Laminate Vs. Solid Wood

[wierdOne]

In regards to archtops, what's the difference playing/tonal wise?

I know the structural differences.... but ear wise.... any difference?

Edited July 28, 2006 by wierdOne

[Hoser Rob]

Yes, there's going to be a difference. More subtle if the top is solid ... that's where the sound really comes from on a guitar, the B & S just color the sound ... and quite pronounced if the top is laminated too.

[Dave I]

Yes, there's going to be a difference. More subtle if the top is solid ... that's where the sound really comes from on a guitar, the B & S just color the sound ... and quite pronounced if the top is laminated too.

After doing some searches, I never found a definitive answer to what that difference was.

A few follow-up questions:

1) What difference does it make between solid-wood top, back, & sides, and replacing the top, or all three with laminate or plywood? Either in a semi-hollow (E-335 type meant for going solely through an amp), hollow acoustic/electric, and a full-blown archtop jazz guitar. I know there are no absolutes, but generally speaking . . .

2) Is one better than the other for a first-time semi-hollow, flattop acoustic, or archtop builder? For instance, do most people start out with prefabricated laminate tops and then work their way to carving solid-wood archtops, or is there a place for both depending on intended use?

3) Is laminate or plywood ever desirable over solidwood? If so, when and why? I know most commercial semi-hollows use laminate tops and backs, even most of the priciest models including ones played by professional musicians like B.B. King, so they must sound at least acceptable, if not preferable.

-Cheers

[Hector]

3) Is laminate or plywood ever desirable over solidwood? If so, when and why? I know most commercial semi-hollows use laminate tops and backs, even most of the priciest models including ones played by professional musicians like B.B. King, so they must sound at least acceptable, if not preferable.

-Cheers

I think that most commercial semi hollows use laminated tops and backs just because they can. because they have the technology, and have ways to do it, and that saves a lot of wood and money. If they used solid wood, the amount of waste would be huge.

I don't think the sound difference would be gigantic in a semi hollow. but I know that for archtop guitars a solid spruce top gives a much nicer sound. and that's why archtops with solid top/back&sides are so expensive. they have to start with a large block (wedges) of wood, carve most of it out, and then you're left with a thin top.

[fryovanni]

I think you would have to look at three different styles of guitars differently. The semi-hollow (335-ish) does not rely on the box to produce sound(that would be the pickups), you are using the body to modify the resonance. An acoustic/electric is looking to create a slightly less synthasized sounding guitar even though you are using electronics. So you are trying to modify the effect of the string on piezo's. Again not trying to generate sound with the box so much. In those cases the difference may be less significant, although a consideration.

The last example the Archtop, does rely on the box to generate it's sound. The top plate structurally plays a very important role, as well as the back plate. Most would say the recurve of the back is where a lot of the magic happens as this is where you are going to control the flexability of the plate to a great extent. As far as laminates being good or bad, that would be hard to say for sure on an archtop, because you are contending with a great deal of face runnout by carving a solid. Laminated wood to me is not as resonant (from my experience) but does have nice stability and strength. Personally I would go ask around a forum that has a group of people who specialize in archtops. Those people are very in touch with the design considerations (which are probably even more significant (although the two kinda go hand in hand) than the wood being laminate or solid).

Peace, Rich