Why isn’t birch used much in the manufacturing of guitars anymore?

[Christopher Cozad]

Awesome, Chris! I snagged a set. Soon, thanks to you, I will no longer be able to say, "I have never built an acoustic guitar using Birch."

 

[HeyMikey]

Very cool. Those are beautiful. Looking forward to your NGD Chris.

 

[JohnW63]

Do you give the sets a good tap test? If so, what did it compare to?

 

[NM156]

Unless you're looking for XXXXXL-size guitar - three such birches here on my yard - and they're not uncommon at all.

Are you sure that's a birch and not a beech tree?

 

[NM156]

Poplar is a fast growing tree and considered low quality by some. It's popularity hints at economics.
Pearl used to make MLX (maple) and BLX (birch) drums. The much rarer BLX sounded way better to my ears. Incredible crispness. High end Sonor drums had birch shells as well. Love that sound.

 

[Christopher Cozad]

Do you give the sets a good tap test? If so, what did it compare to?

Hi John, awaiting arrival - my New Tonewood Day...

 

[Nuuska]

Are you sure that's a birch and not a beech tree?

Absolutely - beech does not grow here - except when planted in southern parts.

That birch in my picture is old - therefore it is no more as white near the ground as it is higher up.

Right now there's no more sunlight - but if I remember, I take picture of the tree tomorrow, or . . .

 

[Christopher Cozad]

Do you give the sets a good tap test? If so, what did it compare to?

Sorry John, I completely missed your post.

As subjective as it is, I have never shied away from attempting to describe the sound of wood as I hear it. To give my description(s) context, let me place Rosewood at one end of the "tap tone" spectrum, being more vitreous, sounding more glass-like and Walnut at the other end, having damping/sound-absorbing properties such that it sounds darker, deeper pitched. Rosewood will be more bell-like and Walnut will be more thumpy...

Mahogany will sit closer to Rosewood along that same scale and Maple will be positioned closer to Walnut. Guitars built having either Maple or Walnut backs and sides are rather well-known for producing strong fundamentals - you can readily hear the separation between notes - whereas guitars built using Rosewood backs and sides are famous for producing overtones, where you get that lush, orchestral chorus of extra stuff.

The Birch pieces I have sit somewhere in between the two, definitely closer to the "strong fundamentals" side of the spectrum. I can faintly hear that extra "ring" that you get with the "overtones" woods, so it is distinct from Maple in that regard, though I am expecting it to behave similarly once it becomes a guitar.

In general, Birch is heavier than Maple, not overly so, but that may help explain why Maple seems to have won the popularity contest. I think the more likely reason Maple is more popular is its potential for visual interest, especially when contrasted with Birch.

With my foot properly positioned to be inserted directly into my mouth, here is what I anticipate I will be hearing from the guitar I build with this Birch...

I expect crisp highs, strong upper mids, scooped midrange and moderately resonant lows. That typically translates to an instrument being relatively bright and having fast decay, which should provide for good note separation and overall clarity. I am not expecting a overly loud guitar. That faint ring of overtones I detect could make for a very well-balanced output, especially if I pair it with the right soundboard.

Let's see if all my blah, blah theory is anywhere near the ballpark...

 

[Opsimath]

I was 6-4 - that swing is for kids who used it about 10 years ago . . . should I leave it or remove it

Raise it and use it! I love to swing, but I no longer jump out at the high point.

 

[Opsimath]

Sorry John, I completely missed your post.

As subjective as it is, I have never shied away from attempting to describe the sound of wood as I hear it. To give my description(s) context, let me place Rosewood at one end of the "tap tone" spectrum, being more vitreous, sounding more glass-like and Walnut at the other end, having damping/sound-absorbing properties such that it sounds darker, deeper pitched. Rosewood will be more bell-like and Walnut will be more thumpy...

Mahogany will sit closer to Rosewood along that same scale and Maple will be positioned closer to Walnut. Guitars built having either Maple or Walnut backs and sides are rather well-known for producing strong fundamentals - you can readily hear the separation between notes - whereas guitars built using Rosewood backs and sides are famous for producing overtones, where you get that lush, orchestral chorus of extra stuff.

The Birch pieces I have sit somewhere in between the two, definitely closer to the "strong fundamentals" side of the spectrum. I can faintly hear that extra "ring" that you get with the "overtones" woods, so it is distinct from Maple in that regard, though I am expecting it to behave similarly once it becomes a guitar.

In general, Birch is heavier than Maple, not overly so, but that may help explain why Maple seems to have won the popularity contest. I think the more likely reason Maple is more popular is its potential for visual interest, especially when contrasted with Birch.

With my foot properly positioned to be inserted directly into my mouth, here is what I anticipate I will be hearing from the guitar I build with this Birch...

I expect crisp highs, strong upper mids, scooped midrange and moderately resonant lows. That typically translates to an instrument being relatively bright and having fast decay, which should provide for good note separation and overall clarity. I am not expecting a overly loud guitar. That faint ring of overtones I detect could make for a very well-balanced output, especially if I pair it with the right soundboard.

Let's see if all my blah, blah theory is anywhere near the ballpark...

Looking forward to the guitar!