Laminated Wood for Back and Side

[sseow]

anyone of you have experience with guitar built with laminated rosewood back and side..?? I have some mixed opinion from different group... some thought that laminated is stronger, especially for weather sensitivity.
or it is just perception that solid wood back and side is more "solid" in sound ?
i know that the great Smallman built the best guitar in world using laminated. there are also many top builder in the world offer laminated back and side instrument.

[NewLuthier]

laminated back & sides are no doubt inferior, but they do have some unique qualities. The most important is that they're cheaper by far. The other is that they aren't as sensitive to humidity changes as solid sets. I have owned several laminated back & side instruments, and they were fine, but not as good as solid. It is more important to get a solid top than solid back and sides, but if you can afford it, I'd still go with solid everything. As far as material, there is little difference between any laminated woods. They all perform about the same, but obviously laminated rosewood will look better than lam sepele. Luthiers choose to build laminated instruments for the cost, not a desired sound.

[Dimitri]

Respectfully, I must disagree with you.

For example... Jose Ramirez 1a classicals and flamenco negras use laminated sides (they line the insides with cypress). The results are extraordinary!

Are you saying that Ramirez 1a guitars are somehow "inferior" instruments?

More and more luthiers are finding the benefits of laminated backs and sides.

That's just the plain truth.

Cheers.
Dimitri

[Dimitri]

For those of you who own Ramirez 1a guitars built in the last quarter of a century.... look inside your guitars... notice that the sides on the inside don't match the outside? The inside is much lighter... that's because it's laminated with cypress.

Lamination is not necessarily the sign of a cheap guitar. Lamination has very exciting potential.

Dimitri

[keith]

hey new luthier: greg smallman , a luthier in australia, builds his guitars using laminated backs. his guitars new, and used sell for over $20,000. john williams , for one, seems to be o.k. with this. and as dimitri said, ramirez 1a's are also laminated and i would not hesitate to own one.

now i can understand that if the wood used in the lamination process is plywood :twisted: from the home depot the guitar will probably be a dog. but given that

[Louie]

Laiminates are used for most guitars (classical) with electronics. I just bought a Cordoba CWES Flamanco and could not find another guitar (at any price, I tried to spend more) that played easier and sounded nicer, guess what, it is laminated sycamore back and sides.

Generally what I've been told is that most use laminates because of the strength when using a pick-up.

Regards

[chapmab]

I was under the impression that it wasn't only how the sound reflected off of the back wood, but how the wood resonates also. I've heard so many conflicting opinions about this I can't keep it all straight anymore.

If laminate is just as good but less expensive, why would I spend the extra $600 for solid back and sides assuming the craftmanship is the same?

In my case I'm talking about something like the Burguet 2A versus 2AM - two models which I am looking at.

Brian

[sseow]

brian, i have done some study on this topic since my last posting...the sound reprodution on the guitar is determined by the vibration of the sound board (top) and not the back and side. i have a book on "tone reproduction on classical guitar" using scientific way to analyze how guitar produces sound.... in the whole book, there is no discussion on the back and side.... it is all focus on the top. it shows the x-ray of how the sound board vibrate under different conditions.... very details analysis....nothing mention on the back and side.
so why is solid back and side more expensive... ? it is a matter of perception... for example, many of u did not realize tat video playback on CD player is only at single speed, so why the PC users are crazy with 52x speed CD-ROM 4 simple reason of : faster means better.... but in reality, it may not b the case.
i have 2 guitar, one solid and one laminated, i hv tried to give 2 friend 2 play them n no one can tell the different which is solid and which is laminated.
so the $ 600 extra u pay for the burguet 2a is the extra you are paying for the "marketing guys" who come up with this theory of solid better than laminated. the way luthier laminated the guitar is not similar to the way your home furniture being laminated. there are much more solid.
seow
singapore

[Sean Hancock]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this issue so I thought I would give some information from a luthier’s perspective.

The first thing I want to clear up is that while the soundboard is where the sound of the instrument originates, the back and sides are very important to the sound of the guitar. Simply listen to two guitars by the same maker, one with maple back and sides and one with rosewood. You will find that they sound very different. This is because the timber in the back and sides “colors” the timbre of the instruments.

There is a difference between the techniques used in Smallman style guitars and those used in mass-produced laminated instruments.

The basic formula behind Smallman style guitars, is to have a back and sides assembly which is much more rigid than on a traditional guitar with a soundboard which is extremely thin and light in mass. Laminating the back and sides is one way to increase their rigidity. There are two reasons for having the back and sides so rigid.

Firstly the soundboard is so thin that is necessary to have a strong frame to attach it to to, to prevent its collapse under the tension of the strings.

The second reason is to do with sound. The way one of these guitars works is quite different to a traditional classical. They are designed to be, above all else, loud enough to project into large halls. The body of the instrument works in a similar way to a drum or a speaker cabinet, with a sensitive diaphragm (the soundboard) attached to a rigid frame (the back and sides). At this point I would like to explain why this type of guitar has not taken over the traditional classical. While the Smallman style guitars are louder than traditional guitars and are well suited to large concerts, they do not have the same tonal character that comes from a good, all solid timber classical and are therefore not as well suited to personal playing and recording.

The laminated guitars that are cheaper versions of their solid counterparts are a different story entirely. These are built from plywood of a similar thickness to solid wood, which is usually made up of two very thin veneers on the front and back surfaces with a thicker veneer of another timber in the middle, which almost always has the grain running at 90degrees to the other two veneers. The plywood is less resonant than the solid wood and usually results in poorer sound quality than the same guitar built from all solid woods.

In the case of the Ramirez 1a I would assume that the reason the sides are laminated from cypress and rosewood is to increase the stability over the solid rosewood. The reason this is not detrimental to the sound is because both pieces, which are laminated, are from high quality timbers and they are laminated with the grain running the same way.


The reasons why solid timber guitars are more expensive are as follows-

1 the timber used costs much more than plywood

2 extra care must be taken during construction as the solid timber is far more susceptible to climate

3 the solid timber guitars are usually a higher quality overall with better machine heads etc

[M. Stephenson]

I have both laminated and solid wood back & sides classicals. All have solid tops.

One of the laminated guitars - an Aria AC-40 Concert Classical - was purchased new in the mid 70's. It has withstood the abise of High School Jazz Band as well as years of neglect as a wall hanging. Amazingly, it is still in one piece and has a what my instructor calls "The classical guitar sound". There is little doubt in my mind that the laminates have helped it withstand the test of time.

I have two all solid wood guitars, one an old Mexican classical and the other an old archtop. Both have cracks in the back. Last year I started using a himidifier in the winter when the Archtop developed a new crack.

There is much more vibration that can be felt eminating from the back of the solid wood guitars then from the laminate guitars. To me, this says the the back of the guitar is influencing the sound. Be that influence one of added/dimineshed richness or one of added/diminished volume and sustain I can not say, but both the soild wood guitars have very pleasing tones.

Given the choice, I would choose solid wood over laminates, however I think that a well built laminate guitar is much more versatile and would make a more reliable work-horse guitar.

[RDS]

I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that the Ramirez guitars were laminated with cypress to eliminate "wolf tones". Rick

[chapmab]

It's great to finally hear some good discussion about solid versus laminate!!! Thanks for the great info.

Brian

[jrethorst]

Firstly the soundboard is so thin that is necessary to have a strong frame to attach it to to, to prevent its collapse under the tension of the strings.

Do you mean that if a soundboard as thin as Smallman's is attached to solid wood sides, it might collapse? I'm not a luthier, but that doesn't make sense.

[MegaBrawn]

Personally, I'd rather not make such a sweeping statement regarding this debate.

I've have personally experienced some laminted guitar back/sides that were spectacular. I've also seen some solid back/side classicals that were REAL dogs too.

I've read somewhere that laminated b/s produced 97% of the sound of solid b/s. Now, how this 97% is calculated, I have no idea. 97% in terms of volume or 97% in terms of tonal characteristics?

But I do think that some guitarists are too worried about specifications nowadays. Laminated b/s? Brazillian rosewood? Brand name? Does anyone actually care about how the instrument feels/sounds anymore?


Hell, I'd play a guitar made out of pink aluminium foil made by chipmuncks if it sounded like a concert worthy instrument.

I guess my point it is, that various luthiers find varying degrees of success with different build methods. In the end it doesn't matter how the guitar is made, but whether or not it sounds/feels good.

Can anyone tell me that in a blindfold test they can differientiate a laminated b/s from a solid b/s conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt? I'd pay money to see that!

[flamencoguru]

I agree with MegaBrawn. I would put them to the pepsi challenge any day of the week.

I've played guitars that were laminated and they sounded great and I've played big $$ solid guitars that have sounded like garbage. It's all about the master thats building it and what his/her intentions are with the instrument.

I still believe the ultimate sound comes from the soundboard. Yes, that back and sides definitely have something to do with the sound (i.e. cypress vs. rosewood) but as Torres proved to us over a 100 years ago with the cardboard guitar, it's all about the top.


Cheers.

[Pepe Vergara]

I owned some laminated back and sides guitar that sound wonderful and do not change with humidity that much. I only make solid wood guitars, just because they sound better to me. Many luthiers laminate the sides to make them more resistant to cracks due to impact or humidity variations. Some others do it to eliminate weight. Many do it for economy, it is cheaper. Many factories do it for all the above. There are several woods used to laminate the sides, the most common is cypress because is very light. Some use a cheaper form of cypress that is known with several names. Some of the laminations, especially in cheap guitars are made with three layers of wood sandwiched with glue. The outer layer is a very thin veneer of rosewood (or whatever wood is used), the middle layer is a very cheap wood (maybe Philpines mahogany, luan? or cheaper), and the inner layer could be a very thin mahogany, luan, or something else. I do not know why Jose Ramirez III (an innovator himself) started using laminated wood for the sides. Segovia's 1966 guitar made by Ramirez had laminated sides. I recognize that the sides are very thin and are not meant to be hit. I also know that the curvature, especially at the waist, provides structural strenght. Besides, many luthiers will reinforce the sides agains cracks. I do.

Now, the back. Most likely the back of nice concert guitars is solid in concert gutiars. In many factory guitars, the same principle explained above applies. I have seen German Vasquez Rubio create what he calls the doble fondo (maybe inspired by MG Contreras). He laminates the back with Western red cedar (a wood usually used for tops) to get a warmer tone. In his case, he does not use the lamination method explain above, he actually glues two backs together. The end result would be a thicker back. As I said before, one of my best guitars is a Yamaha GD-10 which has solid spruce top and laminated Indian rosewood back and sides. A bit heavy, but with a tone compred only to the best Ramirezes I have known.

I do not use laminate wood for my guitars. I do keep a set of laminated wood to show the potential customers what they get at the store when they buy one or the other.

Check this photos: http://www.californialuthiers.com/laminate2.html

[Pepe Vergara]

Hell, I'd play a guitar made out of pink aluminium foil made by chipmuncks if it sounded like a concert worthy instrument.



You are the ideal customer. You probably play very well. Half of the people who buy expensive guitars cannot play a thing, so they cannot really hear the difference between a $500 and a $3000 guitar. They are influenced by what they hear said by others. I have heard great pieces played by good players that sounded great in a Cordoba 20. I also have a friend with a Hauser that begs to be played by someone else. However, he's got the money to buy it. Nothing we can do about it.

[Jubilee Valence]

Hell, I'd play a guitar made out of pink aluminium foil made by chipmuncks if it sounded like a concert worthy instrument.



You are the ideal customer. You probably play very well. Half of the people who buy expensive guitars cannot play a thing, so they cannot really hear the difference between a $500 and a $3000 guitar. They are influenced by what they hear said by others. I have heard great pieces played by good players that sounded great in a Cordoba 20. I also have a friend with a Hauser that begs to be played by someone else. However, he's got the money to buy it. Nothing we can do about it.--Hey Pepe & all! --AMEN to that! I brought home that R1 last monday(for radio spot/later)w/"solid Afr.Mahgny s/b" & REAL strings.I was the hotshot who could never tell the difference at the stores BUT when I played it at home-in the quiet-JEEZ!!--whole new world!! & it's just the R1!...by the way,because of the deep resonating sound, its actually "manipulating" my playing--scary,twilight zone & its in my house...now, if I put hard tension strings on my "pink..."--- 8) Jubi

[Miguel Angel]

Can anyone tell me that in a blindfold test they can differientiate a laminated b/s from a solid b/s conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt? I'd pay money to see that![/quote]

Yes MegaBrawn I would also pay money to see this. There is a lot of talking of this. The real difference of sound bettwen laminates backs & solids is when you know before hand if it is a laminate :evil: , then you hear it different from a solid. The real difference is a AAA quality solid top & the craftmanship of the luthier. 8)

[jrethorst]

Segovia's 1966 guitar made by Ramirez had laminated sides.

I wonder if the added stiffness is what gives Ramirez its famous "bark".

Daniel Friedrich, a French luthier whose instruments are reputedly among the world's best (Liona Boyd plays one), uses laminated back and/or sides. Contreras has one or more models whose back is cypress and rosewood. IMO solid wood is not a measure of quality any more than type of finish. As many posts in this thread agree, you can buy an instrument with "great" specs and lousy sound.

[C. Vega]

Daniel Friederich laminates his sides, often with mahogany but sometimes with a second layer of rosewood. They are quite thick, about 4mm. His backs are not laminated

The Contreras "Doble Tapa" model has a second inner back made of spruce or cedar, not cypress, to match the top wood but it is not laminated directly to the rosewood back. There is a space and bracing between them.

[Pepe Vergara]

The Contreras "Doble Tapa" model has a second inner back made of spruce or cedar, not cypress, to match the top wood but it is not laminated directly to the rosewood back. There is a space and bracing between them.
Thanks. I did not know that. What type of bracing is between the two backs?