I'm often asked by students and others who hear me play and are guitarists about the different woods that are used to construct guitars. This is a huge subject and players with experience often have very definite opinions about the relative merits of different types of wood. The two qualities that are most often discussed are tonal qualities and durability. I'm going to plunge in and offer my thoughts based on owning more than fifty acoustics over the years and playing probably twice that many. As with most things that are purely subjective you may very well hear entirely different opinions and that's fine. Ultimately the choice is yours.
The three most common types of wood used for the backs and sides of acoustic guitars are rosewood, mahogany and maple. Each has strengths and weaknesses, both in tone quality and structural integrity. I'll start with rosewood.
The three most common types of wood used for the backs and sides of acoustic guitars are rosewood, mahogany and maple. Each has strengths and weaknesses, both in tone quality and structural integrity. I'll start with rosewood.
This is the back of my primary guitar, a Martin 0000-28H. It is made of East Indian rosewood, which is the choice of virtually all guitar makers these days who make guitars from rosewood. Time was that rosewood from Brazil was used but this became scarce and very expensive around the late 1960s when the government of that country decided to forbid the export of log-length, uncut rosewood. Guitar companies were unwilling to use rosewood that they couldn't cut themselves to ensure quality control so they turned to rosewood from East India. Today you can still buy Brazillian rosewood new guitars but they are incredibly expensive. Why? Because of its scarcity and beauty of course but also because many guitarists feel it has the best sound in terms of complexity and resonance.
That is fairly subjective but one thing is for sure. ALL Brazillian rosewood guitars by Martin, Gibson and others built before 1970 have shot up in price radically in the last few years. Some sound great, some are good but not spectacular. There are other factors involved beyond the materials, things like bracing, top wood grain, finish and a few other things.
Generally, compared to mahogany and maple, rosewood guitars sound much complex with subtle overtones and often a pleasing, soft "waa-waa-waa" sound that sustains for quite a long time. Rosewood is also quite beautiful with various shades of chocolate brown. If there is some "swirl" in modern East Indian rosewood as was common in the Brazilian stuff, so much the better at least in terms of value.
That's "the good." The bad is that rosewood is much more prone to cracking if not properly humidified and the tonality and overall sound can change quite radically on a seasonal basis if you live somewhere with warm, humid summers and cold, dry winters. Also, rosewood rapidly loses its beautiful tonal complexity as the strings go dead. I've heard guitars that cost many, many thousands of dollars that sounded awful with strings that were old but gloriously came to life when new strings were put on. As an example, when I was recording with fiddler Marie Rhines back in the 1970s, during one two-week series of recording sessions I changed the strings on my D-28 four times! And I don't even have particularly sweaty hands - I just wanted my Martin to sound its best for the recording.
That is fairly subjective but one thing is for sure. ALL Brazillian rosewood guitars by Martin, Gibson and others built before 1970 have shot up in price radically in the last few years. Some sound great, some are good but not spectacular. There are other factors involved beyond the materials, things like bracing, top wood grain, finish and a few other things.
Generally, compared to mahogany and maple, rosewood guitars sound much complex with subtle overtones and often a pleasing, soft "waa-waa-waa" sound that sustains for quite a long time. Rosewood is also quite beautiful with various shades of chocolate brown. If there is some "swirl" in modern East Indian rosewood as was common in the Brazilian stuff, so much the better at least in terms of value.
That's "the good." The bad is that rosewood is much more prone to cracking if not properly humidified and the tonality and overall sound can change quite radically on a seasonal basis if you live somewhere with warm, humid summers and cold, dry winters. Also, rosewood rapidly loses its beautiful tonal complexity as the strings go dead. I've heard guitars that cost many, many thousands of dollars that sounded awful with strings that were old but gloriously came to life when new strings were put on. As an example, when I was recording with fiddler Marie Rhines back in the 1970s, during one two-week series of recording sessions I changed the strings on my D-28 four times! And I don't even have particularly sweaty hands - I just wanted my Martin to sound its best for the recording.
Here's am image of one of my recent guitars, a new Martin D-15, which is made out of mahogany. Or is it? Mahogany, like some kinds of rosewood is becoming scarce and many guitar makers are choosing to go with a wood called sapele, which is virtually identical to mahogany. Martin has been pretty cagey about whether some of their guitars are made of sapele or mahogany although very recently they began producing a line with the suffix "M" to indicate that they were in fact mahogany.
I can't tell any difference in the ways that matter, although in some cases mahogany with a gloss finish tends to have more of a quilted look that is quite attractive, while sapele is pretty even and uniform.
Mahogany is less expensive than rosewood and while some might argue this statement, mahogany does not have the complexity of sound that you find with rosewood. It is preferred by many guitarists however because the tone is even, easily controlled and mahogany guitars record very well because those overtones aren't something a recording engineer has to contend with via equalization. Mahogany has a nice punchy sound and usually has better treble than rosewood, although that is not always the case. It is also more durable, less prone to cracking and less affected by changes in humidity. Strings last longer too - unless you happen to have very sweaty hands, a set of strings will sound good three to four times as long on a mahogany guitar compared to rosewood.
Unfortunately, even true vintage mahogany guitars do not have the value of similar rosewood models, even by the same manufacturer. This doesn't mean they are bad instruments - far from it - they just are not generally as desirable in the vintage, used guitar market.
I can't tell any difference in the ways that matter, although in some cases mahogany with a gloss finish tends to have more of a quilted look that is quite attractive, while sapele is pretty even and uniform.
Mahogany is less expensive than rosewood and while some might argue this statement, mahogany does not have the complexity of sound that you find with rosewood. It is preferred by many guitarists however because the tone is even, easily controlled and mahogany guitars record very well because those overtones aren't something a recording engineer has to contend with via equalization. Mahogany has a nice punchy sound and usually has better treble than rosewood, although that is not always the case. It is also more durable, less prone to cracking and less affected by changes in humidity. Strings last longer too - unless you happen to have very sweaty hands, a set of strings will sound good three to four times as long on a mahogany guitar compared to rosewood.
Unfortunately, even true vintage mahogany guitars do not have the value of similar rosewood models, even by the same manufacturer. This doesn't mean they are bad instruments - far from it - they just are not generally as desirable in the vintage, used guitar market.
Lastly we have maple. This is the back of one of the guitars I presently have for sale, a Guild CV-2. Maple is absolutely striking in appearance and as with this guitar, is often has an almost 3-D sheen. I think the reason maple is much less popular than the other two body materials has to do with tone. Sadly, many maple guitars are pretty dull specimens, sound wise, with very little resonance, complexity, sustain or volume (that is NOT the case with this one by the way - it is possibly the best sounding and playing maple guitar I've ever had the pleasure to play - GREAT treble, deep bass, sustain and just as loud as any guitar of its size). So why do companies make maple bodied guitars? The looks, for sure, but they are extremely durable, unaffected by all but the most radical changes in humidity and they sound wonderful when strummed.
Then there some more exotic variations of guitar bodies, such as these two combining two types of wood. The one in the case is a Martin OMC-OGTE and the one standing up is a Takamine OO size. The Martin has mahogany with a center wedge of rosewood and the Tak has rosewood with a center section of quilted maple. Both are very striking and beautiful. I don't think the combinations have much effect on sound (the Martin sounds like what it mostly is: mahogany, and the Takamine sounds like its primarily rosewood body. But they sure are pretty and for me at least a pleasing look counts for a lot.
Next time we'll take a look at necks, fronts, fingerboards and bridges.
Peace & good music,
Gene
Next time we'll take a look at necks, fronts, fingerboards and bridges.
Peace & good music,
Gene
RSS Feed