In Your Words, Can You Describe The Tonal Differences Between Jumbo Rosewood and Maple?

[Wellington]

That's a long title, I don't have the opportunity to try the F-55's or previous renditions, I watch videos but I'd like to see how you explain it, and which one is brighter and which one would be more round in terms of treble? Bass?

 

[plaidseason]

The thing is with the Guild jumbos that we're comparing a solid rosewood back to an arched maple back, so the normal rules don't wholly apply.

Rosewood will have more overtones, deeper bass, and lots of sustain. Maple typically is clearer and brighter. But when you add in the arched back you're going to add back some sustain and a"rounder" low end.

This is very side-bar: but I previously owned a long-scale F30r (which is notably smaller than a jumbo) and people would marvel at its complexity. But when it came to recording, it was oddly my arched back DCE1 that recorded the better. Clearer and definitely not complex.

 

[Guildedagain]

Having both Maple and Rosewood in arched backs, the Maple guitar sucks (I decided at a jam the a few nights ago), brightness and extremely short decay I wasn't that happy with my sound. Came home, pulled the Rosewood backed guitar out, the overtones and sustain, I'm sold.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Maple jumbo will be great a fingerpicking, have more clarity vs rosewood. Rosewood more sustain and depth.
If you prefer hog to rosewood, you will prefer maple. (in general...)

If you love rosewood, you will prefer a rosewood b/s jumbo.

If it's me, I am going a regular F50 with maple arched b/s. But again, always impossible to make a call for another.

 

[richardp69]

Having both Maple and Rosewood in arched backs, the Maple guitar sucks (I decided at a jam the a few nights ago), brightness and extremely short decay I wasn't that happy with my sound. Came home, pulled the Rosewood backed guitar out, the overtones and sustain, I'm sold.

I couldn't disagree more but everybody hears things differently and we all have certain sounds/tones we prefer over others.

To me anyway, Maple is the clear winner and I don't care if it's flat or arch back. I love the crisper. clearer sound thar Maple gives me and I'm not a big fan of the thump and muddy sounds of my rosewoods. I still have plenty of rosewoods because they serve a purpose for me. But, my clear preference is Maple nearly every time. Mahogany is a close second and although I love my rw guitars they are a distant 3rd.

 

[plaidseason]

I couldn't disagree more but everybody hears things differently and we all have certain sounds/tones we prefer over others.

To me anyway, Maple is the clear winner and I don't care if it's flat or arch back. I love the crisper. clearer sound thar Maple gives me and I'm not a big fan of the thump and muddy sounds of my rosewoods. I still have plenty of rosewoods because they serve a purpose for me. But, my clear preference is Maple nearly every time. Mahogany is a close second and although I love my rw guitars they are a distant 3rd.

I'll add that part of my affection for the D25/D4/DCE1 is that it gives me some of that bass and sustain I want from rosewood, without that muddiness.

 

[mavuser]

a maple acoustic is very bright, it almost sounds like an electric guitar. at least to me. not to say that is a bad thing. it sounds nothing like rw or mahogany (those two are much closer to each other- rw more overtones, more "colorful" tone; mahogany a more woody acoustic sound)

I kind of formed an opinion that it is easier to sound better on a mahogany or rw, as in they are somehow more forgiving. Maple acoustics more for the professional guitarists. I love my maple semi hollows though, and i'm no professional.

 

[Westerly Wood]

rosewood shmosewood.

 

[Bernie]

Maple has a bright tone as a whole ; on a Jumbo guitar it's usually bright like clear, I'd say (with my limited vocabulary). In can be too bright on smaller guitars according to a (quite) general statement, but has enough low end on larger body sizes ; listen to Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun' played live (Bangla Desh Concert), it sounds about perfect IMO...Thats a Gibson J-200 (Jumbo). My Taylor (Grand Auditorium) sounds a tad too bright at times...
A Rosewood guitar does have more low end (and sounds 'rounder'); but can it be too much ? I'm not sure, as I've never played a RW Jumbo ; on my Martin with an Adirondack top, that gives extra clear highs, I never get too much bass, I'm sure of that...

How can this apply to 2 Jumbos guitars? I wouldn't be able to tell ; however, if the RW guitar has a solid (flat back) and the Maple has a (laminated) arched back I would take a chance on the Rosewood, I'd say. But that's not from having compared them live. I have played a Guild Maple Jumbo that a friend had (arched back) and it sounded very good (and was my 1st reason for jumping on the Taylor I now have, when seeing it [2nd hand] in a shop)...
Good luck (I think any of them two would be a nice guitar to have)...

 

[Longnose Gar]

Having both Maple and Rosewood in arched backs, the Maple guitar sucks (I decided at a jam the a few nights ago), brightness and extremely short decay I wasn't that happy with my sound. Came home, pulled the Rosewood backed guitar out, the overtones and sustain, I'm sold.

I have a Gibson SJ-200, solid maple back and sides. The rapid decay of the bass notes is something I love about this guitar for accompanying voice. It reminds me of a quote that went something like "music without space is just noise piling up on itself". If I was allowed two guitars, I'd pick rosewood and solid maple, offering the most contrast.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I also am a fan of rapid decay...

 

[fronobulax]

A dealer I knew refused to stock maple guitars unless he had played and inspected them before he laid his money down. He said that when they were good, they were very good but when they were bad they were unsellable. I understood this to mean that there was more variability in maple guitars than other tonewoods. This does not answer the original question but it does suggest that generalities about maple might need to be carefully considered or otherwise qualified.

 

[Guildedagain]

I also am a fan of rapid decay...

Somehow the Rosewood archback guitar is far from muddy, it's a screamer.

To boot, it's got some ancient EJ16's on it, and it sounds killer, with old strings, what gives?

And neither guitar is a jumbo, and I usually love this Maple side/back guitar, in fact more than the other, that's why the other has such old strings on it. So I'm pretty conflicted on this right now, but I won't be taking it back to this Kock knock knocking on Heaven's Door, Simple Man etc guitar/mandolin jam again, all other guitars/mando were mahogany and the EQ of the Maple wasn't as good for me as what I've always played, either a hog dread or the Rosewood archback cutaway dread.

I restrung the Maple guitar the next day and compared it to the Rosewood with ancient EJ16's, Rosewood bigger fatter tone with killer sustain, so then I restrung the Rosewood guitar, and it didn't sound quite as good as it did with the awful looking old strings on it.

Why are guitars so damn confusing?

 

[chazmo]

Wellington, in the 12-string Guild world, when I compare the sound of an arched maple laminate back F-412 with a solid rosewood back F-512 ,what I notice is two things...

The maple is much "crisper" than the rosewood. I.e., fewer overtones. Decay??? Well, they both ring for days, so I'm not sure I notice much difference there.

The rosewood reverberates through my whole body. I don't feel that with the maple.

Anyway, that's my attempt, buddy!

 

[Cougar]

With jumbo 12-strings, they're both to die for. Arched maple - brighter, but plenty of everything. Rosewood - OMG, that rich bass!

 

[Wilmywood]

I don't know about jumbos but I have had both in dreads. I preferred my maple archback '72 G37 to my former rosewood flatback '00 DV-52. Could be because I bought the G37 new, but I agree with most of the comparisons here ... the maple is brighter, the rosewood deeper, to my ear listening to them from out front rather than playing them myself.

 

[GGJaguar]

With jumbo 12-strings, they're both to die for. Arched maple - brighter, but plenty of everything. Rosewood - OMG, that rich bass!

This is my experience also.

 

[GGJaguar]

I did a comparison my my D-55 (rosewood flat back) and DC3E (maple arch back) a few months ago.

DCE3 vs D-55

Having been playing the DCE-3 for several days now, it begs the question (in my mind at least) – How does it compare to my ‘77 D-55? Yes, it’s a totally unfair comparison, but what the heck, I’m doing it anyway. :giggle: My first observation is that, although these two guitars weigh exactly...

letstalkguild.com

 

[plaidseason]

There's probably an entire sidebar discussion on arch back vs solid back in the same wood.

I prefer my mahogany arch back DCE1 to both solid rosewood and solid mahogany dreads. To me it sits somewhere in between the two.

And I've love to compare m solid maple F44 to say a GF30.

I don't want to own like 20 guitars, but I also know that various elements can make differences. Maple vs Rosewood. Solid vs arch back. Short scale vs long scale. OM vs dreadnought.

 

[Brucebubs]

As well as these maple guitars pictured I've also owned maple Taylor and Huss & Dalton jumbo's.
That Gibson Custom Shop Historic 1957 SJ-200 with thermally aged top, hide glue construction and super thin finish is the warmest guitar I've ever owned - and chords hit you in the chest - and sustain for weeks.
The first guitar I've ever owned where I went looking for brighter sounding strings.