What's louder: mahogany or rosewood?

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Bax Burgess

A defined note, restrained, yet not lacking power. The most extreme of this for me is a Koa top and back that I've even read described as being nasally, which isn't saying that it's dull/flat, but constrained.

Ok, then cedar and rosewood would be the opposite of that. Spectrally speaking, the energy is a lot more diffuse, with a lot more energy in the partials (harmonics).

If you want "tight" by your definition, then all mahogany is probably closer. You'll see more of the the energy concentrated in a small frequency band around the fundamental. "Tight" would be an ok descriptor for that.

[Bax Burgess]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Ok, then cedar and rosewood would be the opposite of that. Spectrally speaking, the energy is a lot more diffuse, with a lot more energy in the partials (harmonics).

If you want "tight" by your definition, then all mahogany is probably closer. You'll see more of the the energy concentrated in a small frequency band around the fundamental. "Tight" would be an ok descriptor for that.

Respectfully, not to my ear, no. Possibly, what's happening for me is the harmonic element of the Rosewood infuses all of the notes, from treble to bass, adding a degree of clarity that I'm not finding in mahogany. I like the idea of looking over the results of a hearing test with someone who hears the wood differently from myself. Lord knows how much that would cost, but it'd be for Science, so maybe a government grant. Rog, thanks for getting into this with me.

[zhunter]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Ok, then cedar and rosewood would be the opposite of that. Spectrally speaking, the energy is a lot more diffuse, with a lot more energy in the partials (harmonics).

If you want "tight" by your definition, then all mahogany is probably closer. You'll see more of the the energy concentrated in a small frequency band around the fundamental. "Tight" would be an ok descriptor for that.

That is the way I hear it too. And one reason I gravitate to mahogany on dreads. I like the post making the differentiation between volume and loudness. There is a frequency component at work. My math head isn't working that well but I believe there is an integral function at play. If a three dimensional curve of volume (or SPL), frequency and time were drawn and the area under that curve calculated (that integral thing I mentioned), then that answer would be some indication of energy over time. I am not sure if one wood type would have more energy but, even if the total energy is the same, I bet the rosewood curve would have that energy spread over a wider range of frequencies with smaller peaks where mahogany would focus that energy on a smaller range of frequencies with higher peaks.

That being the case, some will hear the broad spectrum of rosewood as overall louder where others will hear the focused peak of mahogany as louder. Context really matters here as the broad response of rosewood may be less noticeable in a busy mix. Where the peaky focus of mahogany punches through. In a solo context the opposite may be more evident.

Hopefully someone with some more specific knowledge can clarify this and determine if there is any validity. But that is the way I hear it with some math concepts in the back.

hunter

[jazzguy]

We tend to hear midrange tones well, so mahogany may be perceived as "louder" given its traditionally midrange focus.