-
I have a bias against mahogany topped guitars. These are often the less expensive models. In flat tops, I've not played one that I liked as well as spruce topped models and often they are downright dull. Over the years archtops have been offered in all mahogany but none of these seem to have the reputation for wonderfulness achieved by comparable spruce/maple versions.
Still.. I do see some enthusiasm. Heritage mahogany Eagles seem to be well liked even in comparison to spruce models. That and outside of antiques, I don't know of an oval hole archtop made in all mahogany.. though this may be due to a lack of paying attention.
So I thought I would get an opinion check. 17" all mahogany oval hole archtop for acoustic goodness or spruce is king and always will be?
-
02-11-2015 06:35 PM
-
The only experience I have with a carved archtop made solely of mahogany is my Heritage Mahogany Eagle, and can tell you that it is every bit the acoustic equal of my Golden Eagle and Custom Eagle with mahogany back and sides and a spruce top. I can't, however, guarantee that my guitar isn't an outlier as I've read reports of guitars in general displaying darker characteristics than their spruce topped brethren.
My experience having been positive would have me order or purchase another fully mahogany archtop without hesitation.
There is something to be said for the prominence of spruce as the default wood for tops, as it reached the pinnacle of luthiery for its strength, beauty, and tone.
-
I am not sure what your sonic goals are but personally, I would stay with a spruce for the top. Spruce is about 1/3rd less dense and nearly as stiff. It will be a acoustically more responsive top for a given thickness. I have an oval hole project ongoing (acoustic). We are using Carpathian Spruce for the top and Honduran Mahogany for the back and sides. The design however is not straight ahead archtop and the sonic goals are a bit different than a classic archtop.
-
This is kind of the direction I'm leaning. I ask because I have a chance to spec some nicely flamed mahogany. Not all that common. Having it on the front of the guitar would be nice for aesthetics and I knew of Klatu's Heritage Eagle from searching older posts (thanks for the response Klatu). However, this guitar will live in the sonic space in between an acoustic archtop and a flat top. The materials will not be as vaunted as Carpathian Spruce and Honduran Mahogany (the latter being a much rarer commodity than it used to be and IMHO, one of the best ever tone woods. Looking forward to your report on that one). However, even with Sitka and Chinese mahogany, I'll get more overtone content and extra response with the spruce.
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Last edited by Spook410; 02-11-2015 at 10:20 PM.
-
Here's the set of curly mahogany that we are using for the back, sides and neck.
-
Yea.. mine isn't going to be in that league. On the other hand it will be a little over $1000 made by the guy (Mr. Wu) who had a large hand in Eastman, establishing archtops at Yunzhi and is now working independently. I have a spruce/maple oval soundhole from him and it's quite a good guitar.
-
What are your goals for this one vs. your current guitars?
-
If you were to ask my wife that she would say 'to finish filling the house with guitars until no more will fit' and she would have a point. Actually I'm not sure if I can articulate it as opposed to having a fuzzy vision, but a more engineering-centric answer might look like: Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Compared to a spruce/maple f hole archtop
- More warmth-- Added emphasis on the fundamental-- Additional low mid content- Less edgy when driven-- Diminished higher frequencies especially on a hard attack- Broader sustain spectrum-- Current f hole guitars seem to sustain better on mid highs- More like a flat top sound envelope-- Attack, Middle, Sustain (not sure what the right terminology would be)
Compared to a flat top:
- Better balance-- low to high frequency balance versus a bottom heavy dreadnaught- Improved dynamics-- higher volume than a 00 or OM- Improved articulation-- more fundamental while not totally losing overtone content- Improved playability
-- retain some of the archtop edge and envelope-- Living in a high desert, I like having an adjustable bridge-- The necks on the current crop of Chinese archtops are just right for me
My current spruce/maple oval soundhole does a lot of this already. Haven't had it long enough to know just how much of the waterfront it's going to cover. The mahogany version of the same guitar may only be a nuance but should be in the direction of warm and woody.
How about you? What are you shooting for with the oval hole that an F hole or that beautiful Lehmann Manouche of yours won't do?Last edited by Spook410; 02-12-2015 at 02:04 AM.
-
I think your wife may be on to something (don't let her talk to mine!).
My project is a bit of an exploratory one, where we are doing things that my luthier hasn't done before but has some ideas (e.g. Some risk). I am looking for a purely acoustic instrument with no magnetic pickup and bronze strings. It will however have a Barbera Soloist PU in it. It will be small bodied for comfort. The arched top design will be different in geometry from a Lloyd Loaresque shaped f-holed top to provide more sustain and overtone content. Some of Jimmy D'Aquisto's later designs began to look at this type of arch/recurve design. The back will a ladder braced, flat back design (Steve Grimes does this BTW).
It has a sister guitar that is a bit of the opposite construction wise and is being built by another builder that will be a maple arched back, spruce flattop. It is being built by a flattop expert who has some archtop and violin construction experience. Both of these are a bit of an "experiment" and carry some risk. At this point, to your Wife's point, I have an archtop, flattop, classical, gypsy, semi-hollowbody and a solid body and bases are more than covered (house is full!). These two are really an experiment to create two unique hybrid like guitars. I believe they will be successful based on the mastery of the builders involved, but anytime you try something new or different you run some risk of disappointment.
Good luck with your build...Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 02-12-2015 at 02:45 PM.
-
Very interested to see photos and read reviews when you get these guitars. I've kinda hankered after a small bodied mahogany archtop myself...........
What width/depth of small body are you building?
Love that flamed mahogany. Can you specify flamed mahogany from Mr Wu? Upcharge?Last edited by bananafist; 02-12-2015 at 06:32 AM.
-
Mahogany is denser but therefore can be carved thinner. A good luthier or well made mahog top should sound almost no different to spruce, if its treated correctly (imo)
-
It will be a 17", 80mm depth, Benedetto type construction except for the oval soundhole. I believe this is the only figured mahogany he has (dibs!) and there may not be enough to do the sides depending on how things sort out. The guitar will cost about the same as a standard maple. Originally Posted by bananafist
Very interested to see photos and read reviews when you get these guitars. I've kinda hankered after a small bodied mahogany archtop myself........... What width/depth of small body are you building?
Love that flamed mahogany. Can you specify flamed mahogany from Mr Wu? Upcharge?
-
Depth is TBD on the mahogany archtop at this point. We are still in the design phase and won't be built until later in 2015, but it would not surprise me if they exceeded the standard 3" depth. Originally Posted by bananafist
Very interested to see photos and read reviews when you get these guitars. I've kinda hankered after a small bodied mahogany archtop myself........... What width/depth of small body are you building?
Love that flamed mahogany. Can you specify flamed mahogany from Mr Wu? Upcharge?
Regarding, the maple arched back flattop, the rims are 1/8" shallower than CF Martin 000/OM depth at 3-1/8" at the neck block and 3-15/16" at the end block. This shortening of rim depth was Intentional to compensate for the extra volume of the carved back over a flat back with ladder braces. Here is a shot in mid-build.
-
Small problem: Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
1) Honduran Mahogany's average dry weight is 545 g/m3 which is indeed denser than spruces which for Engelmann, Norway and Sitka are 390, 405 and 425 g/m3 (your point).
2) Here's the rub...If you look at the relative stiffness of Honduran Mahogany it averages 10.06 GPa (elastic modulus. When you look at the stiffness of Engelmann, Norway and Sitka they are 9.44, 9.70 and 11.03 GPa (similar to mahogany).
If you take the top thickness down on a mahogany to compensate for density it won't have the same stiffness as a spruce top of a similar thickness. So, for example, if you double the thickness of a plate, you increase stiffness (resistance to deflection) by a factor of 8. For example, a 2.5 mm flat top increased in thickness to 2.75 mm (a 10% increase) will result in a (1.1 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.331) 33% increase in stiffness. This is more complex with a tapering arched structure, but the same point applies. Spruces are used because of their low mass to high stiffness ratio. What you suggest will work when a material is not just denser but stiffer.Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 02-12-2015 at 03:31 PM.
-
Lots of Hog, but not going 'Whole Hog' so to speak. I like Hog back, neck, and sides, with Spruce top, Heritage Eagle style:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...ic-custom.html
The combination is awesome. A real keeper.
-
I'm not fond of mahogany for any of my guitars, solid, archtop or flattop. In flattops I find it to be somewhat "weedy" in tone and in solid bodies a bit "simple". I had an Eastman fully hollow thinline mahogany guitar and it seemed ok, but I traded it before I could experiment with the pickup to see if that would solve my dissatisfaction. OTOH, I've played a few other Mahogany back Eastmans and they never seem to measure up to their maple backed brethren. But of course, to each their own!
In a flattop, if you want to punch up the bottom end, use rosewood. If you want to attenuate the bottom end, use maple. Mahogany seems to be in the middle as far as bass goes.
-
Superb info, thanks. Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Taking this into consideration, what might the result be if an archtop were constructed wholly out of spruce?
-
Some Flamenco guitars are made with Mediterranean cypress back & sides, a conifer similar to any spruce. Spruces have low damping, are light and favour a quick response. Conifers in general can also work very well for necks as well since they have great longitudinal stiffness. The major structural drawback of these softwoods are they dent easily, but not more than Spanish cedar. I think that I recall that Canadian Luthier Sergei de Jonge once made an all spruce guitar. Peter Oberg made an all Port Orford Cedar (a Cypress) classical guitar as well. Originally Posted by Klatu
For example:
Norway Spruce
Density: 405 kg/m3
Stiffness: 9.70 GPa
Janka Hardness: 1,680 N
Sycamore Maple
Density: 615 kg/m3
Stiffness: 9.92 GPa
Janka Hardness: 4,680 N
On average, European Maple is almost 3x harder than European Spruce.Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 02-12-2015 at 06:24 PM.
-
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Thanks but what you are doing is a build. What I am doing is placing an order. There won't be any interaction or discussion nor was there any review of what I wish to use the guitar for or how I would like it to sound. That's OK all things considered but it falls well short of the great experience and final product of having a guitar made to your specific requirements.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos