-
wondering why most old guitars had flat sawn carved maple backs, but many modern guitars are quartered.
for ex., many [not all, but the majority] modern Gibson L-5's, Supers etc, seem to have quartered backs but the old ones are flatsawn.
late in his career John D'Angelico began using imported quartered maple and D'Aquisto continued in the same manner.
I don't know about tonally, but I much prefer the character of flatsawn maple as opposed to the kind of boring straight stripes of figured quartersawn maple.
-
03-05-2014 06:58 PM
-
I always thought flat-sawn wood just wasnt as stable over a long period of time so guitar makers are less eager to use it. Quartersawing a peice of wood isnt as economical but it creats much sturdier peices of wood.
I could be wrong about that being why guitar makers dont use flat-sawn wood though.
-
I was taught that it is a strength to weight thing. Quartered wood can be lighter while still being strong. Equal strength from flat sawn wood would be thicker and heavier and generally harder to resonate. This is just a general rule as wood stock varies incredibly even within a given species of wood.
Bill
-
>>> wondering why most old guitars had flat sawn carved maple backs, but many modern guitars are quartered.
for ex., many [not all, but the majority] modern Gibson L-5's, Supers etc, seem to have quartered backs but the old ones are flatsawn.
I am a poor historian, so maybe someone else can comment on the traditional use of slab-cut as you notice. (i.e. It was cheaper, more readily available, they did not think it mattered,...)
As for the practical aspects of the cuts in wood:
Wood has three dimensions, described as three axes.
OK nothing profound there, so do you and me.
But in wood the three dimensions react to changes in moisture differently.
The longitudinal axis (ground to sky in the tree) expands and contracts very little, although we notice it sometimes in guitars that need seasonal truss rod adjustments as the FB and the neck expand slightly differently in the longitudinal dimension.
The other two dimensions are the radial axis (from the core of the tree to the bark), and the tangential axis (the only one left, and perpendicular to radial as viewed from above).
In wood, the difference in expansion/contraction with moisture between the radial and tangential axes directly bears on the tendency of the wood to warp (cup and curl) in a slab cut piece.
In a quarter-sawn piece, the differential is greatly reduced as a warp factor.
So for some woods, a quarter-sawn piece will be notably more stable than a slab cut piece. You can find tables showing the ratio of radial to tangential swelling all over the web. The greater the radial vs. tangential difference, the more stability you can gain via a quarter sawn cut vs. a slab cut.
There is also the question of acoustical properties. Traditional thicknesses and bracing patterns assume quarter sawn guitar tops. But in my opinion, one could make perfectly great sounding tops from slab cuts if you worked out the best way to cut them in terms of thickness. They would tend to warp somewhat more frequently, and they could look unattractive to many.
Quarter-sawn guitar tops have the radial axis from one rim to the other, and the tangential axis in the "thickness" dimension, from the inside of the body to the surface.
Also, for relatively soft and pithy wood such as spruce, cedar, cypress, etc. - there is some added strength (although FAR less than you might think) with strategically positioned grain. And quarter-sawn wood ensures this positioning.
(Note: In the above comment I refer to strength of various uses of wood with the longitudinal axis consistently positioned. So your toothpick will be only slightly stronger in one flexing direction vs. the other. It would of course be absurdly weak if the longitudinal axis ran the 1.5 mm across the toothpick.)
In my opinion, the cut of the wood makes absolutely no acoustic difference whatsoever in the backs and sides of a guitar. Or rather, any difference would be smaller than things we might commonly consider to be absurdly minor like barometric pressure or what you ate for lunch - both of which can be argued to affect tone.
For laughs:
Cedar and Spruce have almost 2X the tangential movement vs. radial.
Maple varies by species but is 1.5X tangential vs. radial.
Honduran Mahog' is around 1.35X tangential vs. radial.
Cherry is about 1:1, so you could expect very stable slab-cut cherry.
Hope this helps some.
Note: Different charts sometimes show slightly different values for some species of wood.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 03-05-2014 at 11:18 PM. Reason: spelling, clarity, removed comment on TGP influence
-
I thought flat sawn cuts are more prone to twisting/warping. Especially grains like spruce or cedar.
-
>>>I thought flat sawn cuts are more prone to twisting/warping. Especially grains like spruce or cedar.
"Flat sawn" is what I assume you are calling a more or less random slice through the tree. Some might say "slab cut", but there are other terms used as well.
So yes, as I had hoped was remotely clear above - slab cut wood will be more prone to warping than quarter sawn wood for the reasons mentioned above at what I assume was wasted and tedious length.
>>> Especially grains like spruce or cedar.
Yes, and also for reasons as mentioned above.
Probably a wasted bit of bandwidth in my post above.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 03-05-2014 at 11:19 PM.
-
How is cherry as a tonewood?
-
In my opinion, "tonewood" is a fairly meaningless term. Others may find it useful somehow.
Is knotty pine a tonewood?
Is paper mache a tonemache?
They have both been used for famous test guitars.
Is Formica a tonemica? Martin uses it and it sounds pretty good. (They call it "Tawny Something")
And what about Ovation bowls? Carbon fiber guitars? Aluminum necks?
They all work.
Oak works, but the instrument looks like an end table. So I guess it is not tonewood for reasons of appearance.
You could certainly use cherry for backs and sides - especially if you can deal with the relatively inconsistent grain and the relatively limited widths available.
Godin uses cherry for tops, to what is certainly an effective effect regardless if it is one's idea of ultimate tone.
I will be interested in other's views on Cherry. I made my dining room shaker table out of it.
EDIT: All in my sort of cranky opinion. Sorry Klatu.
More Edit: Cherry would make for stable necks rather resistant to twists even when no care was taken with regard to grain. Cherry was an oft-used wood for large wooden view cameras for what I suppose are clear enough reasons.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 03-05-2014 at 11:42 PM.
-
you're an opinionated guy. that's ok. as long as you realize you're not alone.
so, "they all work", huh?
i say rubbish. i don't think they "work" worth a damn. i think ovation "bowls" sound like shit. i have thought so from the first time I heard them in the 70's. (Jim Croce on The Midnight Special, and yes, even John and Al when Paco played with them). i've played them more than a few times too, so i'm familiar with them. they felt like plastic and sounded like plastic. why the heck wouldn't they? they are what they are.
it seems to me that "tone woods" are what great instrument makers use/have used for stringed instrument "tone woods" for centuries. no need to over-think it. spruce and maple worked for the boys in Cremona, and they still work just fine, thanks.
-
>>> as long as you realize you're not alone.
Definitely, and some alternate, if a little obvious, points of view are a great thing.
>>> spruce and maple worked for the boys in Cremona
And surely for many there are only spruce and maple guitars with all others being an offense of sorts.
As for what "works", I mentioned paper mache and knotty pine specifically to bring in the fun tests of some rather traditionally respected builders who produced some interesting results regarding what constituted suitable materials.
>>> no need to over-think it.
Right. I feel the similarly about under-thinking it.
If it must be spruce and maple to float one's boat (or lay one's Reardon-Metal track) then what a fine thing that there are so many great spruce and maple guitars out there.
For those interested in alternatives, there are alternatives.
Chris
-
Cherry is an excellent tonewood, not unlike European Maple as far as the tone it imparts to the whole. A few of the reasons, IMO, that it doesn't show up more often in instruments is that there isn't really a reliable continual source for the wood, the logs are where you find them rather than searched out like figured maple or walnut. Also appropriate sizes for guitars (especially the larger bodied archtops and jumbo type instrument) can be an issue as the demand for Cherry in the furniture industry is such that the trees are often logged before they have a chance grow to the size needed to obtain high quality instrument material. But I think the leading reason we don't find it used very often, is the rather plain look of the wood, usually void of appealing figure (not always), when compared to flame, Birdeye or Quilted maple or some of the more commonly used alternatives such as , Koa, the rosewoods....this general lack of figure tends to make cherry less appealing to many buyers. Even a superior sounding cherry instrument can be a hard sell, in my experience.
I've made a number of instruments from both North American and European cherry (I would love to work with Asian Cherry as it is an amazingly beautiful wood but is extremely unstable because the tree often grows in a spiral making guitar parts cut from it unusable...I know as I've tried
) and found the wood wonderful to work with and makes a great sounding guitar.
-
Do you know when the change took place at Gibson from "most old guitars had flat sawn carved maple backs" to "modern Gibson L-5's, Supers etc, seem to have quartered backs?"
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
On a related note, I believe Orville had cut some sides from boards rather than bend them to shape. Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
>>> I believe Orville had cut some sides from boards rather than bend them to shape.
In my opinion this is a very odd thing to say. Imagine the fragility of such a situation.
Is there anything extremely definitive on this?
Where does this come from?
-
Chris:
I'll check some of my books, but I seem to remember reading that was one of Orville's approaches - to actually cut rims out of big boards instead of bending them. I think this applied to some of the instruments he built between 1896 and 1902, prior to the formation of the "Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Co." Time to dig up the sources on this one...
Also, (a bit of an aside, related to carved vs. pressed plates) from a really cool ad from Gibson, maybe 100 years old:
The violin-model Gibson mandolins, etc. are carved out of the solid block, by the most clever violin workers America can produce. They are "graduated" not "pressed" as with other makes, showing "curved" soundingboard and backboard. They are permanently guaranteed. The lowest priced Gibson is infinitely superior to the highest priced model of any other make.
Some things never change.
-
seems to be around when Gibson ramped up archtop production again in the late 80's, about when the company changed hands. Originally Posted by Hammertone
"On a related note, I believe Orville had cut some sides from boards rather than bend them to shape. "
I read that somewhere as well
a lot of modern builders still use flatsawn maple, I just notice that Gibson in particular uses a lot of quarter sawn wood
-
Reading this thread reminded me of a very informative video on this subject. I saw this a while ago. It's take a few minutes to get through it . . but, it's well worth the watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVBsA1KbfY8&feature=player_detailpage
-
From what I have read some of Gibson's early guitars used birch and back wood too, even early L-5's. Talk about plane wood.
Thanks John
-
Godin uses a fair amount of cherry but I'm not sure how much is solid.
-
Well done video. That site has some good information, well worth bookmarking or subscribing to if you're a woodworker or just interested. Originally Posted by Patrick2
The one point which he doesn't cover, relevant to guitar builders, is how to maximize the quarter sawn material. For instrument wood a log is generally quartered into four pieces and each of these quarters are split into pie shaped billets which are then split in half again and so on until the correct thickness is obtained and this final thin pie shaped billet is then sawn or split into a book matched set for a soundboard or back. With this method there is more overall waste than with the ways he lays out but there is more high grade usable soundboard/back material.
If making furniture, you get more usable material his way, if guitars only a few high grade tops/backs...the way I laid out you get more usable instrument tops/backs but less furniture wood...it's all what you want to do with the wood from the log. Make sense??
-
>>> it's all what you want to do with the wood from the log. Make sense??
I want to make a guitar chair. I'm soooo confused.
Thanks for the vid link Patrick.
Chris
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
OK. Time to go back to find quartersawn backs on Gibson archtops. I thought it was earlier than that, and wonder whether it was a specific change that occured quickly or over time. Originally Posted by wintermoon
Here's a '78 Super V with a quartersawn back:Last edited by Hammertone; 03-07-2014 at 12:07 AM.
-
Here's a '77 Super 400C with a quartersawn back:
-
I think you're right hammer, it was earlier.
the late 80s Gibsons had the bold straight striped woods which continue today, but the fact that the late 70's had plain looking though quartered maple escaped me.
-
It's interesting to me that Gibson DIDN'T use quartered wood for backs, given that it has been the standard in the violin world for so long. The great condition of the backs of so many old L-5/L-7/L-12/L-10/S-400 guitars tells me that it's not a problem, so long as the wood they started with was properly seasoned. I'm quite curious about the changeover - from memory, quite a few of those '70's guitars had fairly plain quartered backs. I'll poke around for more pix from that era. Originally Posted by wintermoon
It's not like Gibson builds a lot of these guitars, so my guess is that since then, perhaps they realized that they could get figured, quartered wood easily enough and that it would be one less potentially problematic factor for these guitars. As well, they have been remarkably consistent with the style of figuring on the L-5/L-7/Byrdland/Super 400 guitars over the past 20 years.Last edited by Hammertone; 03-07-2014 at 06:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
No more 10" Neo Speakers?
Today, 10:31 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos