Tonewoods 101 - Frequency Ranges

[Guitarsan]

Being a visual kind of guy, I always thought this Taylor chart did a great job of summarizing the frequency response of various tonewoods.

Note not just the range, but the "curve" of each and the "dashes". For example, Mahogany has an elevated midrange denoting it's warmth and Koa's bass is what opens up over time.

Hope this is helpful!

Scott

[Strumming Fool]

The most impressive visual for me is ovangkol. It's such an underrated tonewood. I love my sinker/ovangkol GA - tonally satisfying to say the least!

[TaylorGirl]

The most impressive visual for me is ovangkol. It's such an underrated tonewood. I love my sinker/ovangkol GA - tonally satisfying to say the least!

I agree. My 414 has really opened up through the years and sounds wonderful.

[mgap]

Cocobolo is another one that impresses.  It has a wide range, although not as low as Ovangkol and Rosewood, it gets down there almost as low.  It does go to the high frequency, as high as Maple and Koa, but , it is the most evenly balance with the widest range.  It is one of my favorites.

[Edward]

Funny thing for me, personally, is that this chart that Taylor had published quite some ago used to make sense in my head, but after having played many Taylors and non-Ts in these many years, I've found these generalizations to be less-and-less valid.  Not trying to be a contrarian at all since I had bought into this "tone chart" in the past, but I've found that it truly is "the build" and the myriad vagaries that exist between each guitar that creates the lion's share of a guitar's voice.  FWIW, I've had maple that was bright and thin, and others thick and rich; ovankol with shallow botttom, mahog that was seriously deep, koa that has left me utterly uninspired, and currently macassar that is far deeper-voiced than any rw I've ever owned/played.  Enough "exceptions" to the chart to make me go hmmmmph, especially of these last couple o' years that Powers has been using the same woods but Taylors have been conspicuously sonically different.  All IMHO, of course, but I've now come to put very little stock in wood species = x tone, particularly when a good builder is in the equation ...yes, in my mind that means Taylor's production line guits as well as the so-called boutique builds

So while woods clearly have a sonic personality, I think of it as more of a tonal foundation per given species that one then builds upon to ultimately give the guitar its final character.  That said, I still love cedar/rw regardless...hahaha!  Happy Labor-day weekend all! 

Edward

[Guitarsan]

Funny thing for me, personally, is that this chart that Taylor had published quite some ago used to make sense in my head, but after having played many Taylors and non-Ts in these many years, I've found these generalizations to be less-and-less valid.  Not trying to be a contrarian at all since I had bought into this "tone chart" in the past, but I've found that it truly is "the build" and the myriad vagaries that exist between each guitar that creates the lion's share of a guitar's voice.  FWIW, I've had maple that was bright and thin, and others thick and rich; ovankol with shallow botttom, mahog that was seriously deep, koa that has left me utterly uninspired, and currently macassar that is far deeper-voiced than any rw I've ever owned/played.  Enough "exceptions" to the chart to make me go hmmmmph, especially of these last couple o' years that Powers has been using the same woods but Taylors have been conspicuously sonically different.  All IMHO, of course, but I've now come to put very little stock in wood species = x tone, particularly when a good builder is in the equation ...yes, in my mind that means Taylor's production line guits as well as the so-called boutique builds

So while woods clearly have a sonic personality, I think of it as more of a tonal foundation per given species that one then builds upon to ultimately give the guitar its final character.  That said, I still love cedar/rw regardless...hahaha!  Happy Labor-day weekend all! 

Edward

All very valid points about tone!.

For others, don't think of this as the "be all" in making decisions on tone woods. It's simply showing typical Frequency Response of various tonewoods.

To your point, tone is the sum of construction techniques, all materials including bracing, etc. and then there are other things to consider like overtones/harmonics, presence, decay, and on and on.

But, for understanding frequency response, a major component of tone, this is helpful to understand differences.

Lastly, to sum up, no amount of internet pontification should override what your ears tell you.  Great conversation!