Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Back and side opinion?


cin

Recommended Posts

I have been of the opinion that the backs and sides aren't all that responsible for the overall tone of an acoustic. I've read some accounts from custom luthiers who say that maybe it accounts for 10%, and that the top is the major factor. So, maybe it's more about looks than tone. To me, rosewood is prettier than mahogany, for example. Given the many fine guitars with laminate sides and backs, maybe it's more about aesthetics than sound, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been of the opinion that the backs and sides aren't all that responsible for the overall tone of an acoustic. I've read some accounts from custom luthiers who say that maybe it accounts for 10%, and that the top is the major factor.

 

I am totally agreed with your comment,Back and side isn't a effect much in total sound&tone but in my opinion it's around 20%.

So my question is too wide, I'd like to narrow down from all back and side Gibson acoustic to model or guitar shape.

For me

Super jumbo I prefer Maple than rosewood.

Round Shoulder mahogany is my choice.

 

How about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet it would be hard to find a luthier that outcounts the back-wood as a sound factor. Sides, yes, but my bet is that 90 % of all acoustical specialists would say something about back and bass (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

For me both rosewood and mahogany are favorites. Won't go into detail differences, but I sense a little yin~yang there. The joker in my world is maple. I like bass and it's not what we normally associate with that type of (beautiful) wood. It seldom provides the depths (neither in tone) I'm after and seems to be better suited for snappy riffs and percussive pick-work. Never the less have I met exceptions that blew my perception. The Custom Firebird and a '68 J-200 in London this spring, to give the best examples. I'll keep my maple ears unprejudiced and open.

Have tried several Taylors with all kinds of woods, but not enough to speak about them here. . .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been of the opinion that the backs and sides aren't all that responsible for the overall tone of an acoustic.

. There's no question that the top movement generates the sound (which is why the first step up from all laminates is a solid top). That said, the back and sides colors the sound. Significantly so. Its the same old thing: Rosewood = dark, hog = bright and sweet, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a strong perferance for mahogany in general as I find it has the best elements of rosewood and maple. Strong bass, warmth, articulation and clarity, and that great midrange and woodiness associated with mohoganhy. Very versatile.

 

I like rosewood but i dont find it to be as versatile as mahogany and I only like maple on the j-200 model, sounds too thin and lacking warmth otherwise IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you directly compared rosewood and mahogany, with the same shape and same top ... its night and day ..??

 

b/s tonewoods have a massive influence on the overall colour and texture of the tone.

 

It is true that the top is most important but b/s are critical.

 

I have been of the opinion that the backs and sides aren't all that responsible for the overall tone of an acoustic. I've read some accounts from custom luthiers who say that maybe it accounts for 10%, and that the top is the major factor. So, maybe it's more about looks than tone. To me, rosewood is prettier than mahogany, for example. Given the many fine guitars with laminate sides and backs, maybe it's more about aesthetics than sound, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old Jay Hawkins song-line 'I know you don't love me no more but I'm yours right now'

 

I love mahogany guitars but they don't love me, said that to myself. The back/side woods make a huge difference when comparing cutting styles to riff styles of playing. I have never found a maple (incl J200) that has a good smooth transition from deep to mid tones, but their brights can be the best.

Every time I leave home I end up coming back to the balance of EIR, which works better for me than echo-e brazilian rw, blasphemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the majority of the post that the wood of the back and sides do a lot to shape the tone of the sound. Rambler said it well. I chose a 45 hog because of the sweetness. I don’t normally get that out of rosewood. A few weeks ago I was in the local shop and pick up an AJ from off the wall. I played some of my typical short chord progressions and runs above the fifth fret and was surprised at the sweet mellow sound coming out of a rosewood AJ. I looked at the guitar and lol, I grabbed the wrong one off the wall. It was a 45 hog.

 

 

chasAK

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the statements made by some regarding the backs and sides only accounting for 10% or 20% of the tone is about the QUALITY of the wood, not the type. The tightness and pattern of the grain will not have nearly the same impact as it does on the top, and not the same way.

 

The very favorite guitars I have played have all been hog, and the majority of the guitars I like to play have been hog. The goes for all brands, including Martin. However, the players that have had the best sound I have heard they have been usually Rosewood.

 

I even like hog tops. I mean a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...