Thread: Aussie wood for electric guitars

Thanks Jim.
And in reply to your comments Sebastiaan,
Where is the aggro in this thread.? apart from one forum member getting a bit hot under the collar, it to me has been an interesting thread with a few of us having different views. Great thats what I like.
2nd quote from you, people will only buy off people they like, where do you come up with this.?
I have customers who come into my shop all of the time and they are blown away by the quality of tonewood available all beautifully quartersawn.
They don't buy from me because they like me.
I have customers all over the world who don't know me so how can they like me.? they buy from me because I have a good name as a supplier of a high quality product, I have large overseas customers who deposit large sums of money into my bank account before I even start work on there orders they don't do that because they like me but because they know that they will get a
good product. I do what I do not for the money Sebastiaan but for the love of timber to me this is not a job but pure pleasure to do what I love, I could not ask for a better life.
Have a great Christmas & my best wishes for the New year.
Cheers, Bob

Its come up in every sales training course Ive done Bob. Its common knowledge to sales professionals.

That might be the case in your sales courses Sebastiaan in your profession.
But in mine.
The quality of my tonewood sells its self.

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Its come up in every sales training course Ive done Bob. Its common knowledge to sales professionals.

Bob, my views differ from yours, thats clear, but I would buy wood from you regardless of differing views, the product you sell speaks for itself "beauty".

Sebastian, sometimes it comes down to the applicable industry, example like a car mechanic, theres one in every suburb, if your views differed from his you would go to the next guy. Bobs industry is about a quality product, his personal views would not change or turn a potential purchaser away from buying from him. Well IMO anyway

Gday Guy's

A Happy New Year to all first up!

You guy's have been busy since I last had a chance to visit.

In the new year I will continue with some tests & test results so we can have a closer look at the burning question about old growth & tone. Testing is the only way to have a look at this & so I can explain easier the distinct characteristics I have found.
The tests don't lie.

I just recently had three guy's play one of my guitars & they all surely noticed the differences between mass produced new growth guitars & old growth Instruments. They all work with guitars everyday.

The immediate comments were, beautiful tones, great sustain, how much for one of these & wow it's easy to play & a very versatile guitar.

The bad comments were one very knowledgeable fellow said it sounded Gibsonish AARGGHH!
What an insult & I said it doesn't sound that bad does it hahha!

One older chap who has played for many years said he had heard nothing like it with clean sounding chords & good sustain on about the 20th fret where he was playing.

All in all they were very impressed.

Martin, I have worked out a few things for you as well & it will make testing a breeze & cheap also.

I'll get the new year's eve out of the way first & then I'll get stuck into some real detail about some things regarding it all.

Happy New Year again guy's & lets hope we can sooth the critics in a more professional way in the weeks to come.

Hey Jim, Eric Clapton & Jimmie Hendrix sounded AWFUL LIVE, I can imagine how great they would have sounded with good old growth instruments.

I listen to Hendrix & Clapton but thank god it's through studio sound or else the old records would be Frizbies.

Go the Old Growth

Cheers

WayneW

G'day Wayne. I look forward to your future tests and hope they are more detailed than the first.

Originally Posted by WayneW

Hey Jim, Eric Clapton & Jimmie Hendrix sounded AWFUL LIVE, I can imagine how great they would have sounded with good old growth instruments.

From this bold quote of yours I assume two things. One, that you know the woods in the guitars Eric and Jimi used were not old growth and two that you have heard them both play live. That I am jealous of, Jimi died when I was 8 so I never got the chance to see him play. Also I have never seen Eric live either but maybe one day he will get to Darwin and I will go see him.

Jim

Someone please turn up the Tele!

Thanks WayneW,

Please do post all results,
I'll be looking forward to it all.

love your work

This thread is too quiet,

some more to argue about Dr. Russell's Research - Acoustics of Guitars Assuming for this instruments these are standard modes of vibration how does the age of the timber affect the mode at 55Hz? Discuss....

Interesting stuff but without going through the entire site I already have questions.

The way the guitar is supported for the tests doesn't really equate to the support points while the instrument is being played. Eg the guitar is not supported at the nut during normal playing.

Of interest is the part the neck plays in a majority of the vibrations modes.

Thats what interests me as well Martin. Ive been reading in Violin world for the last few weeks and the modes are well defined. I have never seen the neck included in a mode. What it implies to me is that the vibrations are a lot more subtle that I am used to in acoustics. 55Hz is higher then I would have thought. A cello top Mode 1 is around 40Hz.

You managed to catch your chickens yet, Sebastiaan.
Now this thread is not finished we all have different views thats for sure.
There is members here that do not believe that the age of the wood does not affect tone and these that do, you know where I stand on this.
And there I was thinking you thought this thread was boring and yet you are back again.
the link you added proves nothing.
Cheers, Bob

{Deleted in the interest of world peace}

Good morning Sebastiaan, we seem to be a little touchy lately mate.
I was just having a bit of a dig because of your comment made in your eye candy thread.
Where you said after the aggro of another thread meaning this thread.
I for one am not aggro, and I take offence at your comment that I am here just to flogg wood. Like you Sebastiaan I am also here to learn and give advice when I can.
And I do help many forum members, I make my money overseas not here.
And I also work very hard for what I do earn and give work to a lot of people, so calm down sit back and have a glass of red and who knows if the thread keeps going we both might learn some thing.
Cheers, Bob

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

The way the guitar is supported for the tests doesn't really equate to the support points while the instrument is being played. Eg the guitar is not supported at the nut during normal playing.

I think the supports they use are not supposed to be supports as such. They used rubber bands, if they had used rigid supports they would reduce the amplitude of the vibration. Supports will not change the position of the nodes at certain frequencies but depending where a solid support is located it will reduce the amplitude of the vibration. As there is no way to levitate the guitar some support must be used.

Take a simple marimba key that vibrates at one given frequency in its fundamental mode. If you support the key at its two nodes it will vibrate longer than if you support it at its ends, although the vibrations amplitude will be reduced by supporting the ends rather than the nodes the nodes will remain in the same place at that frequency.

Jim