- Aug 25, 2009
- Reaction score
He has an opinion on the subject and shared it; is that not allowed?If the discussion doesn’t interest you, you can always use that X on your browser tab and close it. Or you can add something useful if you have anything along those lines. That’s always appreciated.
He has an opinion on the subject and shared it; is that not allowed?
Agree.....wasn't sure who he/she was in context.Re: Dana Bourgeois. He is an acoustic maker, and I agree 100% - wood matters a lot in an acoustic.
In terms of energy.....its sort of one and the same. Tone is merely the balance of frequencies being sustained. As long as the parent tree was not diseased, such that there is rotted wood, then there is no reason to think any grain produced by a tree is detrimental. Given we are talking mahogany, there is no reason to think that cells would be poorly formed with swirly grain.One thing I would like to clarify is that I’m not talking about tone here. I’m considering it from a resonance and sustain perspective. I think it’s important to make that distinction.
You sure had me going. Haha, brilliant.Science has shown that the granular deposits of silica within certain grain patterns form a more condusive flow for lower frequencies which, depending on the direction of the grain patterns can be manipulated in such a way as to act as a tone variable.
Attempts by a Russian luthier at creating a grain pattern which could mimic a low pass filter resulting in a scooped "airy" natural resonance were only successful with a particular strain of mahogany. Maple never exhibited these tendencies.
I wonder how many thought "well, I'll be" after reading my 100% made up bullshit, lmao.
Posting this here because it's not just Historic/Reissue specific. This might seem crazy or anal, but bear with me. We're not all here discussing these things because we don't care. I also have to make a decision on this one in the next 24 hours.
I'm currently in discussion with Gibson for a replacement on my 60th Anniversary V1 R0 that went if for warranty work right after I got it (finish issues). I did get it back and it came back with a ding on the back and the case wasn't mine. Gibson said they would be willing to do a replacement. Based on my preferences in a guitar, they sent over pictures of a potential replacement (I already turned one down due to a ho hum top).
The guitar is beautiful, but I'm slightly concerned about the back. It has the most swirl I've ever seen in an LP back and somewhere along the way, I read (via an interview with some reknown major company builder who escapes me at the moment) that the most resonant and best sustaining guitars tend to have straight grain. A bit of figuring wouldn't concern me, but I'll let the picture speak for itself:
Again, that's the most I've ever seen (along with perhaps a bit of distortion in the grain at points). The idea that a straight grain would lead to best energy transferral and, thus, best resonance and sustain, seems to make sense. SO, with that in mind, does anyone have any input into that based on their own experience? Please, take it easy on me if you have strong feelings about it. We're talking about a $6500 guitar here and I just don't want to get stuck with a dog, especially since the first one is actually a very nice guitar.