Type of mahogany used in Gibsons and Epiphones?

[Duff]

Some may find this interesting:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/n...=gibson_guitar

As well as this:

http://forums.gibson.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=5215

Actually, mahogany can be found in many places around the world and fine individual trees are often harvested just for the mfg of fine guitars, the actual sub type of mahogany not being important but its individual qualities of light weight and density being important as well as its tonal potential.

I imagine that field foresters employed by guitar mfg'rs have specialized methods of tapping the wood and listening by ear for certain resonance, or even specialized technical electronic equipment for determining tonal possibilities. A great forester that has a long history of sourcing woods for guitars might often, but not always, have a very sensitive eye and ear and touch that enables him to very quickly identify incredible tone woods. These employees would be tremendous assets to any major guitar mfg outfit. Way to often "so called" engineers don't even know how to turn a screw driver correctly. Don't believe me? Engineers should be required to take hands on classes in whatever it is that is most common for them to get jobs in so they have an idea what the real world is looking for.

Some of the greatest engineers are also great mechanics; just like some of the greatest mechanics are also engineers. I'm sure some of the greatest Foresters hired by guitar mfg'rs have exceptional abilities to identify great tonewoods by eye, touch, smell, and sound when smacked with another piece of wood or a hammer or such.

There is no substitute for talent and this is true for engineers and foresters as well, especially in these days when quality mahogany and rosewood and ebony, along with other incredible tone woods, is becoming quite a challenge to find. You know quality tone wood is growing all over the place. It is just the challenge of trying to find it that the manufacturers and designers are confronted with.

[Plank_Spanker]

My next question is who cares?

If the guitar plays good and sounds good in all respects, what's the point in seeking the origin of the wood unless you're a cork sniffer or tree hugger?

[Ch0jin]

The maple in my Maton's comes from the same town I was born in.

I couldn't say it sounds any different to the maple in a Gibson, but I like the fact that I have a couple of Aussie made guitars that happen to feature wood from my home town.

I'm pretty sure that makes me neither a tree hugger or a cork sniffer....

The fact that I was glad to hear Gibson is sourcing some wood from a sustainable forest and from a company interested in local development rather than raping and pillaging a developing country as seems to be the norm, well that probably makes me a tree hugger...

[Kazz]

<-----somewhat of a "Tree Hugger" myself.

[Tig***]

I've hugged my share of trees... while riding and racing mountain bikes.
Still have a few scars to remind me to never take a bike to a tree fight!

But seriously, I'd much rather buy from a company that sources their wood from sustainable tree farms, and not short sighted clear cutting and deforestation practices.

"In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
-From the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy

[Brian Krashpad]

I've hugged my share of trees... while riding and racing mountain bikes.
Still have a few scars to remind me to never take a bike to a tree fight!

But seriously, I'd much rather buy from a company that sources their wood from sustainable tree farms, and not short sighted clear cutting and deforestation practices.

"In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
-From the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy

Pwned!

What a great quote.

That freaking rules.

[Eric***]

Pwned!

You know, even though you're 52, I think I see more internet-isms from you than anyone else I know (or don't know, for that matter).

+1 for tree-huggers here, though I do like to bring in some pragmatism at times too.

[hubberjub***]

But seriously, I'd much rather buy from a company that sources their wood from sustainable tree farms, and not short sighted clear cutting and deforestation practices.

Word.

[MAXIFUNK]

Tig STATED:
(But seriously, I'd much rather buy from a company that sources their wood from sustainable tree farms, and not short sighted clear cutting and deforestation practices.)


I AGREE 1000%

[sumitomo]

Clear cutting (aside from clearing diseased trees) is WRONG,I've seen the aftermath.Sumi

[oldguy]

Thanks for the post, Duffy. I found it interesting and informative. I also like your insight into the material that goes into our six stringed friends. Of course, not everyone will agree, but I find it fascinating how the different density, weight, and resonance of tonewoods affect the sound of an instrument, as well as the balance, and comfort factor when wearing one around your shoulder all night. Good post.

[Brian Krashpad]

You know, even though you're 52, I think I see more internet-isms from you than anyone else I know (or don't know, for that matter).

+1 for tree-huggers here, though I do like to bring in some pragmatism at times too.

It causes Los Krashpaditos endless hours of fun.

They're all like "You are not normal."

[deeaa*]

I find all that just marketing bull. mahogany is no tone wood to start with. it was used because it was cheap and easy to mill to start with. sme s ash etc were used because...cheap and non resonant, dead sounding woods.

u want guitar wood that actually sounds good...well spruce that's been immersed in water half a decade nd then dried would be a good start.

just my 2c but I tend to see red when there's talk about tone wood mahogany etc...a created illusion IMO. could be wrong too but prove me its not the case... :-)

[Eric***]

just my 2c but I tend to see red when there's talk about tone wood mahogany etc...a created illusion IMO. could be wrong too but prove me its not the case... :-)

I don't know enough about it to confirm or deny your stances on woods, pickups, tube distortion, etc., but I will say that I've learned a lot from your diatribes on it. I definitely question all of those things now. I never thought about the gibson-tilt/fender-flat affect on tone until you brought it up.

I think there is a very real lack of actual facts out there, so I really appreciate guitar iconoclasts in that sense.

[Ch0jin]

I find all that just marketing bull. mahogany is no tone wood to start with. it was used because it was cheap and easy to mill to start with. sme s ash etc were used because...cheap and non resonant, dead sounding woods.

u want guitar wood that actually sounds good...well spruce that's been immersed in water half a decade nd then dried would be a good start.

just my 2c but I tend to see red when there's talk about tone wood mahogany etc...a created illusion IMO. could be wrong too but prove me its not the case... :-)

I think I know what you mean deeaa, I tend to be overly skeptical when people talk about the "mojo" of of carbon comp resistors and PIO caps, and don't get me started on different types of wire!

I do say skeptical rather than disbelieving though because I have studied in a little bit of detail how these components work, how they are constructed, and have some theories of my own as to what is pure BS and what might have some grounding in science.

Reading your post got me reading up on acoustic instrument making again because I think any discussion about "tone woods" with regard to stringed instruments has to include the classics like Violins, Violas, Cello's and their ilk that have to have produce a decent volume and pleasing tone purely through their construction without the aid of electronic amplification.

And as I'm sure you already know, it turns out that pretty much all your classic acoustic style instruments, including Violins, Viola's, Cello's, Harpsichord's, Lutes and even Piano's use Spruce as their tops or sounding boards. As soon as I started looking for acoustic guitar woods I found Spruce over and over again as the wood of choice for the soundboard or top of the guitar.

The thing is though, if one type of wood is so particularly suited to this application, it has to be because of it's structure. In Spruces case, its exceptional strength/weight ratio. That makes me think that there might be something to the "tone wood" discussion.

Simply, the structure of spruce is different to the structure of maple for example, so it's density, it's grain, it's strength/weight and importantly it's resonant frequency will be different. So in an acoustic instrument where all these qualities will contribute to the sound, substituting different types of wood would have to change the volume and tone of an instrument.

My "proof" to you is theoretical, but here we go;

i. Different species of tree exhibit significant differences in internal structure resulting in, but not limited to; density, tensile strength and structural uniformity (my way of saying "the grain will vary"). These factors will have a significant effect on the materials resonant frequency even before the material is shaped.

Try tapping a few different types of lumber next time your at the hardware store. You'll likely be able to hear a difference in sound as a result of the woods different resonant frequency. (Remember, all you are hearing is the vibration of the wood as a result of your tapping) Some woods will seem to "ring" or sound quite resonant and others will sound "dead". Try tapping a section of Spruce and then some MDF. You should be able to hear a difference.

ii. The resonance and therefore resonant frequency of wood will vary depending on it's internal structure as mentioned in (i).

Other significant factors effecting resonance include humidity, (not sure if this is the right word, I'm trying to say how much moisture is in the wood) size and shape, age, finish and more. However for this discussion I'll assume woods of same size/shape/age etc. The variable is species.

iii. Acoustic resonance can be explained as the tendency of a material to absorb more energy at its resonant frequency than outside of it's resonant frequency. Simply, if your material, in this case wood, has a resonant frequency within the human range of hearing (20Hz to 20KHz) then it's acting like an EQ built into the instrument. Boosting frequencies at resonance and leaving others flat.

So those three points are enough to prove to me that there's some science behind why different woods would have different resonant properties, and further science behind why materials with different resonance properties would result in different acoustic properties of an instrument.

Now all my discussion has been around acoustic instruments. Unless I have this wrong (and I might) in a solid bodied instrument you are really only relying on the resonance of the body and neck to effect the vibration of the strings.

The only thing that produces electrical energy in an electric guitar is the EMF created by the string vibrating in a magnetic field caused by your pickups.

To keep it simple, lets assume we have two identical guitars with identical electronics and setup. They should of course sound exactly the same.

Now lets change the woods used in the body.

Let's say "Wood 1", has a resonant frequency of 440Hz which just happens to be the frequency of A. That would result in an audible boost in output at 440Hz as the body will vibrate more at that frequency and transfer that additional energy to the strings, then pickups etc.

If you changed the wood type to one that had a significantly different resonant frequency, then you will effect what frequencies get boosted by the bodies resonance and therefore you'd expect to have a guitar that sounds different.

Additionally the amount of resonance should have an effect as well as the resonant frequency. A more resonant body should be able to feed more vibrational energy back to the strings and give more perceived sustain and (maybe) more volume. Use a hollow body next to a loud amp and you can often see this effect as feedback as a result of the speaker energy adding to the vibration of the body.

So hows that for an explanation?

Ummm.

OK, I just re-read your post and I think you might have actually been saying that Mahogany wasn't a tone wood. I first read it as "type of wood makes no difference".

I guess I might have just typed all that for nothing

Oh well, at least I learnt a bunch about woods researching that.

All I knew when I started was that my Maton's made out of "real" wood resonate audibly and physically when you play them. They kinda "ring" when you tap them, and you can feel them vibrate when you play them. Both the solid and the hollow, although obviously the hollow one does it more. My plywood squire strat and plywood bass on the other hand, do not. You may as well tap clay.

[deeaa*]

yes chojin you are absolutely correct IMO...i do believe woods do make differences but tjen again even plexiglass works fine for electrixs....still if you use very light swamp ash for a strat for instance, it will be very lively, etc. etc...

but still, original reasons for mahogany, maple, ash, alder...cheap and structurally good. leo fender mostly wanted as dead sounding woods he could find because he wanted to eliminate feedback and that meant minomizing wood vibrations etc...

its a catch 22 with guitars...electric I mean. on one hans you want uniform and rather dead material on the other you want some life in it...everything has an impact on the sound of the finished guitar, yeah, but in many a case what the user expects will have evwn more impaxt on how it is peerceivwd....its an intwresting area and theres a lot to be sceptical about.

[Ch0jin]

yes chojin you are absolutely correct IMO...i do believe woods do make differences...

Haha oops. Oh well, I learnt some stuff typing it so I figured I'd leave it up rather than delete it all.

... because he wanted to eliminate feedback and that meant minomizing wood vibrations etc...

Hey I never even thought about that, but now that you say it it's so obvious. of course he'd have had experience in one way or another with the original acoustics with PU's bung in them, which I'm sure would have fed back like mad dogs given the technology of the day.

its a catch 22 with guitars...

No it ain't, it's a "balancing act" The glass is always half full

[guitars1969]

the answer is Honduras Mahagony very porus (like a sponge)wood creating beautiful sustain in the instrument the maple top gives it its dexterity and looks to the les paul unlike the S G model witch is all Honduras Mohogany making the guitar that much lighter than the Les Paul...and thinner

[gordy_sg_no1]

gibson have been buying their honduras mahogany in fiji ( good on em to use a sustainable source). and for the naysayers who say fiji, thats not honduras.................. believe me its honduras mahogany seeds that were planted there mostly for furniture just after ww2. but personaly to me i realy dont care much for the words tonewood and electric being used together as 45 percent is amp and 45 is how you set the guitar up and 9 percent is your hands . i understand the principles of primary tone as i have played the double bass now for around 4 years and you rely on it, but with the dawn of electricity came a huge array of gear to change your sound. so realisticaly as long as it plays and sounds ok, you can appreciate that a tapdance on some stomps and a good amp will improve the guitar much more than a tonewood ever would.