sieve the bits of cork shards from $500.00 a bottle Chateau Briand.

[Guth]

Personally I think alot of this "tonewood" obsession is major voodoo bullstuff. A good guitar is a good guitar.

 

Nicely stated. I couldn't agree more.

 

That said, I do try to keep in mind that what sounds good to me might not sound so great to someone else. As long as people are capable of trusting their own ears, they should be just fine. The only person a guitar truly need please is the one playing it. Nevertheless, it can be very revealing when last year's (or month's) "greatest sounding guitar ever" that someone managed to wax poetically over when they first bought it is now posted for sale a relatively short period of time later.

 

I wish there were some way to determine just how much effect the Internet has had on people's purchasing decisions. I'm not talking about competitive pricing or shrinking the globe kind of stuff. Instead I'm thinking more of the bullstuff you mention that many people instinctively tend to jump all over (be it materials used or construction techniques employed). It will be interesting to see what people manage to get themselves all worked up over in 5 or 10 years down the road. I don't dare imagine.

 

All the best,

Guth