Quality of woods used in less vs. more expensive guitar models of same brand

[MrBJones]

Originally Posted by kydave

For starters, you should understand that when you're comparing a 000-18 & 000-28, you are comparing apples and oranges or - at least - Granny Smiths and Golden delicious. You're talking about different woods, not different quality (mahogany vs rosewood body) amongst the same line (Standard). The grading of the woods is different, too, but that is cosmetic.

Does this mean that the mahogany used in an 18 series Martin is a bit lower grade than the rosewood used in a 28 series? Or do the numbers (for these particular series) simply indicate the type/species of wood used?

[kydave]

Mac (Moderator Emeritus over at UMGF) posted this very useful piece of information compiled with specifics received from Linda, the wonderful employee who buys wood for Martin.

Generally applied wood grades

Top Wood:

Sitka Spruce and Red Spruce tops have 8 grades based on tightness of grain, straightness, color, degree of quartersawing, silking, internal defects (such as sap pockets, occlusions, etc.) and overall cosmetic appearance:

No grade given - 16’s and below
Grade 1 / 2 - 18’s and 21’s
Grade 3 / 4 - 28’s and 35’s
Grade 5 / 6 - Herringbone and 40’s
Grade 7 - 41's and 42’s
Grade 8 - 45’s

Higher grades can be used on lower models on a discretionary basis depending upon availability.

Specific Grades for Vintage, Marquis, GE and Authentic:

The Vintage series get Sitka spruce tops - an 18V would get a grade 3/4 top and 28V would get a 5/6 grade top (one grade range higher than the standard model 18 or 28).
Authentics, GE's and Marquis get Adirondack red spruce tops - 18's would get a 3/4 grade, 28's would get a 5/6 grade and 40's series would get a 7/8 grade.

Back and Side Wood:

East Indian Rosewood has 4 grades, based on factors such as grain tightness & straightness, color and cosmetics:

Grade 1 - 16's and 15's
Grade 2 - 20 and 30 series instruments
Grade 3 - Herringbone and Vintage 20 and 30 series instruments
Grade 4 - 40 series instruments

Madagascar Rosewood has two grades:

Grade 2 - is "28-style" grade
Grade 4 - is "45-style" grade

Non-figured Mahogany has 4 grades based on straightness of grain and other cosmetics:

Grade 1 - 15's
Grade 2 - 16's
Grade 3 - Standard 18's
Grade 4 - 18V's, GE's, and A's

Figured Mahogany has 2 grades based on amount of figure:

Grade 2 - lesser figure
Grade 4 - highly figured

Koa has 2 grades based on the amount of figure:

Grade 2 - 16's and 28's
Grade 4 - 40's style instruments

Note: Martin does not "tap-test" its wood or otherwise grade according to tone. The above grades reflect cosmetic characteristics only.

Martin Laminates

Martin's Mahogany laminates are quarter sliced Bigleaf Mahogany faces (outer plies) with a rotary sliced African mahogany core, and the Rosewood laminates are quarter sliced Indian rosewood faces with a rotary sliced African Mahogany core.

Many thanks to Linda Wallen-Davis (cfmwoodbuyer) of CFM&Co. for providing this info and to BareCat for consolidating it all so that I didn't have to do the work!! <img src=

[Guitar1083]

Originally Posted by Athana

In a factory (Martin) the 45 does not get a better "tone" wood just at a better cometic version of that wood.

A Luthier may have a way to determine what will have an edge & sound better by handling..flexing..tapping..looking but dont expect that from even a Custom Shop Martin.
Best way to get a great instrument with best sounding tone wood is play whatever you can get your hands on,or someone who may direct you to one he swears by,and find it that way.
If you have an open mind as to what you can end up with the better your chance to land the best available.

which guitar is the D45 being compared to?

[Dave T]

I find it interesting that these kind of threads often carry an undercurrent that all expensive guitars are a rip-off. Why of course they don't sound any better than the cheapest models…XYZ company is just over charging for bling!

If you don't want or like "pretty", then don't pay for it. That way you can look down on those who do, knowing you're so much smarter than they are.

My $.02 worth,
Dave

[kydave]

Something else possibly worth mentioning:

For perspective, from someone who was playing Martins back when - the D-18 was a less expensive Martin and primarily bought when someone couldn't yet afford a D-28, back when those were the two primary dreadnought choices.

Mahogany, initially, was a cost savings wood.

Did you know that the 18's used to be made of rosewood?

[zmf]

[QUOTE=kydave;3940643
Did you know that the 18's used to be made of rosewood? [/QUOTE]

Sorry, but that's too much cognitive dissonance for me to handle.

[dneal]

Originally Posted by billgennaro

Everyone says that the difference in top woods is only visual. But I tend to disagree.

A few things to consider: I think Martin, even though they don't tap tone, would know which tops tend to make a better sounding guitar. I'm sure they've learned a thing or two in their years of building. Also, Martin probably gets different grades of wood from different suppliers (just guessing here). If so, I'm sure that they have more confidence in the top of the line tops they get from one supplier from the lesser woods they get from another.

I worked at Guild for a couple of years when they were in Westerly. Their top of the line D50 almost always sounded noticeably better than the other dreads they produced.

I'm no wood expert, but it seems reasonable that these companies know how to judge the potential of tone woods before they assemble their guitars. They don't always hit the mark but mostly they do.

Bill

I'd like to think that about Martin too. The fact is that given their volume of production they can't account for different stiffness of a given piece of wood and take that into account with what'll happen at the bracing station. They're built to a dimensional spec that on average makes a pretty good guitar. If you think they are doing more than that, then try to get a custom built to a tone you have in mind.

Scroll to 11:39 and you'll see Martin "candle-ing" the wood. It's an old method (hence the name) that I'm sure is good for QC, but it's not really doing much for tone.



Now watch this video of Bruce VanWart at Collings evaluate wood, or scroll to 5:35 where he talks about determining the right thickness for each top.



Or watch Dana Bourgeois talk about selecting tops.



Martin ain't doing that.

[WayneS]

There's far more info in this thread than I hoped to get, and I'm really impressed. If I may, I'd like to try to sum up. With regard to the big guitar manufacturers:

Sometimes the wood used in higher-ranking models is of a different species than the lower-ranking models. (This might be confined to wood for backs and sides; I don't know.)

Manufacture of the differently ranked models is, with the exception of custom shop work, done by the same people.

We have conclusive evidence that at least one of the big manufacturers uses a "higher" grade of same-species wood for the higher-ranking models.

The grades are based on visual rather than sound criteria; but some of those visual criteria (f.i. closeness of grain, straightness of grain, degree of quarter sawing) may well imply something about the sound qualities of the wood. If so, it seems probable that the higher-ranked models generally sound better because of the woods used. However, it may also be the case that some things which may be desired in the woods (figure, for instance) in some cases could be detrimental to the sound.

I should think that since guitar tops generally are not tested by big manufacturers for sound qualities (and what's up with that?), it is entirely possible that a particular example of a lower-end model will sound better than many of the corresponding higher-end models. Bling is kinda cool, and if it's tasteful I like it and think it deserves its price; but inlay don't do diddly for sound.

A personal opinion: Wood quality aside, as one comment noted, string choice is fantastically important, and was far, far more important in improving sound in a Guild I have than any of the brace shaving, special-materials saddles and bridges, etc., that I had done. An experimental string change in a $250 used Crafter made it sound much better than a $4400 semi-custom guitar by a very well known builder. Seems a good idea that people diagnose their guitars, enumerate what they like and don't like about the sounds they're getting, and experiment and choose strings that will remedy problems.

Many thanks!

[Guitar1083]

WayneS keep playing guitars so you can hear what they sound like i have a $300.00 guitar that sounds amazing, wow you need to hear it, it sounds so good you would offer me $400.00 for it, and i wouldn't sell it, but then my Martin D-41 you play that and it make the other seem like a toy

[billgennaro]

Originally Posted by dneal

I'd like to think that about Martin too. The fact is that given their volume of production they can't account for different stiffness of a given piece of wood and take that into account with what'll happen at the bracing station. They're built to a dimensional spec that on average makes a pretty good guitar.

I realize that Martin doesn't stiffness test or tap. They can't afford to do that in such a high volume production environment. But I'm sure they use woods from different suppliers that they have grown to trust through the years, and Martin pays accordingly. In other words, I believe they buy their highest grade wood from a different supplier than their lower grade woods. This way they can be relatively sure that, without stiffness testing or tapping, they are getting a relatively superior grade of tone wood from a supplier who consistently delivers in this regard. Martin can choose any wood supplier they want to. Doesn't it make sense that they would choose one who delivers the highest quality of wood both visually and tonally? By trusting their supplier to deliver tonally superior woods Martin doesn't have to worry about the added cost of stiffness testing and tapping in their mass production environment. When Martin builds a run of D45's they won't stiffness test or tap each top, but they will use different wood with obviously better tonal characteristics (in general) than they would for a run of D28's. Even if all of Martin's wood comes from one supplier, they would need to trust that supplier to deliver different grades with different tonal characteristics. If the supplier didn't deliver tonally and visually superior woods for Martin's higher end guitars they would certainly switch to a supplier who did. The same goes for the quality of woods used in their other models.

Again, when working for Guild back in the 80's it was the same story. Guild didn't test their wood for tonal qualities, but the suppliers they used delivered the necessary product for the price point and sound they were aiming at. This is how a production facility operates. The top of the line Guilds sounded better than the lower grade guitars because the wood was tonally superior.

[billgennaro]

Originally Posted by WayneS

I should think that since guitar tops generally are not tested by big manufacturers for sound qualities (and what's up with that?), it is entirely possible that a particular example of a lower-end model will sound better than many of the corresponding higher-end models.

It is possible for that to happen, but why do you suppose that a very high percentage of a given manufacturer's high end guitars sound better than their lower priced models? It is because they find wood suppliers who can consistently deliver woods at the price point they need, and the tonal/visual characteristics they require. Assembly line facilities cannot afford to test each piece of wood. They will, instead, find a wood supplier that will deliver what they need on a consistent basis.

[FrankS]

What is visually appealing is just as subjective as tonally appealing. Some of the best acoustic wood has very dark grain. It sits on shelves and only gets used on dark topped guitars because very few will accept it on their creamy white topped guitars.

Frank Sanns

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by FrankS

What is visually appealing is just as subjective as tonally appealing. Some of the best acoustic wood has very dark grain. It sits on shelves and only gets used on dark topped guitars because very few will accept it on their creamy white topped guitars.

The top that's on the 12 fret Triple O a local luthier here in Anchorage is building for me is one he got in a consignment of tops from LMI or another one of the luthiery supply that was marked down in cost simply because they have prominent dark reddish brown lines in the top: even brand new, freshly sanded and with no finish yet applied it's significantly darker than a lot of tops are after several years of exposure to UV light.

And you know what? I'm entirely cool with that. The top that's on my McAlister acoustic baritone guitar (which is unquestionably one of the finest-sounding instruments I own) was in the discard pile at the Santa Cruz Guitar Company because it has a single band of dark red brown on it. Roy McAlister rescued it because he recognized its tonal potential, and I'm glad he did.

So darker-than-average spruce tops are FINE with me!


Wade Hampton Miller

[Jerry D]

When I traded up from a Taylor 114ce to a 314ce, I noticed the top was "prettier", although both guitars had Sitka spruce tops. I sent a question about this to "Ask Bob" at Taylor guitars, and he confirmed, in an issue of Wood & Steel, that the higher up you go in Taylor's numbering scheme, the better grade of same-type woods you get.

[harmonics101]

All this theorizing, if less expensive guitars sound better than expensive guitars because of the wood,

I know an easier way, play the darn thing and find out

H