Acoustic Guitars with Mahogany sides and backs [Archive]

GuitslingerTim

02-18-2008, 04:03 PM

they are dull and weak compared to the rosewoods, maples and exotics...

I have owned 2 acoustics with mahogany sides and back (Larivee and Martin) and my other acoustics simply stomped them in tone and rich sound...

Thanks for your opinion. Bracing and finishing might also contribute to the sound. Mahogany lacks the projection that rosewood provides, but also has a warmth to it that rosewood lacks. A contest between mahogany and rosewood with amplified acoustics might be a fairer contest.

Lawn Jockey

02-18-2008, 06:18 PM

Were they Brazilian?

drfrankencopter

02-18-2008, 06:21 PM

Tell that to my Collings 000-2Hm 12 fret...with mahogany back and sides. I A/B'd it with a regular rosewood version, and far prefered the more balanced sound that the mahogany guitar produced. To me, the rosewood seemed to be lacking some midrange. Maybe the rosewood guitar was a little louder...but that didn't matter to me, as I bought this guitar for writing and recording.

Cheers

Kris

David Collins

02-18-2008, 06:32 PM

Echoes

02-18-2008, 06:39 PM

Were they Brazilian?

One Indian and one Brazilian.

Echoes

02-18-2008, 06:42 PM

Interesting opinion. Doesn't exactly line up with how I would describe the differences in the few thousand acoustics I've played with, but everyone's experience is different. Be careful of confusing correlation with causation though.

You would have to admit that the mahogany for sides and back is more extensively used on the lower end guitars, yes?

Echoes

02-18-2008, 06:43 PM

David Collins

02-18-2008, 06:51 PM

You would have to admit that the mahogany for sides and back is more extensively used on the lower end guitars, yes?

Yes, it is. This is one reason to emphasize the chance of the inferior tone you found to be simply correlation with mahogany, rather than caused by it. The mahoganies you've owned may have sounded bad simply because they were built bad. I personally tend to prefer mahogany over rosewood, but it's not because I feel one is "better" than the other. Each guitar is different, and if they're built well they each have their strong points. A nice mahogany 00-18 or L-00 style is hard to beat for my tastes though.

Grun

02-18-2008, 07:22 PM

Really interesting. My D1A rings like a bell. All other things being equal, mahogany is known to be brighter than rosewood with 'more pronounced mids'. The mahogany D18 is a bluegrass standard.

Rotten

02-18-2008, 07:23 PM

"Dull and weak" versus "rich" sound also depends on context. I used to play a Lowden with a lush, harmonically vibrant tone. If I played that particular one in a Norman Blake context it would sound goofy; like Yanni playing with Son House. Currently, I prefer a traditional sound and feel like my Martin D-18A more than does the trick.

Echoes

02-18-2008, 07:27 PM

Yes, it is. This is one reason to emphasize the chance of the inferior tone you found to be simply correlation with mahogany, rather than caused by it. The mahoganies you've owned may have sounded bad simply because they were built bad. I personally tend to prefer mahogany over rosewood, but it's not because I feel one is "better" than the other. Each guitar is different, and if they're built well they each have their strong points. A nice mahogany 00-18 or L-00 style is hard to beat for my tastes though.

I guess it also depends on whether you are playing with another acoustic that has the more punchier and brighter tone that seems to overshadow the mahogany IMHO. When I gig with my buddy, he sings lead and plays a Taylor 314 which sounds fine...but when I come in with the Taylor 714 it completely outclasses the mahogany guitar in almost every category (again my opinion, but everyone else hears it too..."that guitar sounds WAY better man" etc...) it is just obvious...another thing is that the 314 has to have almost double the gain on the board to keep up volume wise...and this is the same with another buddy's Martin guitar 000-16 or therebouts with mahogany....sounds weak and dull in comparison.

GuitarsFromMars

02-18-2008, 07:35 PM

I have an all-mahogany 1959 Martin 0-15 that has proved out to be a workhorse and a utilitarian guitar over the last 9 years or so.It does darn close to everything,but the bluegrass stuff without a mic...It has the tone of choice.

Echoes

02-18-2008, 07:37 PM

maybe it takes a bit longer for the mahogany to settle in and produce the goodies...I don't know...

stephenT

02-18-2008, 09:16 PM

You would have to admit that the mahogany for sides and back is more extensively used on the lower end guitars, yes?

No. mahogany is for folks who want separation of notes, balance and clarity. That's why blues and bluegrass players want mahogany. Strummers LOVE rosewood.

in a little row

02-18-2008, 09:50 PM

Have had a Yairi DY61 (burled mahogany) which easily outperformed Giannini, Gibson and Guilds Ive owned, all with rosewood...all solid wood

Consider the difference between laminated sides vs. solid as well, particularly when talking about lower end guitars with mahogany

I certainly respect your opinions, but to make such a blanket statement about a tonewood without considering design, construction and aging is sort of ignorant...

j

David Collins

02-18-2008, 10:32 PM

Mahogany is for folks who want separation of notes, balance and clarity. That's why blues and bluegrass players want mahogany. Strummers LOVE rosewood.

I agree quite well with Stephen's summary. One thing you will find with recording is that studio engineers are much more likely to be happy to see you show up with a mahogany guitar than a rosewood one. Rosewood tends to have a certain beautiful complexity of overtones, but not as clear a separation and also a bit less power and low end. That's an extremely broad generalization of course, and you won't have a hard time finding some rosewood guitars that will overpower some mahogany ones. In general though, a D-18 does a better job of keeping up with a banjo and mandolin than a D-28 does.

I would say that though mahogany is used more in less expensive instruments, it's a result of market factors other than quality. It's not that rosewood is better than mahogany, but that it's more exclusive, boutique, less common, more bling. Or at least that's how marketing has shaped the pricing over the years. In the late 19th century rosewood was the standard, with maple the more common step down. When Washburn started selling mahogany back and sides instruments around this time, they sold that as a premium option priced above rosewood. As it became a much more plentiful import however, it took little time to drop back to second.

In short, companies need to have distinctive levels of decoration and prestige to differentiate models and price brackets. Mahogany guitars are resigned to the bracket below rosewood because it's a more common wood and usually less aesthetically stunning. Companies like Matin or Taylor need something to fill each price bracket.

If you get the chance to play some nice mahogany instruments like a Collings, Huss and Dalton, an old Gibson J-35 or 45, and plenty of others, you may be surprised what they can deliver. I get the impression you may have had the misfortune of picking on several lemons in a row. It's easy for this to sour your palate toward a style, but it may be worth it to keep listening to others and your opinions may change.

localmotion411

02-18-2008, 10:37 PM

Depends on a lot of factors, IMO, not just the tonewood being used. I have played mahogany and rosewood versions of several acoustics and prefer some in mahogany and some in rosewood.

I don't understand why blanket statements such as this, single coils are better than humbuckers, etc. etc., are made; but when I think about it, they do incite though and discussion very well.

Your thread, though, so rock on with your opinion. That's what makes this forum and threads like this great, IMO.

Beagle1

02-19-2008, 03:24 AM

I guess it also depends on whether you are playing with another acoustic that has the more punchier and brighter tone that seems to overshadow the mahogany IMHO. When I gig with my buddy, he sings lead and plays a Taylor 314 which sounds fine...but when I come in with the Taylor 714 it completely outclasses the mahogany guitar in almost every category (again my opinion, but everyone else hears it too..."that guitar sounds WAY better man" etc...) it is just obvious...another thing is that the 314 has to have almost double the gain on the board to keep up volume wise...and this is the same with another buddy's Martin guitar 000-16 or therebouts with mahogany....sounds weak and dull in comparison.

You can't really compare a 714 to a 314 or the Martin 000-16...of course the 714 is a much better guitar. A more apt comparison would be a 514 and a 714 as they are both cedar-topped guitars of about the same build quality, one with mahogany b/s and the other with rosewood.

If you want to hear what a GREAT guitar made with mahogany back/sides sounds like, go play a Collings OM1A or a Martin OM-18GE. Personally, I like the acoustic sound of my Martin OM-18 Laurence Juber signature (Adirondack/mahogany) way more than my 714, but I keep the 714 around for band gigs.

Also +1 on what stephenT said...mahogany is better for clarity and note definition (no ringing overtones), whereas rosewood is better for strummers or open-tuned fingerstyle. I also think guitars with mahogany b/s tend to be easier to record with and fit better in a mix.

Ogre

02-19-2008, 03:30 AM

Though not a Taylor fan these days, I used to have a mahogany/cedar limited edition Taylor that was one of the best sounding guitars I have heard. It was built back in 1995. Unfortunately it was stolen. I think Taylors have declined precipitously since. I have played many Gibsons, Martins, Santa Cruz and Collings with mahogany b & s, that stand up to or better the best rosewoods. (including Brazilian) I would broaden my experience with different guitar makers, and not condemn mahogany based on a few mid-level guitars.

bug0711

02-19-2008, 06:51 AM

"You would have to admit that the mahogany for sides and back is more extensively used on the lower end guitars, yes?"

No. mahogany is for folks who want separation of notes, balance and clarity. That's why blues and bluegrass players want mahogany. Strummers LOVE rosewood.

What he said.

I'd add that there are other factors with the cost, availability and workability of the two types of wood in play as well.

bazooka47

02-19-2008, 08:09 AM

I used to share the O.P.'s view that RW dreds crush mahog dreds tone-wise, until I bought a Collings D1A. That guitar is a tone cannon! It also has a great "mellow" side that defies the D-18 style stereotype as being limited to "bluegrass" playing.

I still love my rosewood D-28 and Advanced Jumbo, but that D1A holds its own.

Lawn Jockey

02-19-2008, 08:40 AM

I don't know. I've got an all solid SA Mahogany 12 string Larrivee (top, back, sides) and the guitar absolutely kills. Powerful, rich, nice separation, and loud when it needs to be.

I think this is WAY too broad a statement to make.

alanbass1

02-19-2008, 09:31 AM

I played a Martin D18 Authentic and this was the best Acoustic I have played to date - period (which includes the D45 I used to own and the OMJM I currently own - both Rosewood guitars). I'm just saving up to get one - shame it's not a cheap ricketty old mahogany guitar otherwise I could have got it by now.

Echoes

02-19-2008, 10:48 AM

I certainly respect your opinions, but to make such a blanket statement about a tonewood without considering design, construction and aging is sort of ignorant...

I'm getting a little smarter the more I read... ;)

Dave Orban

02-19-2008, 10:56 AM

they are dull and weak compared to the rosewoods, maples and exotics...

I have owned 2 acoustics with mahogany sides and back (Larivee and Martin) and my other acoustics simply stomped them in tone and rich sound...Well, my experience is just the opposite. I have a '97 Collings C10 and a '56 Gibson LG-2 that sound awesome. I got rid of my rosewood- and maple-bodied guitars after playing these two.

Of course, not all tonewoods are equal, not are all guitars constructed equally, but generally speaking, I'll usually take a good mahogany-bodied guitar over a rosewood-bodied guitar.

Lawn Jockey

02-19-2008, 10:56 AM

I'm getting a little smarter the more I read... ;)

You mentioned on Page 1, that both were rosewood, one EIR, the other Brazilian.

My spruce topped, EIR B/S Larrivee definitely has more "overtones" to it. Is this what you are trying to convey, or am I off base?

Echoes

02-19-2008, 11:00 AM

I get the impression you may have had the misfortune of picking on several lemons in a row. It's easy for this to sour your palate toward a style, but it may be worth it to keep listening to others and your opinions may change.

well my personal taste is definitely in play here...I have played and have had access to plenty of high end acoustics...including Spanish classicals such as Ramirez 1A etc...I had a VERY bad experience with a Breedlove that I believe was a 'lemon'...but, I haven't heard some of the custom luthier acoustics mentioned here in this thread so I will keep an open mind.

drfrankencopter

02-19-2008, 06:21 PM

are you flat pick or finger style?

My 0002Hm guitar is best for fingerstyle....it's a little bright with a pick.

Cheers

Kris

EunosFD

02-19-2008, 06:50 PM

I'm kinda glad this thread popped up as I'm thinking about getting a new acoustic very soon and this very question was running through my head. Great info guys!

Anyway, one additional question re: mahogany I'd like to ask of ya'll (meh, maybe I should start a new thread)...how do you guys feel about mahogany topped guitars? I've never bothered to even try one (that I can recall offhand), but have seen several lately which have piqued my interest. Any thoughts?

AfterDarkMusic

02-19-2008, 07:30 PM

No. mahogany is for folks who want separation of notes, balance and clarity. That's why blues and bluegrass players want mahogany. Strummers LOVE rosewood.

Bingo.

I find that most fingerstyle guitarists I talk to like the depth of harmonic content that rosewood will lend to the sound, but it sounds mushy to me when I'm flatpicking. Mahogany tends to have a more focussed fundamental, at least in my somewhat limited experience.

tommyg

02-20-2008, 09:09 AM

No. mahogany is for folks who want separation of notes, balance and clarity. That's why blues and bluegrass players want mahogany. Strummers LOVE rosewood.

I don't think I'd call Tony Rice (Martin D-28; SCGC TR-Model), Norman Blake (Martin 000-28), or Steve Kaufmann (Gallagher) strummers and they all use rosewood.

However, flatpicker/fingerpicker extraordinnaire Doc Watson's guitar (D-18; Gallagher Doc Watson Model) does consist of mahogany b/s though.

In summary: each person's ears/feel/heart is all that matters!

shadco

02-20-2008, 09:41 AM

I've got 3 reasons to disagree with your supposition.

http://www.pbase.com/shadco/image/40623067.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/shadco/image/60517411.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/shadco/image/92478996.jpg

3 Different makers

All 3 were selected over rosewood alternatives.

No mud anywhere

Echoes

02-20-2008, 12:03 PM

I've got 3 reasons to disagree with your supposition.

3 Different makers

All 3 were selected over rosewood alternatives.

No mud anywhere

very nice guitars! I think it simply comes down to personal preference...but, most people that I know (ok, all the people I know) prefer the Rosewood or maple back and sides...I guess this doesn't mean everyone in the world...;)

JPERRYROCKS

02-20-2008, 12:06 PM

Mahogany can be equally as good if not better than rosewoods and expensive exotics.

Body shape, top soundboard wood and the builder all have a huge impact.

A sitka dread with mahogany B&S makes one of the best all around guitars out there, especially in a larger style guitar.

geetarboy

02-20-2008, 12:16 PM

No, one is not better than the other. It's just that, on average, one type of wood cost more than the other. It's about personal preference and what fits the music being played. Generally, as stated before, rosewood has more complexity/overtones and mahogany has better note separation. If you start talking to guys who really focus on playing acoustically, you'll find lots of 'hog lovers (stop giggling).

Rotten

02-20-2008, 04:39 PM

I would just add that a classical or other nylon-stringed guitar is a completely different animal. I wouldn't include those in the mahogony analysis.

Dotneck

02-20-2008, 06:52 PM

but, most people that I know (ok, all the people I know) prefer the Rosewood or maple back and sides...I guess this doesn't mean everyone in the world...;)

I don't know anyone that prefers maple over rosewood or mahogany...maple's too bright to my ears.

waynesmith

02-21-2008, 02:34 PM

Great thread since I'm about to buy a Martin Elliot Easton HD which is based on his D18. It has quilted mahogany back and sides with a Adirondack spruce top and ebony fretboard. A beautiful guitar...I own a D35 which is a great guitar but I can't seem to bond with it. To me the EE has a bit brighter sound to it, not as muddy, for lack of a better term.. Any opinions would be welcome...

reentune

02-21-2008, 02:55 PM

My mahogany Lowden O-10 certainly sounds above and beyond most anything I've heard.

Ogre

02-21-2008, 04:19 PM

I have played/heard many J45s and D18s that I would put up against any rosewood guitar I have had first-hand experience with. Except one: Eddy Arnold's 1938 Martin D28 herringbone. That was the best guitar I have ever heard.

Jahn

02-21-2008, 05:42 PM

Well, from personal experience,

This 1946 Gibson J-45 would have to disagree with the original poster. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5H3cI8kIQk)

And this 2007 Martin 000-18 Custom wants to pitch in that you don't have to be big and old to sound lovely either. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QbTs0jYq1s)

Dotneck

02-21-2008, 07:13 PM

It has quilted mahogany back and sides with a Adirondack spruce top and ebony fretboard. A beautiful guitar...

Adi and mahogany have the potential to sound heavenly (and loud). Especially if you don't care for the sound of your D-35.

devinb

02-21-2008, 08:28 PM

My mahogany J-50 is everything I want in an acoustic. Never owned rosewood, but I have owned maple, and it was way too bright for my current needs.

johneeeveee

02-22-2008, 01:16 AM

Different strokes, as they say. There is no better, just preference.

With that I not only prefer mahogany back and sides, but on top too :)

For my tastes a vintage 17 series Martin is the tone for me.

Peace - jv

waynesmith

02-22-2008, 06:12 AM

Adi and mahogany have the potential to sound heavenly (and loud). Especially if you don't care for the sound of your D-35.

Thanks for your opinion Dotneck......:BEER

Nuclearfishin

02-22-2008, 09:15 AM

If you want some good data, ask luthiers who build many of the same guitar with different wood combinations. I know MANY luthiers who prefer mahogany over rosewood for their handmade guitars, but the customer traditionally wants some type of rosewood. Sure they have different sounding characteristics, but when I hear one luthier after the next say they prefer mahogany (for dreads, OM, OOO, SJ, all sizes etc), you need to at least consider the fact that they know their instruments best and what they think sounds best for their building style. Of course there are plenty of luthiers who prefer rosewood, but if you want good data, don't compare large manufacturers who use mahogany to their higher end rosewood guitars, compare handmade to handmade and see what you get.

coldfingaz

02-24-2008, 04:20 AM

:munch

"Dull and weak" to one can be "mind blowing" to another :YinYang

coldfingaz

02-24-2008, 04:30 AM

You would have to admit that the mahogany for sides and back is more extensively used on the lower end guitars, yes?

Good question. You'll notice about $100 difference on some models for mahogany back/sides vs. rosewood, but I think that could change soon. Both Martin & Larrivee recently changed their entry level all wood models from genuine mahogany to sapele. Mahogany shortages could change the landscape to it being used less and/or costing more.

smorgdonkey

02-24-2008, 06:45 AM

they are dull and weak compared to the rosewoods, maples and exotics...

Add me to the list of people who disagree.

JSeth

02-26-2008, 11:15 PM

Back in the early 70's, I had my BABY stolen from me!!! My first "real" guitar, a 1967 Guild D-40, which I loved dearly... in the process of finding another guitar, I played a number of "antique" Martin guitars that a man in Costa Mesa, Ca had... and WITHOUT A DOUBT, the loudest, most amazing sounding guitar in his 15 odd Martin collection was a 1938 Martin D-18 (mahogany b/s). They're different than rosewood or maple, but still lovely, functional tone woods...
IMHO
John Seth Sherman

waynesmith

02-29-2008, 05:16 PM

I just received my Martin Elliot Easton and after playing it for about 5 hours I am amazed by the tone and volume the mahogany b/s and adi spruce top. There is no mud in the bass what so ever and each note rings out clear when playing chords. For me I don't regret selling my D35 to purchase this guitar...I just didn't bond with it and the EE feels like it's been with me for a long time.... Here are some quick pics, not the best though...
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/waynesmith61/DSC00222.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/waynesmith61/DSC00221.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/waynesmith61/DSC00218.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/waynesmith61/DSC00217.jpg

Csgband

02-29-2008, 07:49 PM

I have owned may highend acoustic guitars, Collings Bourgeois, Gibson and Martin.
I have a 1941 Martin 0018, A 1959 Martin D18, a 1942 Gibson J-45, a 1963 Gibson Hummingbird and a Collings C10. the thing all these guitars have in common is Mahogany back and sides and that they all sound fantastic.
I love the way the notes jump out, each one does it's own thing very well.
That said Rosewood guitars also sound amazing, very rich with overtones.
Many bluegrass guys love there D28's yet others prefer there D18's
I have a Maple back and sides Bourgeois and that guitar has the most amazing overtone I ever heard , mot bright and snappy as maple guitars are known to be.
each one has it's own voice, the question is what matches the sound in your head, what is it that makes you happy.
Bert Jansch played a crappy Yamaha and made it sound like God.
For me, if I could have just one guitar it would be Mahogany back and sides with a good spruce top, but that is just for me.
Chris