Take the taste test: Brazilian or East Indian?

Personally I prefer West Indian Rosewood as it has that little extra off beat overtone after sound. Very hard to find and be careful not to inhale

I wish they had been able to do the comparison on something other than a Taylor, which are known for having a more modern / less bassy sound. I wouldn't pay the extra for Brazilian in this case, but if it had been, say, two D-28's, it might be another story.

Andy,

The trouble there is that in order to say a wood "is a very close match sonically to Brazilian" the first thing you need to do is accurately (in a measurable way) define the sound of Brazilian Roasewood - good luck I've heard a number of woods described as sounding like Brazilian Rosewood - Padauk, Osage Orange, Wenge . . .

As for Cocobolo I wouldn't describe its sound as "cold". It's one of the heavier Rosewoods yes but it's more "bell like" than "cold" to my ears. My friend Bill has a Sobell with Cocobolo back and sides that is one the finest three sounding Sobell's I've heard - the others being Jonny M's and Ian Brown's.

Its hard to know where to start (or when to stop) with the "which tonewood is best" game. There is a chapter about this in me book.

In the end what one maker thinks or finds is always disputed, contradicted by the findings of another. That's because it's very difficult to ever know for sure what we have done right when we make a good'un. For many of us it's about recreating the causes and conditions again.

I have to say from my own experience that one of the conditions for the best sound is using Brazilian rosewood, but that alone doesn't guarantee a good guitar. There is a lot more to it than that. What qualities good Brazilian has it's hard to say.

That said, the law of diminishing returns very much applies to using fancy woods.There is nothing wrong with good Indian. If you can't make a great guitar with Indian and European spruce, something is amiss.

The point about choosing the right luthier rather than picking the right wood is a great one: if you could give 20 makers 20 identical sets (and you can't, but let us pretend we can) we'd come up with 20 very different guitars. I really feel it is alot about finding a maker whose taste accords with yours. And then getting the best woods your budget allows.

Nigel
www.nkforsterguitars.com

Thanks for the reply Dave,

I didn't know Joel Thompson died, I came across his name from you and saw that he was based in Morden which is near where I live. A shame.

Dalbergia Tucurensis is my favourite of the rosewoods; the right amount of separation (it's the driest of the Dalbergias), sustain, bass, but the downside is that I've not seen more than one or two sets of Quartersawn Tucurensis for sale (much less than BRW), which have been in the USA as well. The Road Trip guitar of yours Dave was my favourite guitar of yours for sound anyway.

When it comes to BRW, I've heard it's wonderful to work with and it's smell is supposed to be delight to come across. I've heard that Cuban Mahogany is supposed to be one of the most enjoyable woods to work with as well. Back to BRW, I'm fairly indifferent to it as an option for back and sides for my playing but I think for bridges (for nylon strings at least) there's no replacement sadly.

Indian RW is superb, one of the most stable and solid woods out there. I believe it's somewhat undervalued nature is due to it's commonplace nature, but in the hands of a great luthier it'll be a spectacular guitar almost incomparable to the same wood configuration made by a less skilled maker.

There was a thread on the AGF about what is the most overrated tonewood and someone posted the following statement

"In my opinion, when it comes to instrument quality, we assign way too much importance to tonewoods, and not nearly enough to builder and instrument design."

I agree with that statement entirely, but I'd make a slight refinement. I think tonewoods are very important, but less the choice of them but the quality of the wood itself; whether it is sufficiently seasoned etc etc.

... and in addition to the quality of the wood itself, there's how well that wood is worked to extract the maximum quality sound from that particular piece.

I suspect we are being encouraged to focus on tonewood species partly because it distracts us from examining how much more the quality of the instrument and its sound can be affected by the skills of a builder and how little fine tuning goes on in the making of factory built guitars in general.

So "quality" becomes a reflection of the scarcity and costs of the various woods being used. We are also being encouraged to think of quality design as being evidenced by appearance rather than sound.

Or maybe I'm just an old cynic?

Mark

Don't know if it's cynical or not, but I do know customers like to talk to me about tonewood. Many folk read stuff in magazines and forums. There is no end of "which tonewood is best" talk  on the web. Imagining what the perfect combination of woods might be, and the sound they might produce is a stage many folk go through before they find out it's not that simple. Mind, not everyone likes to be told that there is more to it than that, so I wouldn't be too hard on makers who "talk tonewood" - it's often the best subject to find common ground with well read players. 

Some makers too, especially those relatively new to making may be inclined to think in the same way, as their views may be informed as much by reading as actual building. But this can work in a novice makers advantage in a "sales" setting like a big show as the maker and customer are likely to have similar views if they've been reading the same stuff. 

From past experience I've noticed whenever I do start banging on about design (structural not aesthetic) folk nod off, or get that "far away, glazed look" in their eyes. 

As one of me pals in the trade said "It's much easier to sell someone a guitar they already want then to try and educate them why this design is better than that one." 

Nigel
www.nkforsterguitars.com