# Mahogany or Rosewood ???



## harrym (Jan 19, 2010)

I would like some valued opinions of the different guitar sound of Mahogany or Rosewood back and sides. This is assuming the same guitars just with the different woods.

Harry


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I love the smell and snap of rosewood, and the hollow woodiness of the 'hog.

I vote one of each.


----------



## Mike MacLeod (Nov 27, 2006)

I'm with Sneaky on this one. As my wife says: "You can't have too many guitars, mandolins, motorcycles, or sportscars!!" 
She's a keeper BTW!!

When I look at my personal collection of 30+ vintage guitars, I see that 85% are Mahogany! I still like rosewood too, but it's an interesting ratio. I think it says a lot. I like the dryness and detail in Mahogany. I also like the rich sound of rosewood. Different horses for different courses. 

Just buy a good guitar that speaks to you. Then buy the other one.


----------



## harrym (Jan 19, 2010)

Whats the noticable difference you find in the sound.


----------



## Stephen W. (Jun 7, 2006)

Mahogany is considered to produce a warm, mellow, well rounded tone. That is to say, it seems to favour the mids so you are never over powered by a heavy bass presence or harsh trebles. More subtle and subdued the harmonics and overtones will play off of each other at the expense of less sustain.

Rosewood is sonically more reflective, producing full, deep basses, rich mids and brighter trebles. The attack will be immediate. This is why many players when they really dig in refer to their rosewood guitars as "canons".

It may be hard to understand terms like "warm" or "woody" if you've not played or heard lots of different guitars. Lets see if I can explain in a way that's easy for the uninitiated to understand.

Think of yourself lying on warm sunny beach. You hear the surf as it rolls up and engulfs your body with a gentle flow of warm water. Then it rolls back out and a moment later it's repeated. It's warm, gentle, relaxing and therapeutic all at once. That's mahogany.
Now, imagine yourself standing at the base of a high cliff. Suddenly, someone releases hundreds of gallons of water from above and you're instantly hit with the full force of the waterfall. It's exciting, exhilarating, makes you feel alive. That's rosewood.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

*Dang thats hard*

I have a spot in my heart for both I love the rosewood boom, and yet at the same time I truely love the sound that the Mahogany makes and I am thank full that others are trying to tackle that hard part of trying to explain the sound.
What we really need to do here is convince you that you really need to have at the very least one of both and that way we won't need to try to help you figure it out. Okay I know not realistic but its really the only way for one to truely understand the differences.Ship


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Actually, I've become a big fan of maple.:smilie_flagge17: I'm on my second maple guitar and I've loved them both. Its brighter and I play a dreadnought which inherently has a lot of bottom end, so it gives me a nice full range sound.


----------



## -TJ- (Aug 28, 2006)

I like both.... for certain models though, I have found a preference for one over the other....

for example; when I was shopping for a dread, I was settled on either the Larrivee D60 (rosewood) and the Larrivee D50 (mahogany), and I prefered the D50 quite a bit

recently, when shopping for a classical, the rosewood models were my favourite and I ended up with a nice cedar/rosewood takamine

I would like to own a maple backed jumbo too, but all the gibsons I have tried cost more than I am willing to pay for the quality/tone they offer


----------



## Mike MacLeod (Nov 27, 2006)

You are going to have more than one guitar anyway. Buy the one that speaks to you now and then when you are ready for a different voice you'll go looking for another guitar.

On the Maple issue. I honestly don't know why Maple has never spoken to me. Though I do have several carved archtops with Maple. Hmmm. Maybe it's time to buy a Maple guitar?


----------



## gtract (Jan 18, 2008)

I agree with everyone (namby pamby, I know.), although I'd have a rosewood guitar if I could only have one. There's a great article, called "Tapping Tonewoods", that Dana Bourgeois wrote for, I believe, Acoustic Guitar several years ago. If you Google the term, you'll find what I think are the best descriptions and comparisons of the tones of various woods. Excellent article that makes sense to musicians. Hope you like it. Take care.
Dave.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

In my opinion the builder has a very strong influence on the sound, perhaps even more so than the tonewood used.

A Larrivee in mahogany, rosewood or lacewood retains the distinct signature sound of a Larrivee, with some subtle shades of difference. The same holds true with most builders.


----------



## zeebee (Nov 2, 2008)

ronmac said:


> In my opinion the builder has a very strong influence on the sound, perhaps even more so than the tonewood used.
> 
> +1. Most luthiers will also tell you that 98% of the tone is generated and coloured by the top. If the soundboard if the filet, then the tonewood is the seasoning.


----------



## Ian John (Aug 11, 2009)

I find rosewood and mahogany to be more of the same tone compared to maple or cherry. Rosewood,mahogany being warm and maple,cherry being brighter. I have two dreads that I built very similar, with cedar tops braced the same but one is rosewood and one is cherry. They sound very close to each other with the exception of the cherry being brighter. I do not believe I could make them sound identical because the back and side woods are part of the equation.
I find the wood choices go best with what you are trying to achieve, a guitar that is being played on it's own has less of an impact as to say singing with the guitar. Rosewood and mahogany is better for male voices and maple or cherry being better for female voices. 

Regards Ian


----------



## harrym (Jan 19, 2010)

Wow, there are some great opinions here. Some things I would never have thought of.


----------



## Alain Moisan (Jan 16, 2010)

zeebee said:


> ronmac said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the builder has a very strong influence on the sound, perhaps even more so than the tonewood used..
> ...


My opinion is in that direction, but the soundboard doesn't resolve the entire tone equation on it's own. An important part of the tone comes from the back as well. Strum your guitar while the back is muffled (lying on the bed, for example) and compare the sound when it's not muffled and you will easily grasp the importance of the back. Not so much related to the nature of the wood it was made with but rather to how it was built. Also, the depth of the box has a tremandous impact on the balance of sound. Plus or minus a 1/4" on the depth makes all the difference in the world regarding bass response.

Usually, the difference in tone I hear between two guitars I made (of the same model) with different woods for back and sides do not sound more different between one another than two guitars made with the same wood.

My 2 cents...


@zeebee: Funny, I use the same expression, "seasoning" when talking about the impact of the back and sides on tone.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

I love rosewood. It's just so much richer sounding to me. I think I'd take maple second.

I recently went acoustic shopping with/for a friend, I played every wood type hanging on the wall. He liked the sound of rosewood. He ended up buying a Larivee D-03R, it sounded the best to him and the price was pretty close to his budget.


----------

