Front/back Laminates - Tone?

[MescaBug]

A client came yesterday for a quick guitar setup. He took a look at an unfinished LP I'm working on, with the standard maple top.

He asked me why the cap is always on top. Except for non-solid finish of course. He really caught me off-guard I didn't really know what to answer. It's being going on in my mind since, you know, wondering if a back-cap instead of a top-cap, would affect the tone.

I never tried it, never even thought of trying it. It's like going to other way around! I usually don't ask myself too much questions about all the little details that can affect tone, but this one is kinda interesting.

Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Edited March 3, 2008 by MescaBug

[Daniel Sorbera]

It's for looks. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a double blind test.

[WezV]

i am of the firm belief that stuff directly in the string path has a greater impact on tone than stuff on the periphery. Hence the neck laminates on a neckthrough are more important to the sound than the wings - although obviously both play a role in tone shaping.

i think that the fact the bridge on a les paul is directly mounted to maple will affect the tone differently to having the bridge mounted to mahogany with a maple back.

but thats just speculation and like daniel i dont think the difference will be huge, and of course the infinate variability of wood also plays a role

[Geo]

I'd have to agree with Wez. Every time a wave comes down a string, it bounces off that bridge, which is anchored into the maple. So the maple and the bridge determine the way in which that wave is reflected back into the string. Of course you have to consider every other variable too... neck joint, frets, fingerboard, etc. etc.

[Xanthus]

And if you use a TOM bridge, build a 3" thick neckthrough and you're all set The posts will land smack in the middle between the neck/body laminates.

I'm with y'all others on the fact that top wood does matter more than bottom, but I'm also thinking, in answer to Mesca's question, that the top cap is for practical reasons as well. I mean, think of trying to build an LP with a back cap instead. I feel like the cap was a natural evolution of the pickguard, for the same easy construction without the look of plastic. Just a thought.

[Geo]

I feel like the cap was a natural evolution of the pickguard, for the same easy construction without the look of plastic. Just a thought.

Could be.

My guess is that the maple cap is an evolution from the archtop guitars that Gibson was building when they designed the Les Paul. Melvyn Hiscock brings this up, how the Les Paul is basically a small, solid version of an archtop.

[fryovanni]

I feel like the cap was a natural evolution of the pickguard, for the same easy construction without the look of plastic. Just a thought.

Could be.

My guess is that the maple cap is an evolution from the archtop guitars that Gibson was building when they designed the Les Paul. Melvyn Hiscock brings this up, how the Les Paul is basically a small, solid version of an archtop.

Looks like a small version of an archtop or semi (335-esc).

I suspect looks play a big role in top selection, and that since the top is what people would see generally that would be the sensable place to put it. I think a lot of carved tops(solid body) are emulating the appearance of an archtop, as well as for ergonomic considerations. Although the degree of tonal or performance significance can be debated and theorised on till the cows come home, any part of the instrument will effect it to some extent. Top/Back, what would the difference be? very difficult to answer with more than a hunch to back up your answer. However, that is the case with many things on our instruments, so use, test, build to your theories. Be gentle when preaching absolutes to a customer, but every builder should convey what they believe is the case to a client (kinda why they are coming to you as a builder).

Peace,Rich

[Mattia]

Yup, you got it backwards; Les Pauls have pickguards, remember; they're also built in the style of acoustic archtop guitars. Mahogany isn't a terribly attractive wood (supposedly, to some), and maple is a traditional wood for both archtop guitars and violin family instruments, and Gibson wanted to remain in 'tradition' land, where Fender ran off and invented the mass produced electric.

[Daniel Sorbera]

When looking at how guitars have been made for the last 50 years (ie fenders and gibsons) it's important to note that they used what woods/design elements they could that were cheap and easy to make.

The reason fender used alder and swamp ash is not because they have some magical amazing tone, it's because they were easy to source and were cheap at the time. The same goes for the mahogany gibson, mahogany was very easy to come by back then, they used it to make house studs if you can believe that.

So my point is don't be afraid to try something new just because it's not like anything else in the market. Go ahead and make that osage orange solid body carved top electric with a piezo bridge, or whatever else you would never see from a factory. It has the same chances of turning out to be a nice guitar as something more traditional.

[fryovanni]

Good points, it is important to remember any factory has many things to consider when figuring out what woods to use. From a selling point of view, tradition, what the market accepts as "good" wood, looks, weight (remember heavy has been percieved by the market as better, as well as lighter). Availability, reliability of source (in volume) , will the material be available for many years, stability of the material, how well it machines and how tuff it is on tools, how difficult it is to finish and so forth. All of these are considered. If a major manufacturer uses any wood in volume for production it has to fit well into their process and not be prone to warrenty issues (else they will not use it). Large factories will choose the best fit. Smaller shops have the luxery of not having to worry about many of these things, and thus you will see more variety in material selection. However they still have to meet the demands of the market(or its perceptions) and produce a viable instrument that will hold up.

We get great information from what they choose in terms of stability, and workability. We shouldn't read too much into the "tonal" reasoning. Basically because we have no idea what drove the decision (as it relates to the market).

Peace,Rich

[MescaBug]

Be gentle when preaching absolutes to a customer, but every builder should convey what they believe is the case to a client (kinda why they are coming to you as a builder).

And that's exactly why I didn't give him an answer. I won't start telling him theories about front/back cap just to sound like a genius or something. I had no clue, so I told him the truth.

Good points, it is important to remember any factory has many things to consider when figuring out what woods to use.

Very true. I'm doing a Wenge/Birdseye maple Soloist type right now. I'm doing it for testing purpose, it's not for a customer. I don't think any factory would have Wenge guitars in their inventory. Simply because it is harder to get, cost more and you never really know how it will sound because very few guitars were built with it. It's not like alder, or ash when you have a very idea of the tone you will get.

The idea about building guitars is to innovate and try something different. Like a back cap for example. I will definitely give it a try and let you know how it comes out.

Don't want to jack-thread, but here is a picture of that build. Very nice so far. Wenge/Maple contrast is very attractive. No need to post in the Progress/Finished section 'til I got all my pictures right? There is too much of that already..

Edited March 5, 2008 by MescaBug

[Daniel Sorbera]

I've built plenty of guitars out of wenge and they all turned out great. Amazing sound, a bit on the heavy side, and pretty hard to work/finish. But it does make a good looking guitar (especially as a back wood with a maple cap thrown on for good measure).

[MescaBug]

I saw your Wenge builds Daniel, and I must say they are very nice. I actually bought the wenge board after seeing your post. I was looking around the wood shop, looking for new ideas, and remembered your Wenge guitar as soon as I saw the wenge.

Edited March 5, 2008 by MescaBug

[fryovanni]

You don't really see a lot of guitars built out of Wenge (might be weight as the current market seems to favor light weight guitars, finish is a little tougher, and it is a more expensive wood). You do see it used a bit on bass guitars, but that would be a more favorable market I suppose.

I used Wenge on a neck years ago, and didn't care much for the workability (I am probably lazy). It is a great looking wood, and has cool potential for acoustic back and sides. A wood I need to put back on my list of things to re-visit.

Peace,Rich

[Daniel Sorbera]

It really is a pain to work and even more of a pain to finish.

[MescaBug]

Surprisingly, I had no problem whatsoever working with wenge. After reading a lot about how difficult it is to work with wenge, I was surprised how easy it is to cut, route, rasp and sand. You have to be very careful though, because it splinters very easily. Seriously, I've had harder times with some maples, walnuts.. and Jatoba.

The only things I didn't like, is that it clogs router bits and saw blades fast. It is very oily. And it makes a disastrous mess in the shop.

Edited March 5, 2008 by MescaBug

[Mattia]

...and that's what we mere mortals call 'difficult to work'; splitty, dulls bits, messy, crack-prone if whacked all that.

Maple is maple, hard but easy to work/predictable, and I've met few woods that are easier to cut, carve, glue and scrape than Walnut...