What is Your negative Issue with a Too lush Guitar?

[CharlieBman]

The only negative issue I have found is with recording. All those beautiful, lush harmonics can get lost in a mix.

[Bowie]

Mahogany can sound lush too. The most overtone heavy guitar I own is a Collings DS1A. It's richer and darker than my Bourgeois DS Brazilian rosewood. It's all up to the builder.

I like all types of guitars but tend to prefer ones that are lush in the highs but have a dry bass. I find east Indian rosewood tends to have heavy upper bass and low mid overtones that can sometimes muddy up the sound for my tastes. Sometimes. I record so most of my instruments have a dry bass response. But, I do enjoy a very lush, rich guitar just for playing and enjoying the sound in the room.

[JC.]

Originally Posted by TBman

To be honest over the years I have found tone woods to be of little difference. The builder seems to be the controlling factor.

I'm with you. Builder trumps tonewood by a country mile. If you want a ringing guitar choose a builder who makes that style. If you want a dry guitar choose a builder who makes that style. Back and side wood choice might change the timbre "a bit" but its not really going to override the building style.

[redir]

Originally Posted by printer2

Spilling drinks all over the place, breaking into my stash, its out of here!

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by printer2

Spilling drinks all over the place, breaking into my stash, it's out of here!

Showing up late for an important gig and puking all over the stage was the last straw for me...

[Br1ck]

I outgrew a very fine Martin M36 because I morphed from a 50/50 split to all flatpicking and to dreadnoughts. Rosewood guitars smeared the notes too much for me. But as I've improved, I can play rosewood much cleaner. But in general, I find many fine guitars too lush. I prefer a GE over an Authentic, and a really good mid sixties Martin over the GE. It's nothing more than a preference, and it's guitar specific. My one rosewood dread is a 2007 D 35 Custom. Much drier that you'd imagine.

[soups]

Originally Posted by Br1ck

I outgrew a very fine Martin M36 because I morphed from a 50/50 split to all flatpicking and to dreadnoughts. Rosewood guitars smeared the notes too much for me. But as I've improved, I can play rosewood much cleaner. But in general, I find many fine guitars too lush. I prefer a GE over an Authentic, and a really good mid sixties Martin over the GE. It's nothing more than a preference, and it's guitar specific. My one rosewood dread is a 2007 D 35 Custom. Much drier that you'd imagine.

My 2000 D 35 was super dry. It was a great recording Guitar.

[Mycroft]

Lack of definition.

[catt]

Same as above.

I used to play trad jazz and such on plectrum banjos - for same reason; clarity, note separation and balance are what i want in a jazz instrument, vocal accompaniment, etc.

[rllink]

I don't know what lush means. Does it mean muffled?

[catt]

Originally Posted by rllink

I don't know what lush means. Does it mean muffled?

I'll give you three non-guitar examples to try to illustrate, of my "lushest, wettest" instruments.

Wire harp: sustain forever, enhanced overtones.

Hardanger fiddle: sympathetic strings to enhance overtones

Wet-tuned accordion: increased separation of "unison"-tuned reeds (vs dry-tuned accordions with decreased separation in unison-tuned reeds)

[mauricemcm]

What is my negative Issue with a too lush Guitar?...

Not having one! : )

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by rllink

I don't know what lush means. Does it mean muffled?

Lush means rich in overtones and people often use the word to describe a pleasing sheen of overtones in the high frequencies. That said, there's no standardized vocabulary for audio terms and not everyone understands the terms they are using so one can't assume.
I've had customers tell me they want a "chocolate" midrange or a "velvet bass". I'm pretty well versed in audio terms, using them professionally every day, but I've never bitten into a piece of chocolate that evoked a sense of midrange so I'm at a loss with some of these terms.

[HillTone]

Originally Posted by CharlieBman

The only negative issue I have found is with recording. All those beautiful, lush harmonics can get lost in a mix.

Yeah this is what I was thinking too. Wouldn’t think it an issue with rosewood generally or Collings at all. Goodalls are probably among my favorite sounding guitars in a room, but tough in a mix.

[robey]

My negative issue is it’s to lush. I don’t need excessive overtones mucking with the fundamentals. Especially a problem when recording multiple instruments, more especially when those instruments require even marginal amounts of compression. It’s like walking in a lovely fog.