Talk:Tonewood

Quick review question Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? They are underrepresented, most of the types of wood described have yet to be expounded on. I would like to see sound properties of each material explored more in depth as well as better structure and organization when more material is added. Woodywood196 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

All good intentions of the author aside, it is very clear the author's central focus is North american acoustic guitars, still, it uses north american electric guitars as examples for the sound qualities of each tonewood. The world is bigger than america, and there are more instruments in the world than only guitars. What works good on guitars might not work good on oboes for instance. Both can be made of wood, so by definition that is tonewood. I propose a leaner article titled tonewood, and to rename this one guitar tonewood. It still contains a lot of non-neutral points of view, as the interpretation of tonal qualities by ear is never an exact science maybe it should even


 * The author's bigger problem is that none of his assertions are sourced. Buster 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also be mentioned that the shape of the soundhole and internal volume of an instument determine much of its tonal qualities, maybe even more that the type of wood used in it's construction.

(I just added a couple of corrections to the first discussion article)

Avyfain 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I more would like to see this discussion extend to the bass guitar, for some characteristics might be so on a guitar, and not so on the bass (due to different frequencies, body thicknesses, and stringtension etc...)

I have edited this page with content specific to acoustic guitars and removed the reference to electric guitars within the acoustic guitar section. I have also expanded on the species of tonewoods that fall under the catergory of East Indian rosewood and mahogany. Pakhanuk 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that there is a load of stuff about Martin in the Brazilian rosewood section? just seems odd, lots of luthiers will use brazilian rose wood if you are willing to pay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.245.114 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

unreliable article
Why is it that the greatest tone wood in all history, that used by Stadivarius (and others of his stature), only given the briefest, passing mention in this article? RichardJ Christie 09:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you've probably also noticed that the article is almost completely guitar-centric; not surprising, given the dodgy provenance of most Wikipedia articles (i.e., some guy interested in some subject to the exclusion of all else). That's why, I guess. +ILike2BeAnonymous 09:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Partly true, yes. We need a professional luthiers to contribute to this article, and not just guitar luthiers, mind you. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to address guitars as they seem to occupy most of this strange article. Tonewood on an acoustic guitar is, almost by definition, the timber used in the soundboard. Torres demonstrated 150 years ago that the back and sides have overwhelmingly less influence on tone and projection. Timber for neck, back and sides is chosen primarily for structural and aesthetic reasons, in general the harder and more sonically reflective the back and sides are, the better. Therefore most of the timbers listed in this article under "acoustic guitar" and "back and sides" have NO place in this article at all. I do not deny each structural timber (back, sides, neck) lends, to a point, differing sonic signatures toward an instrument's sound, but this does NOT qualify them to be defined as tonewoods. Nor, imo, can timbers used for solid body electric guitars be rightly defined as tonewoods. These timbers were initially chosen 60 years ago by Fender and Gibson etc for structural, weight, aesthetic, cost and supply reasons. The sheer diversity of timbers used for solid body instruments and back and sides of acoustic guitars provides ample evidence for this observation.

Historically the greatest tonewood has been the now scarce European Spruce and similar species. It is found in the finest instruments of the violin family, the soundboards of the great pianos, and, incidentally, in many of the finest guitars. Sitka and Engelmann Spruce are fine new-world substitutes and the luthiers of the Ramirez family of Madrid (specifically Jose Ramirez III) demonstrated the excellent qualities of western red cedar.

And what about woodwind? I'd be hesitant to include ebony and close substitutes as tone woods. They are used because they don't vibrate or colour the sound, they are dense, reasonably stable and reflective. The very same reasons they and similar timbers are used for fingerboards etc.

I'd delete 90% of this article. RichardJ Christie (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit: Well, not necessarily delete, but perhaps put most material into a new article not named tonewood. 121.72.32.80 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not delete it? The author seems to feel it's ok to create an article that adheres to none of the wiki standards so he can ruminate on personal opinions of acoustic tonewoods. Without a single reference cited I can conclude that the article is probably completely inaccurate. Why should I think otherwise? Buster (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Being as this is a very guitar centered page, can we create a section for electric guitars? tis just pointless an confusing having them in the acoustic guitar back and sides section, or if they are going to stay there (for some strange reason) can we atleast give mahogany a mention as a tone wood for electric guitars, cause it is one of the most popular choices of electric guitar wood. Also the Red Spruce mention needs a clean up. Many vintage guitars had red spruce tops, not just martins, and also it contradicts itself saying "Adirondack has been unavailable since the mid-1940s" then saying that people are still using it. The former need rewording to something like "Adirondack spruce has been extremely scarce" or something similar just to stop the contradiction. I also think that saying BRW looks almost the same as IRW is a fallacy. saying it looks like cocobolo is okay, but not IRW. a better explaination is needed.

also, maybe making 3 sub catagories (Top wood, back and sides, and top back and side woods). being as koa and mahogany are only really used as top woods if the back and sides are also of said wood, (i realise i have made my point poorly here, i am sorry, i cant think of a way to word it correctly) instead of 2, or atleast mentioning the fact that the koa and mahogany chose for the top has to have very different properties to the back and side wood

then maybe even making these catagories sub catagries. give a brief description of the desirable properties of back and side woods, then going through rosewoods, maples, cypresses and mahoganies. then going through different species of these woods, showing how the properties change. same can done for top woods: spruce and cypress. then on both, the more common woods that do not fit into these categories can be briefly explained. This would allow a more casual browser to go however deep into the information. i think at the end of this article, if the reader ever goes into a guitarshop they should be able to identify what woods are being used where on the guitar, and why.

ofcourse, it would be great if we could to this for ever wodden instrument, but that is beyond anything i know. just my 2pence worth(86.20.244.54 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Passing Comments for what they're worth
This is my first venture into Wikipedia, so much of this may be off base.

First, by way of intro, I'm a long time player (50 + years) and neophyte maker of acoustic stringed instruments. I found the article reasonably accurate and informative. A number of the technical points are pertinent and worth incorporating into a revision of the article. The criticisms that the article is overly "guitar-centric" might be tempered a bit. The information applies equally to a wide range of instruments that are becoming increasingly popular. (My present project is an example: An Irish bouzouki with a 25.4 inch scale length. I think it's representative of a growing trend in acoustic instruments--that is the combination of traditional concepts to create "new" instruments.  My understanding is that this particular instrument was introduced in the 1960's.  I believe that the use of the 25.4 inch scale length is a more recent wrinkle. (The scale length pays homage to the dreadnought built by the company whose name I will not reference for fear of being accused of advertising for them)

On the question of what should and shouldn't be considered a "tonewood." I appreciate the point one commenter made about the relative contributions of backs and sides. At the same time, as a beginning luthier I do a fair amount of Web searching and reading on the subject. My impression is that, while strictly speaking the comment may be correct, when I search for tonewoods, the responses generally lump backs, sides, and tops in the category. When it comes to precise use of language, I tend to be compulsive. So normally I'd be spring-loaded to jump in on the side of the commenter to fight the trend toward inexactness. In this case, however, tolerance may be in order, even though, based on a lot of reading and a negligible amount of first-hand experience I believe he is technically right. I've read about instruments with half-inch thick sides that by all accounts played just fine.

On the flip side, there are a whole slew of luthiers (again, judging from the literature) that are into tap-tuning every splinter of wood that goes into their instruments. From the photos, their shops have the sophistication of the average particle physics lab. The majority of luthiers today appear to fall into this category, in terms of belief if not practice. Finally, on this side of the argument, one of the writers from this school of thought (and no, I don't recall the reference), made a pretty compelling argument that the flexibility and response of the neck of a guitar had a major affect on tonal quality. So while personally I come down on the side of another author (again, no reference handy, sorry) who observed that the critical thing in instrument making was to build a strong box, there are a lot of different views and perspectives, and articles like this should probably err on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.

Or, alternatively, the title of the article should be changed to something less inclusive. (My experience with using Wikimedia is that changing titles falls into the "don't try this at home kids" box.)

Which leads me to the last point. My understanding has always been that the purpose of the Wiki was to provide an effective collaborative environment for sharing views and evolving sound articles. While I understand the importance of quality and accuracy, the recent insistence of having a reference for every other word seems to fly in the face of the basic concept. In the case of this article, there appeared to be considerable sentiment to reject the article out of hand because it is just one man's opinion. If, in fact, Wikipedia did what I thought it did, it might serve as an initial draft of an article that would ultimately reflect the consensus of a number of truly knowledgeable people. Again, an example from this discussion, the comment that koa, mahogany, and maple (if memory serves) are used for tops, but generally only if the rest of the instrument is made of the same material added value.

My thanks to any readers who take the time to wade through all this. Hope it helps. On a personal note, again based on how I understood Wikipedia was supposed to work, I've been playing with some Ming dynasty Chinese elm, and one of the projects in the queue is to use it for backs and sides of an instrument. It's hard enough to be used for flooring. The samples I've gotten ring nicely when tapped, and I've successfully bent it to about an 3 cm radius without having it come apart. If it works, this is the kind of information that a Wikipedia ought to capture and disseminate.

Neolute (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Neolute
 * Well, the article is still here. Perhaps it needs a preamble explaining the various functions of woods in respect to their structural role in musical instruments. Then the material presented in the article will have a better context. I recant, I now agree current information ought not be lost. RichardJ Christie (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

still here...??
Inspite of the good intentions of the writer(s), the article does not meet Wiki standards as I understand them. main objection: it is a 'coatrack' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack) Meaning the article is not about 'tonewoods', but about woods used in some instruments (read GUITAR) of North American lutherie. A perfect example of tunnelvision. Not a word about the xylophone, clarinets or...

furthermore:

"Tonewood is the term generally used to designate wood with recognized and consistent acoustic qualities when used in the making of musical instruments." >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

The type of wood used on stringed instruments (such as a lute, a violin or a guitar) is a much debated factor contributing to its tone. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL

"A musical instrument is usually made with several kinds of wood." eeeuh... 'guitar', or 'musical instrument'? What about: woodblock, bamboo chimes, xylophone, castagnette, clarinet, church-organs, all kinds of flutes.... synthesizers, trombones, gongs... are they "usually made with several kinds of wood"?

"In parts of the instrument not responsible for generating tone, woods are selected for other reasons: a hard wood for the fingerboard, an easily-worked wood for decoration, and so forth." Would like to see a quotation on that (Because I do not agree at all!)

"The woods that don't absorb and deaden the sound are considered "tonewoods"." >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.51.32 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)==Rewrite== In what may prove to be an unpopular move I have completely scrapped this article and written a new one. It should serve as a better starting point. It is still somewhat centered on Western stringed instruments but I think there is a good framework for people to add woods that are used for other instruments. I have avoided any hint of the vague acoustic properties that are often assigned to different woods. I don't dispute that some of these exist, but they can only be discussed in the context of a specific instrument (best case) and don't belong in this article. Zhyla (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, at least one person disagrees with my rewrite. I don't care so much about my version of the article, but the original is trash and has been flagged with multiple issues for FOUR YEARS. Let's start over and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhyla (talk • contribs)

Another opinion I edited the article to correct some misleading terms and remove sweeping generalizations etc. This is a tough topic to cover. I suggest that this article be retitled "Guitar tonewoods" as others have said it focuses on guitars. I would be willing to help rewrite the article and help provide some citations unfortunately much of this is a collection of individual luthiers experiences. If people are looking for scientific texts that discuss the many aspects of "tonewoods" I think they are scarce. I'm new to wikipedia so any input would be helpful. RobertGower (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Electric Guitar Tonewood Controversy
There is a contentious debate among luthiers and guitarists about the extent to which tonewoods affect the tone of electric instruments.

First off, it's worth noting that acoustic and electric stringed instruments produce sound in different ways. An acoustic stringed instrument creates a compression wave that is projected into the air surrounding the instrument by the vibrations of its body and air oscillations around its sound holes.

Electric instruments, on the other hand, produce sound by converting the vibrations of metal strings to an electronic signal via the disturbance of the magnetic field surrounding their pickups. Electric guitar pickups are not mircophonic, so there is debate about the extent to which the body material affects the sonic qualities of the instrument (outside of the sustain provided by different materials).

I think this debate is worth a treatment in this article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakrakhan (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tonewood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503050132/http://www.hvgb.net:80/~tonewood/servicepage.htm to http://www.hvgb.net/~tonewood/servicepage.htm
 * Added tag to http://luthierbuilt.net
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714123508/http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/woods to http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/features/woods

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)