Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
Rosewood Versus Cypress
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14826
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
RE: Rosewood Versus Cypress (in reply to chapman_g)
|
|
|
I agree that the wood on back and sides has "little effect on the voice". You can prove this by doing blind listening tests. But, to a player, with the instrument in hand, these "little effects" actually matter GREATLY, and describing these little differences will differ from player to player. Words are not the best way to describe these differences, so the generalizations about "darker, brighter, louder, projection, percussive, cuts through" are not helpful at all. For sure using certain wood on the back of a guitar affects the overall sound and playability greatly. Comparisons are best made with ONE maker at a time, and it may be that maker X does not make a loud blanca, or perhaps a negra flamenca that is too "classical" sounding. Etc, but the "problems" dont' make an easy test to determine truely which wood is better for "projection". As Anders always simply puts, it is a combo of all the factors together that makes the guitar sound like it will in the end. For sure a Paper mache Conde won't sound or respond the same as the Conde A26 blanca. Ricardo
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 7 2007 18:24:41
|
|
jshelton5040
Posts: 1500
Joined: Jan. 17 2005
|
RE: Rosewood Versus Cypress (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo I agree that the wood on back and sides has "little effect on the voice". You can prove this by doing blind listening tests. But, to a player, with the instrument in hand, these "little effects" actually matter GREATLY, and describing these little differences will differ from player to player. Words are not the best way to describe these differences, so the generalizations about "darker, brighter, louder, projection, percussive, cuts through" are not helpful at all. For sure using certain wood on the back of a guitar affects the overall sound and playability greatly. Sorry Ricardo but this doesn't make sense to me. If the difference is so subtle and nebulous how can you be certain it's the wood on the back and sides and not some other factor that makes the guitar sound a certain way? Do you really think that the wood on the back and sides can affect the playability? quote:
Comparisons are best made with ONE maker at a time, and it may be that maker X does not make a loud blanca, or perhaps a negra flamenca that is too "classical" sounding. Etc, but the "problems" dont' make an easy test to determine truely which wood is better for "projection". As Anders always simply puts, it is a combo of all the factors together that makes the guitar sound like it will in the end. For sure a Paper mache Conde won't sound or respond the same as the Conde A26 blanca. Ricardo For sure, most of the negras I see nowadays would better be described as classics with low action and a golpeador. The bodies are too deep and the voices too round (strictly my opinion you understand). I think the luthiers are intentionally making them with that kind of voice because that's what the players want. It has little to do with the wood on the back and sides. By the way, I suspect a paper mache Conde with a great piece of topwood would undoubtedly sound better than an A26 with lousy topwood.
_____________________________
John Shelton - www.sheltonfarrettaguitars.com
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 8 2007 0:18:14
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14826
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
RE: Rosewood Versus Cypress (in reply to jshelton5040)
|
|
|
quote:
If the difference is so subtle and nebulous how can you be certain it's the wood on the back and sides and not some other factor that makes the guitar sound a certain way? Do you really think that the wood on the back and sides can affect the playability? To the outside observer, the difference is not so clear. So hearing the guitar without seeing it, some one guessing if it is a blanca or negra or maple back guitar, might not be able to tell. But for the player, part of "playability" is the way the guitar responds. All other things considered equal (maker, top wood is good and same type, etc) a player can tell the difference between a negra or blanca, even blind folded. Wish we could do a test like this of some sort, it would be very interesting. Anyway, I have not yet played a negra that responded "like a blanca", though I have played some low end blancas that were more "classical" sounding. I will test myself with my friends help when I get a chance, and then test some students. Anyway, there is a reason for example players prefer a certain details about a guitar, and I feel the wood on the back and sides is more than asthetics. Ricardo Edit also about the 6 inches from the hole issue of sound, I will say I have different ways to eq the live sound of various guitars depending on if they are negra or blanca etc. Perhaps the differences seem small to some but to me, they are really significant. The difference between having your guitar sound clear and full, or like a tin can, or like mud.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 8 2007 6:00:10
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.078125 secs.
|