Fender Maple vs Rosewood Fingerboards & Tone

[overdrive]

While most of us are aware that a solid maple neck/fingerboard on a Fender Stratocaster or Telecaster tends to produce a brighter overall tone while necks with rosewood fingerboards have a slightly darker sound, what actually accounts for this?

Is it attributable to the rosewood layer/laminate, the overall hardness of a solid maple neck/fingerboard configuration or perhaps the individual densities of rosewood & maple fingerboards?

Lastly, exactly how does this impact/effect the transfer of tone to the body & pickups as both are essentially identical bolt-on style necks connected to similar slabs of ash or alder?

Just curious...just about everyone knows or can tell the difference but I have yet to come across an explanation as to 'how'.

[David Schwab]

The maple fingerboard is harder, so it has a brighter tone. Ebony is harder still, and has a different kind of brightness, more clacky.

The reason is that softer woods absorb more of the energy from the strings. If the energy from the strings is used up resonating the wood, there is less to be picked up by the pickups. This is usually heard in the high end or mids.

If you make a very stiff neck, you will get a very bright guitar.

Also the tone doesn't transfer to the body and pickups. The body/neck structure is supporting the tension of the strings. There is going to be some flexing, and this can be heard as sound when you play unplugged. if you strung up a granite guitar it would have very little acoustic output.

The same thing is true of the guitar's body wood. Softer woods have a more open warmer tone, while hard heavy woods have a tighter brighter tone.

[overdrive]

Thanks for the feedback David. From your insights I also have a better understanding now of why rosewood/mahogany/maple bodied acoustic guitars vary in their treble characterisitcs.

The reason is that softer woods absorb more of the energy from the strings. If the energy from the strings is used up resonating the wood, there is less to be picked up by the pickups. This is usually heard in the high end or mids.

I can understand this concept as it pertains to a guitar body's natural resonance (i.e. a mahogany LP vs an ash/alder Fender) but it's still kind of difficult for me to picture any significant tone absorbtion taking place along something as narrow (and in some cases) as thin as a rosewood laminated fingerboard. Still it's somehow & actually taking place...guess I'm probably trying to comprehend this pheonomena as a layman rather than as a luthier (of which I am not).

[imaradiostar]

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but I wanted to share my opinion.

I feel that maple tends to have a more "neutral" sound with more midrange. Rosewood tends to accentuate a slight mid scoop and a "furriness" in the sound that's ideal for some sounds (SRV, some blues stuff, etc) and not as good for others (EJ, Hendrix, etc). I feel the clear midrangy distortion tone is easier to achieve with a maple board- this seems practical given the late Hendrix (Band of Gypsies) midrange tone and Eric Johnson's preference (at least in the old days) for a maple fret board.

There are guys here like David that are much more knowledgeable than I- and maybe they'd say I'm crazy. Who knows. All I can say is I've noticed this phenomenon after having played a lot of different strats in the last 15 years and I've gone to great lengths to verify it with some of my friend's guitars.

jamie

[Robert M. Martinelli]

As a foot note, and just because it has not been mentioned within the previous posts, it must be also considered that Fender's maple necks, except for the pretty rare "maple cap" ones ( maple neck with a separate, glued maple fingerboard ), are built in one piece. On the ones with rosewood fingerboards ( and on "maple cap" ones, of course ) there's another factor to be taken into consideration, that is, the glue layer keeping the thing together, which, from a "density" ( and thus "tonal" ) standpoint, represents an additional "discontinuity".

JM2CW

Best regards

Bob

[David Schwab]

the glue layer keeping the thing together, which, from a "density" ( and thus "tonal" ) standpoint, represents an additional "discontinuity".

The glue layer is so thin as to be non existent. You should think of both pieces of wood are stuck together and ignore the glue line. The glue vibrates with the wood.

Multi piece necks tend to be stiffer an more stable than one piece necks. One piece maples necks were designed to be easy to make. later leo added the rosewood cap because he saw some maple fingerboards that had gotten dirty.

I real fingerboard will increase the structural integrity of the neck.

[tonedeciple]

And don't forget to consider the species of Maple. If a one piece Maple neck is heavily figured, it's likely soft rather than Eastern Rock Maple. Right now I'm looking at a guitar I built using a soft Maple fretboard. It's still bright sounding, but not nearly as bright as a hard Maple board.

[Ward]

later leo added the rosewood cap because he saw some maple fingerboards that had gotten dirty.

Just to add to this, I read that Mr Fender would notice when he would see someone playing a maple board on the TV that those which had the lacquer worn off as they do with such lightly lacquered necks looked dirty and unsightly and not what he wanted to see representing his dominion, this is supposedly the reason they started using R/W boards, not for tone but for looks. Either way, I like both maple and rosewood.

[tedmich]

And don't forget to consider the species of Maple. If a one piece Maple neck is heavily figured, it's likely soft rather than Eastern Rock Maple. Right now I'm looking at a guitar I built using a soft Maple fretboard. It's still bright sounding, but not nearly as bright as a hard Maple board.

Along this line there is no standard species of "rosewood" anymore, almost 10 different species are used as rosewood and they can vary greatly by janka hardness etc. Maple requires a clear coat, fret masking or scraping, and will eventually grime up and look shabby. It feels great when its clear coat is intact, very slick, but this doesn't last.

Madagascar ebony is the ultimate fretboard wood IMHO, and still available from some companies (LMII) until the poor little island is a parking lot. There are a couple of ebonies used currently, most requiring dyeing to be a uniform black.

oh ebony and rosewoods also grime up but don't show it like maple; you should still clean them regularly to keep your sound bright. I need a bright neck as I use no pick and finger attack is very muffled by comparison, so its Mad Ebony and SS for me.

[overdrive]

The maple fingerboard is harder, so it has a brighter tone. Ebony is harder still, and has a different kind of brightness, more clacky.

One guitar I've always thought kind of interesting but they weigh a ton is the Travis Bean (i.e TB500). They've got an aluminum neck so they must be incredibly bright yet the combined wood fingerboard, body wood & humbucking pickups probably soften the potential of any extreme treble emanating from the neck material.

I imagine no one makes something like this anymore...along with the Fender Tele/Strat & various classic Gibson designs (e.g. LP, ES series, SG, Firebird, Flying V, Explorer et al) there really haven't been any seriously new innovations in electric guitars other than maybe those 'headless' ones. Even PRS isn't all that innovative being just another re-interpretation of something already in existence & more along the lines of an upscale toy for weekend/living room rockers who also double as lawyers & corporate types during the weekdays.

Probably be tough to machine one of those TB neck/head configurations & expensive as well. Then again, with good neck wood getting scarce & all of those recyclable aluminum cans available...

[Chuck H]

OK. I respect David's opinion. He's been around the block and this isn't his first rodeo, if you get my meaning. So respect what he has to say, but...

I thought his assesment of hard/soft, bright/dark, maple/rosewood was a little black and white and missed the nuances of these woods.

First, wood is porous. This is density, not so much hard and soft. Wood also has hardness. Density is commonly equated with hardness in woods but it only tells part of the story.

Rosewood actually has a more brittle, ridgid (hardness in my book) structure than maple. Maple is softer but much denser than rosewood.

Soft woods absorb more vibration and transfer less. Hardwoods absorb less vibration and transfer more. Soft woods tend to be darker sounding with more wolf notes and hardwoods tend to lack bottom end but have a more even resonance, and hardwood sustains better than softwoods. At least this is the macro knowledge on the subject. But it's usually based on an incomplete equation because density is considered synonymous with hardness with woods, which is technically incorrect.

Wood is an organic and highly complex in structure. Maple does exhibit the characteristic of being bright (most of the time). But does not transfer more vibration to the bridge and body than rosewood (because it's molecular structure is less ridgid). Rosewood has a much more open grain (lower density) and does exhibit the characteristic of darker tone (most of the time) but also transfers more vibration (because it's molecular structure is more ridgid).

The end result??? Maple does have a brighter tone and typically a quick decay comparitively. Rosewood has a darker tone with a longer decay.

This other characteristic (density vs. rigidity) is all important in selecting guitar woods IMHE.

Other factors come into play. So I'm not saying that maple fingerboards don't sustain well. In fact, if the rest of the guitar has the appropriate resonance maple can outshine other woods for sustain within certain registers when playing loud enough to generate some acoustic feedback... It get's complicated and I miss as often as I hit. But I hit often enough, working with these organic materials, to know that I'm onto something.

JM2C

Chuck

[David Schwab]

Maple does exhibit the characteristic of being bright (most of the time). But does not transfer more vibration to the bridge and body than rosewood

Can you quantify that? Did you do tests? Have you played any all rosewood solid body guitars? How about all maple solid body guitars? All rosewood guitars are not brighter than maple.

Also you don't want or get vibrations transfered back to the bridge and body. Why would you? Unless you are playing an acoustic guitar, the idea of a solid body is to prevent the string's energy from being turned into acoustic energy. By stopping the body from vibrating, you get long sustain. The opposite of a solid body would be a banjo. You get maximum transference of the string's vibration to the top, and the note dies out quickly.

Maple is bright because it is not absorbing the short waves. When it comes to a fingerboard, maple is usually harder than EI Rosewood. Try digging your thumb nail in both and see. Ebony is harder and more brittle, and sounds like it. These are subtle differences, not black and white, but you can hear them.

But to generalize, light colored woods are often brighter, while dark colored woods are often warmer. I'm not the first person to say that either, but it does hold true from my own experiences.

Here's what someone else says about fingerboard woods:

In general, ash (medium weight) has more growl and is more aggressive, poplar bodies have more punch, mahogany is more piano like with a slightly darker overall voice. Alder makes a very warm, big sounding, punchy bass, slightly compressed.

Adding a top helps to focus the low end. A hard top tends to create a quicker response with more bite and definition while a soft top will tend to round out the voice.

A wenge neck and board add compression and focus to the speaking voice of the bass. A maple neck and rosewood board is more open and slightly warmer than a maple neck and maple board. Ebony on maple is very quick in its response with lots of snap. I have been trying ash as a neck material and found it to be leaning towards wenge but more open.

The MTD American

I'm sorry but the microscopic makeup of the wood has little effect on how it will perform as a neck or fingerboard on a guitar or bass. Pores? That makes the wood lighter, that's about it.

Paint also doesn't matter.

[Chuck H]

Can you quantify that? Did you do tests? Have you played any all rosewood solid body guitars? How about all maple solid body guitars? All rosewood guitars are not brighter than maple.

When did I elude to rosewood being brighter than maple? Look, it's the balance of wave lenth absorbtion that gives each wood it's resonant characteristics. Maple absorbs more vibration overall than does rosewood. And no, I can't quantify that because wood is a highly variable medium and the combinations used by luthiers are unlimited. Asking me to is a clearly subversive tactic to try and discredit me.

Also you don't want or get vibrations transfered back to the bridge and body. Why would you? Unless you are playing an acoustic guitar, the idea of a solid body is to prevent the string's energy from being turned into acoustic energy. By stopping the body from vibrating, you get long sustain. The opposite of a solid body would be a banjo. You get maximum transference of the string's vibration to the top, and the note dies out quickly.

Your too bound by the rules of bass guitar construction. With a guitar resonance is very important and a lot more manageable. I'm surprised you don't make the distinction. Reducing a guitar to strings, frets and pickups is a very limited view of whats going on. How do you think a guitar made from hardened steel would sound?

Maple is bright because it is not absorbing the short waves. When it comes to a fingerboard, maple is usually harder than EI Rosewood. Try digging your thumb nail in both and see. Ebony is harder and more brittle, and sounds like it. These are subtle differences, not black and white, but you can hear them.

Try digging your fingernail into a potato chip and a rubber gasket. It's a matter of hardness AND density. Maple absorbs fewer short waves than long, yes. But again, more overall than rosewood. That's why rosewood sounds, feels more "live" even though it's darker in overall tone.

But to generalize, light colored woods are often brighter, while dark colored woods are often warmer. I'm not the first person to say that either, but it does hold true from my own experiences.

That's just hogwash. There are too many woods that are contrary to this generalization for it to be valid at all.

I'm sorry but the microscopic makeup of the wood has little effect on how it will perform as a neck or fingerboard on a guitar or bass. Pores? That makes the wood lighter, that's about it.

Wow... That statement is so absolutely wrong and finite that I don't even want to open this can of worms. It's the balance of density and hardness that give each wood it's resonant character. With the exception of decorative applications the list of woods used by luthiers for solid guitars is fairly short. That's because these woods posess different and desirable properties. Only if all woods were of the same hardness would porosity become strictly a matter of weight. Again, it's the balance of harness and density that give each wood it's specific resonance.

Chuck

[Earl Norton]

Trying to be helpful:

Woods

[David Schwab]

When did I elude to rosewood being brighter than maple? Look, it's the balance of wave lenth absorbtion that gives each wood it's resonant characteristics. Maple absorbs more vibration overall than does rosewood. And no, I can't quantify that because wood is a highly variable medium and the combinations used by luthiers are unlimited. Asking me to is a clearly subversive tactic to try and discredit me.

I didn't say you said Rosewood was brighter, and it's not. You said it was harder:

Rosewood actually has a more brittle, ridgid (hardness in my book) structure than maple. Maple is softer but much denser than rosewood.

I said take your thumb nail and press it into EI Rosewood and Rock maple. Which one is going to dent? Obviously it's because maple is denser. You left out that rosewood is oily. That damps a lot of the vibrations in it.

Your too bound by the rules of bass guitar construction. With a guitar resonance is very important and a lot more manageable. I'm surprised you don't make the distinction. Reducing a guitar to strings, frets and pickups is a very limited view of whats going on. How do you think a guitar made from hardened steel would sound?

I don't reduce guitars to "strings, frets and pickups"... show me where I said that? I actually use different woods to tune the response I want.

For my basses I wanted a particular tone, so I used cherry for the bodies back when no one used it for solid bodies. What did I get? Exactly what I expected, a warmer version of maple. I also used phenolic fingerboards for the tone.

For guitars I do something different. Like a hollow basswood Strat I made 18 years ago. it weighs about 4 lbs and is very lively sounding. I also made the first solid body electric nylon string guitar back in 1974. I used pine for that body.

For my tele I used a chambered swamp ash body with a curly maple top, curly maple neck with purple heart lam and EIR fingerboard. I didn't use carbon rods because I didn't want that tone. But I'm not a slave to copying 50 year old guitars either.

I've been playing guitar since I was 9... that's 43 years, so I know what guitars are supposed to sound like.

Try digging your fingernail into a potato chip and a rubber gasket. It's a matter of hardness AND density. Maple absorbs fewer short waves than long, yes. But again, more overall than rosewood. That's why rosewood sounds, feels more "live" even though it's darker in overall tone.

How does rosewood sound more "live"? Maple is snappier sounding, which is why slap bassists like it for fingerboards. Rosewood has a slightly warmer tone. But it depends on the rest of the guitar too. My set neck tele is ultra bright and has a EIR fingerboard. But the 1" wide piece of purpleheart in the neck gives it a lot of stiffness which translates to brightness.

That's just hogwash. There are too many woods that are contrary to this generalization for it to be valid at all.

Tel it to all the luthiers that say it, including Mike Tobias, who I quoted in my original post. He didn't read that in a book, that's from his personal experience.

Wow... That statement is so absolutely wrong and finite that I don't even want to open this can of worms.

You know what Chuck, just post some photos of all the guitars you built along with sound clips.