I doubt that the type of decorative veneer of a laminated back can contribute much to the vibrations, resonance, and sound of a guitar.
Backs themselves are primarily
reflectors, it
doesn't matter if they're solid or not.
There
is the issue of how a back is "coupled" as Chris Cozad mentioned once, but that's still not as big an element of "tone color" as the frequency responses of the basic tonewoods: what frequency ranges they tend to reflect and how.
Explaining why 2 different archback veneers produce perceptibly different "tone" as Gardman notes in post #36.
I meant archbacking rosewood was experimental (not sure the word "archbacking" exists, but I am using it anyway). I am aware that maple archbacks were made by Guild since the 1950s.
Right, was just making the distinction as to what the experiment was: the material or the process, didn't mean to belittle your knowledge of the history, primarily said it because there's bound to be others reading sooner or later who may
not know it (new members)
(PS I applaud your inventive creation of the term "archbacking", it's perfectly suited for the discussion at hand. :smile: )
Is it possible that the nature of rosewood with its figuring may not be amenable to arching, and maybe they had some technical issues with this wood such as separations along the figuring? I suspect that maple behaves very different and is therefore preferred for the arching process.
Gluing the veneer to the substrate is the first element of construction that would prevent that.
For your convenience I'll copy what I said below in response to one of Awgner's related questions:
The glued up sheets were
put into dies according to the body shape of the back being made and then into the archback press:
Once those puppies come outta that ain't nothin gonna break or split 'em short of a sledgehammer.
And since flatbacks have bracing, I was wondering if a braced flatback is as sturdy as an unbraced archback.
Didn't I answer that?:
"
By definition laminations are stronger than a solid sheet of same thickness, especially if they're set up "cross-grained" as they normally are.
It was the whole reason the "invention" was adopted to widespread use (plywood) in the first place.
It's also crack-proof, and the arch itself has crush-resistance properties much like an egg: you can't crush one by squeezing because the force gets distributed over the whole surface of the shell."
OK, you did ask about strength to stand up to 12-strings but that stress is only minimally borne by the back (if at all), it's the
top that has to deal with the stress and the 12-strings did get special 12-string bracing:
We saw an F30 once that Hans confirmed had an F-112 top because he could identify the bracing.
Figured they simply used what was readily available when they needed an F30 top, it is after all the same size.
The other areas of stress focus are the bridge, the neck joint and the neck itself:
Guild's dual trusses were designed to compensate for the
large inequality of string tensions between treble and bass sides of the neck.
And it seems like it's always the neckset that gives way first in a 12-er, if not the bridge.
And I also meant the cost of archbacking rosewood vs. archbacking maple.
Can't believe there'd be any cost difference other than materials.
The glued up sheets were put into dies according to the body shape of the back being made and then into the archback press.
I doubt very much the press had any trouble with either wood and am quite certain the "cost per stamping cycle" was the same for all.
And if cost was not a determining factor, what was the reason this process never became a commonplace construction method for rosewood guitars?
Didn't I answer that as well?:
"From which I deduced long ago that if there's actually a cost advantage,
there must be some reason arched rosewood back is a very rare configuration even for other makers, and can only come to one conclusion:
Rosewood's overtone and sustain characteristics might be "overkill" for an arched back, the sound probably only appeals to a narrow niche of players.
Might be "OK" when used primarily in strumming as 12's often are. "
If anybody's got a better answer I'm ready to listen, but nobody's offered
anything in ten years.
EDIT: One thing I think tends to support my conjecture is that the DCE-5 mentioned earlier only has about 50% owner appreciation rating, something that struck me when I first read the 3rd "underwhelmed" owner post ten years ago, out of maybe 5 or 6 owner reports at all over the years.
That's compared to a 15% "underwhelmed" rating for new Corona owners way back then, and a maybe 5% overall for all new Guild owners over the years.
It's when I first started wondering if there was something inherent in the sound of the configuration that just didn't appeal to a wide audience and made me aware that the configuration itself was very uncommon.
Which itself tended to support my hypothesis.
Guildedagain loves his DCE-5 though, and he's got a lot of experience so perhaps his ear's more sophisticated than the average player.