wood sound?

[mercy]

Im hoping to get a guitar built so as to have a 14 fret, 1 13/16" nut. While Im at it I am choosing woods. This of course is opinion but I think all rosewood guitars, probably Indian, sound dull. Also all of the maple I have played sound harsh and mahogany is in between, I call it nondescript. None of these woods of the many, many guitars Ive played have the sound I want. I it call sparkly. I have heard a few guitars in the past, all customs, that had that sound but I didnt note what woods they were for one reason or another.
Could someone suggest a wood that sounds like what you think sparkly would be? I didnt mention it will be pared with a Sitka top.

[robj144]

I think as many here will say, it's more the builder than the wood. Have you ever played a Goodall? They're quite sparkly with many different wood combinations.

[Alan Carruth]

The problem is that almost any wood can be made to sound 'sparkly' to me, if you do it right. Maybe your ear has developed to the point that you're hearing the deficiencies of production guitars more? At any rate, given the inconsistencies in wood, and the fact that production lines have to do things in a consistent manner to make money, finding a production guitar you'll like is just a matter of chance. Just because somebody heard a Martin or Taylor in the local GC that sounded 'sparkly' to them, doesn't mean there will be one of the same brand and model in your local store that will sound like that.

If you're getting a luthier to make this, tell them what you want and get out of the way. If they've got some experience they will probably have a pretty good idea of what to use to make your guitar 'sparkly'.

There's an awful lot of 'magical thinking' about wood on these groups: the notion that if you only get the right wood combination you're bound to end up with the perfect guitar. It doesn't work like that.

[DenverSteve]

Since you've eliminated the woods that 90+% of guitars are made of .... no. I would suggest going to visit the custom builder you decide to contract and see what results he/she obtains with the different wood combinations he/she uses. Everything Taylor makes sounds "sparkly" to me.

[Goodallboy]

Cocobolo would be my suggestion. I have a Goodall with a very nice Cocobolo back and sides that is anything but dull.

[dane]

Originally Posted by mercy

Im hoping to get a guitar built so as to have a 14 fret, 1 13/16" nut. While Im at it I am choosing woods. This of course is opinion but I think all rosewood guitars, probably Indian, sound dull. Also all of the maple I have played sound harsh and mahogany is in between, I call it nondescript. None of these woods of the many, many guitars Ive played have the sound I want. I it call sparkly. I have heard a few guitars in the past, all customs, that had that sound but I didnt note what woods they were for one reason or another.
Could someone suggest a wood that sounds like what you think sparkly would be? I didnt mention it will be pared with a Sitka top.

Ash. I have a Guild D-46 that has the sound you describe. Ash back and sides with a Sitka top.

[Sam VanLaningham]

Maybe those guitars were pine top, chaparral back and sides? Hehe

Ok my two cents are: I agree with earlier post that build style/quality really makes for a massive difference in tone. I just got an all mahogany Santa Cruz that doesn't sound much like any other all hog guitar I've played. Not even close. It's lively, has overtones, etc etc. things not usually associated with said wood.

Also, I'm almost pissed off at how much strings change the sound of a guitar. I mean, c'mon, I don't have the energy to try every darn set of strings out there!!!! But that's my problem.

I also laughed (a good laugh) when you called rosewood "dull". I myself am not a rosewood fan but those who love it don't call it dull. Go mahogany!

[Howard Klepper]

How is it that you know you want a Sitka top?

[Russ C]

Since the soundboard is the most important part of a guitar tonally, that's where I'd be shopping. I'd suggest the back and sides would need to be really BAD to be able to unsparkle a good top. Perhaps not you, but some people think that removing bass is a good way to get treble.
The most sparkly 2 guitars I ever heard .. one was Adi on BR, the other was Sitka on EIR - the latter was the better guitar all 'round.

[Alan Carruth]

Russ C wrote:
" I'd suggest the back and sides would need to be really BAD to be able to unsparkle a good top. "

Actually, I've seen all too many poor guitars made from really nice material. It's not the wood, it's the person working the wood that counts the most.

[royd]

Mercy, you mentioned that you have heard a couple of custom guitars that had the sound you want. I'd suggest finding out who built them and commissioning your build with one of those builders. Tell them what you heard in their guitar that attracted you and what you're looking for that you didn't quite hear and let them suggest the woods, body size/shape, and everything else.

[bwstl01]

Cocobolo and Walnut spring to mind, but I would have rated Maple above those for "Sparkle".

Maybe carbon fiber?

[geordie]

listen to Alan Carruth.

I know it may sound a little crazy but sparkle is in the makers hands, the various accounts / experiences given above have had 'sparkle' built into them - regardless of materials = choose a maker with a twinkle in his eye.

[ocmcook]

i would check out the taylor lines they all seem to be sparkly. i like taylor so i have a cedar top to take some of the sparkle out.
i also wouldn't eliminate the maple as they have great balance and nice sparkle. try a collings small jumbo great sounding guitar.

[Russ C]

I wouldn't argue the importance of the builder, but the Sitka on EIR I referred to was a standard Martin D45 which stood out from the other D45's I'd been playing .. and is famous for being a production line guitar - I guessed the wood must have been the variant. The other was a Collings D3.