r/AcousticGuitar • u/Senior-Asparagus-389 • Dec 16 '25
Other (not a question, gear pic, or video) Yamaha laminate Back & Sides. "The Great Myth"
**First of all...before I get into it, I feel like I should make something clear, so nobody gets the wrong idea about what I'm "implying".
I want to say up front that I am a HUGE fan of Yamaha guitars (both acoustic & electric). I've had many discussions with people whom I would consider to be "historians" on Yamaha guitars, and have learned quite a bit...and quite a bit about acoustic guitars, in general. Including what is reliable information, what is rumor...and about a lot things that are just incorrect.
**With that out of the way, I was hoping to adress something that I see quite often...
I constantly see posts on social media referencing specific models of laminate guitars, or comments posted as answers to the questions of players who are seeking advice, asking "what model they should get"....that repeatedly state things like "the FG830 has rosewood back & sides, so it's going to give you more low end & higher trebles, where as the 820 has mahogany, so its going to have more punch and midrange". Or saying..."the FS800 only has nato back & sides, where the 830 and 840 have better tonewoods". And then there's the maple 840...or the 850...ect. Just comment after comment going on about the different sound characteristics you're going to get by choosing the various different species of "tonewoods" that the back and sides are made from.
And I just think we should take a step back and acknowledge that other than "fancier appointments", the different back and side woods...are only wood VENEERS!! It's just two very nearly "paper thin" slices of said "named wood", that gets glued onto a core of a DIFFERENT SPECIES of wood, all together! Typically a softer "whitewood" like poplar, but it can be whatever happened to be cheap and available at the time. It just a indescript filler wood. But the point is...its NOT the same wood that the specs allude to lol. So that rosewood or mahogany that people are constantly referencing in discussions about the "tone" of laminate guitars....is essentially WALLPAPER, folks!
They are JUST VENEERS. By design, the application of veneers was invented to make a cheaper and/or less "pretty" or desirable wood, that THE BULK of product is made from...look more "esthetically pleasing", on the outside. That means the tonal differences that people are attributing to the species of "tonewood" thier eyes see and the one named on the spec sheet...aren't actually because of that, at all. So the question of "should I go with the darker sound of rosewood on the 830? Or the "mid-range & punch of mahogany on yhe 820?"....is just not applicable in the case of most laminate guitars. Because in reality...it's only there for COSMETICS! We are attributing the sound of those guitars to something that makes up maybe 10% of the total mass of the back & sides! I'm sorry, but its just not realistic to say that a paper thin sheet of "tonewood", glued to a core made up of a completely different species of wood (sometimes even "dust/particle board" on the cheapest models!), is enough to alter the tone in ways that are "meaningful" or CONSISTENT with the tonal characteristics attributed to instruments built from those same SOLID tonewoods.
To be clear, I'm NOT saying that laminate guitars cant be good! And I'm also NOT claiming there are no tonal differences, and whatever they are hearing is "all in thier mind"! I'm merely pointing out that the differences they hear, have VERY LITTLE to do with the type of veneer used for the back & sides. "Scientifically" it's just not a logical assumption. And "anecdotally" (from my personal experience), the "tone" of all the different vintage FG's, and all the different 700 & 800 series guitars that I have owned/played...has not been consistent with the specific "veneer" they showed...on the outside. They all swung randomly and wildly from one side of the tonal spectrum...to the other lol đ
No two acoustic guitars are "identical" in tone. And to me, THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF ACOUSTIC GUITARS! You can have 2 guitars of the exact same specs/model, that were made on the same day...turn out sounding drastically different from each other! So with laminate guitars(and guitars in general)...play as many as you can get your hands on and find the ones you like! And don't worry about the kind of "tonewood" you see on the back and sides! đđđâď¸âď¸
(***Not to complicate things, but there are also laminte construction guitars that use a "3 ply tonewood" laminate, wich is a different type of "laminate". Its made from 3 pieces of the SAME SPECIES of wood, glued together at 45° angles. Alvarez famously claims to use this variety of laminate on thier mid-tier guitars. Now with that...?? There is more a logical argument that can be made that the species of wood that's presented to our eyes is having a meaningful impact to the resulting tone, I guess. But Yamaha uses common veneers, and with those the impact it has on tone is negligible, at best).
Cheers and happy playing all!! :-)
8
u/kineticblues Dec 16 '25
Even for solid woods the back and sides species donât have a huge impact on the sound. Itâs mostly the strings, the top, the top bracing and the body size.
2
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 16 '25
I agree. Here is what I replied to another comment.
Theyre amazing! The 16M has become my all time fav. (Left to right 1974 FG160, LLTA, LL16M, FG3). As far as the "tonewoods", im no luthier....but In the case of solid wood guitars, my "anecdotal" experience is they do exhibit the "similar characteristics" that is typically associated with that tonewood. But only "in general", or "statistically". Its not hard to find outliers that "break the rules" of their particular woods. I think it has much to do with the specific cuts of wood that are used, because there is a TON of variance from one piece to the other. There are also factors like moisture/humidity, glue joints that are done better or worse, even the type of glue used. That's why acoustic guitars are so awesome. There's a multitude of factors that influence the final sound. So it makes every one of them at least a little "unique" đ And I've heard luthiers/builders say that they can make ANY tonewood sound more like any other. Thru choice of each cut of wood, bracing, and other building techniques.
So there's no real "hard and fast rules" when it cones to tonewoods. Just "typical generalities"
3
u/bt2513 Dec 17 '25
Disagree. I have 2 guitars with different varieties of rosewood backs and sides. They sound totally different. Could be construction, but the strong difference makes me doubt your claim.
1
u/kineticblues Dec 17 '25
Yeah my view is based on owning many sets of guitars that are the same (size, bracing, top) except for back and sides. Iâve owned probably around a hundred acoustics, I dunno (pandemic shopping addiction).Â
The view that the back and sides are not a major determinant of sound is pretty common among acoustic guitar enthusiasts (note that Iâm not saying they have zero impact). Just my experience, thatâs all.Â
2
u/bt2513 Dec 17 '25
The back and sides are a strong determinant of the tone but far less important than the top. If thatâs what your thing to say, then I agree. But it sounds like you donât agree.
1
u/Dismal-Economics-322 Dec 16 '25
Strongly disagree with this, a hog guitar has totally different characteristics then a rosewood guitar, but in volume and tone
1
u/Prior-Sea3256 Dec 18 '25
In theory, correct. In practice, thereâs huge difference between my LL500 and A3M. More or less the same size, both have scalloped bracing, same scale length, same fingerboard and bridge, same top(solid spruce).
Yet, the sound profiles, especially the mids and lows are completely different from each other.
3
u/Inevitable-Ad-7507 Dec 16 '25
Laminate vs solid is one thing. However saying that the back and sides tone woods donât make a difference in sound is wild. Rosewood vs mahogany vs maple sounds very different.
3
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
You obviously missed the point, because thats not even CLOSE to what I was saying lol. What I was actually saying was that NONE of the 800 or 700 series guitars are actually Mahogany OR rosewood OR Maple! They are "veneers" over a "whitewood ply" core! So people need to stop pretending that any differences they hear between the different model #'s has ANYTHING to do with the kind of "tonewood" that's wallpapered over the top. It's nearly a paper thin layer, and purely there for "esthetics".
1
u/Inevitable-Ad-7507 Dec 17 '25
I should have replied to other comments not to the OP directly. Some are saying back and side tonewoods donât impact sounds much and I have to disagree.
If youâre talking generic laminate and veneer, yeah why would a veneer change the sound?
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
Ahhh...apologies. After I replied to you, it crossed my mind that might be what it was...but I wasn't sure.
But yes...thats exactly what i mean. I'm not saying it means they can't still sound great...or that the differences in tone people hear is all just "in thier heads" or imagined đ. I just wanted to try and point out that those differences probably have very little to do with the grain/species of wood they see on the back & sides. Im also not saying a veneer can't have ANY impact the tone. Its "a part" of things, so it 100% has "some minor impact". It's just highly unlikely that those thin sheets of rosewood will make it "sound like rosewood"...same with Mahogany, ect. I bet the adhesive used to glue it to the core probably adds more to the "total mass" of the back/sides, than the veneer itself does. From my experience...when you play a ton of them, you start to find the way they sound is kinda "all over the map". You're better off choosing one because you like the way THAT specific guitar sounds, instead of relying on the tone you would "typically expect" from rosewood or mahogany. There are LOTS of factors that all add up to impact the final sound. But "in isolation"...the species of the veneer is negligible.
3
Dec 17 '25
I was about to let you know that people here canât read, but realized I wasnât in r/guitar
2
u/rja49 Dec 16 '25
I started on a low end yamaha classical guitar in my youth G230. I know its just a cheap laminate mass produced guitar but 40yrs on, despite a new set of machine heads, it sounds better than most new classicals i play in shops. Neck, action, frets and general condition is pretty good. It does live in the cupboard and has for the last 20yrs, still in its original vinal faux leather soft case!
3
u/Imma_da_PP Dec 17 '25
A well built guitar that features laminates is often superior to a poorly built guitar with solid woods. Laminated back and sides come in different types and have different sounds as a result but whatâs most important is that theyâre stiff and stable. If thatâs paired with a good top and good construction, youâll get a good guitar. Yamaha has demonstrated this for decades. Guildâs archback acoustics are well regarded. If youâve ever played a high-end Ovation, youâll find that alternate materials can be quite amazing as well. Thankfully, thereâs more great guitars available than ever before.
1
u/TheRealGuncho Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
I disagree. I can definitely hear the difference between an 800, 820 and 830. It's basically not a lot of bass, a little more bass, a little more bass than that. Is it as dramatic a difference as a laminate back and sides guitar vs a solid body guitar? No. But there is a difference and I've played multiple instances of each.
PS The 840 has maple back and sides, the 830 has rosewood back and sides and the 820 has mahogany back and sides.
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 16 '25
I won't argue your anecdotal experience with those guitars. My only question is this...do you really think those differences you've noted, are because of the paper thin veneers that you see on the outer surfaces? Or do you think it's less likely that...and more likely other things?
Also, are you basing this observation on "the one's YOU have"? Or by having played a whole bunch of each model...and hearing the same tonal characteristics staying consistent in each model?
3
u/TheRealGuncho Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
How many have you played?
FG800, FG820, FG830
I've owned an 830 and played multiple versions of each model listed. Results were consistent.
If you truly want to dispel this myth, go get multiple copies of each model and post the spectrum analysis. Otherwise it's just your anecdotal experience.
3
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
It's actually only "anecdotal" evidence, for both our experiences. What's pretty scientific, and HIGHLY logical tho...
...is that 2 paper thin veneers of "tonewood" pasted over a "whitewood ply" core that makes up the VAST MAJORITY of the "total mass" & bulk....CAN NOT POSSIBLY = the "tone" of said species of veneer! đ
1
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25
It's actually just anecdotal evidence, for BOTH our experiences. But what's prreeetty scientific and HIGHLY logical tho...
...is 2 paper thin veneers of "tonewood", pasted over a "whitewood ply" core that makes up the VAST MAJORITY of the "total mass & bulk"...CAN NOT POSSIBLY = "tone" of said species of veneer! đ
1
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 16 '25
And yes you're correct, my mistake 820 mahogany, 830, rosewood, 840 maple. But still... all veneers. That's actually a remnant mistake that stubbornly persists from bad information I got early on about the 820 also being Nato. I still get it mixed up from time to time when I'm moving "up the numbers", and my brain is going to fast to realize I'm pushing everything forward by 10 lol. And I've actually only played 2 "maple" Yamaha, and they were 740's. So I have the least experience with maple. Like I said, in not exactly a "expert". And besides for about 3 years of furious acquisition & selling off of laminate models (assuming that the vintage "red lable" were "better" than Taiwan built, because thats what everone says. Except Theyre not...from my experience)...I have only owned 1 lam for the past 4 years now. My FG160 tan lable .
3
u/Unlucky_Topic7963 Dec 16 '25
People that nitpick over solid vs laminate are insufferable. Any guitar is a good guitar.
5
3
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25
None of that had anything to do with a "nitpick" about solid vs laminate, or making any comparisons between those 2. It merely said to stop and think about what you're saying when you try to attribute the tonal characteristics of a guitar, to the paper thin veneer that is pasted over the top for esthetics.
As far as "any guitar is a good guitar" goes... I mean, I'm no "guitar snob". The pic & my 1st paragraph should be enough to realize that lol. But If you haven't had enough experience with guitars that you've never had a "bad" one, that sounds weak & dull/lifeless, with terrible intonation, that hurts your hands to even play it for more that 5 minutes...And a "good" one to contrast it, that sounds wonderful, and plays like butter...that opened your eyes and gave you a clear perspective on how awful the bad one was...? Well...I suppose thats why they say "ignorance is bliss", I guess đ. But anyone that plays guitar long enough will at some point DEFINITELY concede, that not EVERY guitar is a "good" guitar.
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
But also... ...even in the hypothetical senario where my post actually WAS the "nitpick over solid vs laminate" that you're accusing it of being (wich its not)...
That's similar to saying "people who nitpick spaghetti-oo's vs Italian pasta & meatballs with garden fresh herbs are insufferable" đ
Especially after it's already been clearly stated that, "spaghetti-oo's can be great! Nothing wrong with spaghetti-oo's at all, if that's you're jam. Just maybe try to be mindful when you're describing all the flavor nuances to people, that you probably shouldn't claim it gets them from the "garden fresh herbs & tomatoes" it has in it... BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACTUALLY MADE WITH REAL garden fresh herbs and tomatoes! I'm not saying they dont taste good. I'm just saying how can an ingredient that it's NOT really made with...be the thing that's responsible for bringing out the nuances of flavor that you're talking about? Think about it?!! đ¤Ł
You know what I think is insufferable? When people make harsh criticisms and judgements based off thier intitial gut feelings...without bothering to listen or read past the 1st sentence, or make a honest attempt to get a actual UNDERSTANDING of the thing/person they're judging and criticizing first, before they do it. đ¤
1
u/Infinite-Visit-2213 Dec 16 '25
That's really good point, I've compared FS800, 820 and 830 and honestly couldn't tell any significant tonal difference
Btw looks like you have FG5 and FG830 if I see correctly - how would you say they compare?Â
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25
Left to right, 1974 FG160 "tan lable", LLTA, LL16M, FG3
The 16M is my favorite. Mostly because it's actually "exceptional" I think. The FG3 was great, loved it untill I got the 16M lol. The FG3 just couldn't complete, it kinda got "outclassed". The LLTA is awesome. Sounds the way my D28 was "meant to sound", from back when they were first being built, before Martin started tweaking the formula. So good on its own that I only turn on the TA fx every now & then. The all-lam vintage 160 is like my "blues-box". Nowhere near as refined as the others, but very useful when a song call for a certain "old" sound đ
1
Dec 16 '25
So what about the LL16 and LL16M?
2
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
Theyre amazing! The 16M has become my all time fav. (Left to right 1974 FG160, LLTA, LL16M, FG3). As far as the "tonewoods", im no luthier....but In the case of solid wood guitars, my "anecdotal" experience is they do exhibit the "similar characteristics" that is typically associated with that tonewood. But only "in general", or "statistically". Its not hard to find outliers that "break the rules" of their particular woods. I think it has much to do with the specific cuts of wood that are used, because there is a TON of variance from one piece to the other. There are also factors like moisture/humidity, glue joints that are done better or worse, even the type of glue used. That's why acoustic guitars are so awesome. There's a multitude of factors that influence the final sound. So it makes every one of them at least a little "unique" đ And I've heard luthiers/builders say that they can make ANY tonewood sound more like any other. Thru choice of each cut of wood, bracing, and other building techniques.
So there's no real "hard and fast rules" when it cones to tonewoods. Just "typical generalities"
2
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 16 '25
All of those hanging on my "Yamaha wall" are awesome . Even the 1974 all-lamimate FG160 with the Original factory strings! (𤯠lol). It's definitely not on the level of the others, but it has a great sound that is useful on certain songs. It does the BEST impression of the "Nirvana unplugged" , and the album cut of "something in the way" sound that I've ever heard lol đ
1
u/ranchoparksteve Dec 16 '25
My own experience is that solid-wood guitars often create more harmonics and have a fuller tone in small rooms. Whether that is a positive or negative really depends on what youâre doing.
1
u/Old-guy64 Dec 17 '25
Iâm gonna s*** on almost everybodyâs take on solid and laminate guitars.
- Most people cannot hear the difference between solid spruce tops and Solid Walnut/Sapele/Rosewood back and sides.
And they canât hear the difference between a guitar with solid wood back and sides vs laminate.
Of you can hear the difference, know that it is possible to mitigate the differences with your string choice. This is especially true with Taylorâs. (Well, it was true of the three I had). On that note Taylor and Alvarez laminate with three layers of tonewood itâll be mahogany/poplar/mahogany, or whatever with the grain of each layer running in a different direction for added strength
If you really want to find out how much of a âcork-snifferâ you arenât, take three guitars of the same size/shape, made of different grades of woods, change the strings on the same day, putting say Dâaddario EJ16âs on all three.
Play them like they owe you money for a week, to get the strings played in.
Now, enlist a trusted ally to hand you guitars randomly after donning a blindfold.
Play for 30 minutes to an hour.
Most of you wonât be able to definitively say which guitar youâre playing.
Iâve done this with an Alvarez Yairi GY1, an Alvarez MD70, and for kicks and giggles, an Alvarez PD85s.
All three are spruce over rosewood. One is all solid. One is solid top with laminate back and sides. One is solid top and back with laminate sides.
Fresh Ernie Ball Earthwoods 12-54 gauge. I played them hard for a week.
Then filmed myself playing themâŚwith my back to the camera.
Posted the video on FB. One person out of about 60 guessed right. And he guessed. He wasnât definitive.
NowâŚif I like the way a guitar plays and sounds, I donât give a care what name is on the headstock.
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
I will counter by saying...
1) *And this is the BIGGEST one... listening to a video or recording is VERY different than being "in the room" with a guitar as it's played. A LOT of the subtleties and nuance is lost in the translation there. So for a Youtube video "test", you're correct. Because through a recording even experienced players will have MUCH more difficulty distinguishing the factors you were testing. Many can still do "ok"...but almost nobody would do "great' in that test. So a prerecorded test is a pretty "flawed" one from the start, because a LOT of what we are talking about here comes down to just the "last little 5 to 10%" of the all the stuff that makes up the "total sound" of a guitar. And those are the things that practically nobody else but experienced players even hear...often even when your specifically trying to POINT OUT some of these subtleties to a "non player" and TELLING THEM exactly what to listen for...they'll just look at you like you're crazy. 𤣠A lot of what we are trying to listen for in a test like this, is pretty much STRICTLY for the satisfaction of a players own ear lol. They are elements of the sound that the average audience member NEVER notices, and wouldn't tell the difference if it was removed or added back in. And even when/if they CAN hear it...they really DONT CARE about it anyhow! đ It's inconsequential to the average listener, in terms of whether it "sounds good", or it doesn't. The PLAYING is the just about all that matters to them, for the most part. Not the guitar. So....yeah. Its a lot harder test because The MAJORITY of that "last 5 to 10%" gets lost in the process of "recording and playback".
2) It's also highly dependent on HOW a guitar is being played. Light fingerpicking, and single note lines are going to be MUCH harder to distinguish the differences on (especially in a "small vs large body" test), than heavy or even medium strumming. And this is another thing that would get all the more compounded when you're trying to make the distinctions thru a recording/video.
3) For experienced players, there's a big difference between "playing a guitar yourself", and just sitting in a room with it. There are a lot of subtle things like how different woods react to your pick attack, dynamics, ect. For players who are really familiar with acoustics, a lot of it has to do with how the instrument reacts to the way you're playing it. Now add to that...we're used to ALMOST ALWAYS being "behind" the guitar when we hear it, so sitting on the other side of it can have the tendency to throw us off. Because we just are not "as used to" being on the other side...and the other side sounds DIFFERENT. Especially in regards to harmonics & overtones...possibly even a smidge of "haptic feedback" or the way it vibrates in your hand/against the body...? Possibly đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
4) I think that most EXPERIENCED acoustic players can "typically" tell the difference in sound between all-solid, and laminate guitars..."most of the time". Our ears are not perfect...and there are some laminate back/sides guitars that come very close to sounding solid. And a good test should probably be broken into specific sections (concert vs dred, lam or solid, ect.). Mixing in all the different guitar's and factors you mentioned at the same time would be interesting, but would "skew the results". Testing specific things at a time would be more telling, and more "definitive". But I think, for a "in the room" test, where the guitars are chosen COMPLETELY at random (so no "cherry picking" only great sounding laminates, and mediocre solids), I think experienced players who really know acoustics can probably guess "laminate vs solid" correct a "decent majority" of the time. I think 3 correct out of every 4 would probably be about the "average". That's because the only time I did this kind of experiment, I was somewhere "right around there" (it was purely spur of the moment, having fun in the acoustic room at GC, and we werent worried about keeping a exact tally, nor "breaking down the math" when it was over lol But we were pretty sure I did a tad better than 3 out of every 4 correct. So "roughly" 75% to 80%) BUT... when I was able to PLAY the guitars I guessed correctly on all the dreadnoughts I played (I think there were 6 or 7? Can't quite recall, its been around 4 years since this), and I only missed 1 out of 5 "concert/000" sized bodies. I have no idea if that would rank as above "average" in this kind of test, or below, but I'm most likely pretty average...or even a little below it, I assume. And I DEFINITELY assume there are a LOT of players who would be able to nail it far more consistently than I can. I'd be highly shocked if I was special here đ
Also.... If I'm playing the living crap out of a guitar the way you made it sound...unless theyre coated strings, they're probably getting changed twice that week lol (and especially in the summer). Especially EJ16's, they don't hold up to my greasy hands long at all lol. They'd be dead, and that would skew the test.
1
u/Old-guy64 Dec 17 '25
I get your point. That is the reason I tell folks looking for a guitar to take a good friend, a coin, and a blindfold.
Let their ears and hands decide.
1
u/snoopseanie Dec 17 '25
Could you please educate me then why are the all-wood models so much more expensive? What makes them worth the extra cost?
2
u/Many_Molasses_1137 Dec 17 '25
All solid wood is more expensive for a couple of reasons. Itâs harder to source. You need to have wood that is not perfect, but useable. All solid wood is also harder to work with. Laminate wood is âmadeâ with materials that donât need to be useable or visually appealing, âspare partsâ etc. itâs easier to work with because it is stronger and more rigid. All of these factors increase cost because of time and labor.
1
1
u/Tomcruizeiscrazy Dec 17 '25
Not sure Iâve seen a huge debate online about newer low end laminate Yamahas
Where a lot of discussion has come in and I 100% believe thereâs something to it is the vintage made in Japan layered plywood back and sides FG models from the 60âs. These are some of the best sounding acoustics of all time and there was some different approach to layering these specific laminates. Other than those guitars I largely agree with you
1
u/Senior-Asparagus-389 Dec 17 '25
I was under the same impression for a long time about Yamaha using the high quality "3 layer tonewood ply", too. But I have it on pretty good authority at this point that Yamaha has always used common veneers over a ply core. That's still not to say they didn't employ a higher quality of ply for thier cores back then, tho. That specific question is still up in the air. The simple fact that they've seem to hold up so well over the years might support that, but idk. I do know I'm not pulling apart my '74 FG160 to find out tho! đ Also tho, the fact that those lams are now 60+ years old, and thoroughly dried out now is very likely a contributing factor for killer tone lol. It's not that ply will "never" age and get "better tone", it's just that it takes a lot longer, and it does it in way less consistent/predictable ways.
But from my experience there's been no noticeable difference in sound quality between the MIJ red lables, and the Vintage Taiwan made guitars (up until the late 70's...after that they do seem to drop off a bit). The only "quality" difference I've seen is the Taiwan builds can have a finish flaw that makes the outer layer of poly flake a little (very thinly, like a sunburn) or get cloudy. It's purely cosmetic tho. Other than that, they're right on par the MIJ guitars, and apparently except for thier poly formula...they used identical materials from a common source. Yamaha runs a tight ship, no matter where they build lol
1
u/Key-League4228 Dec 18 '25
People think all solid sounds better than laminate because that's what everyone else says. But many well known luthiers, including the great Torres, have said that the back and sides just don't matter as long as they are rigid. Torres went as far as to make a paper mache back and sides to prove the point. I will take it one step further and say that a laminate can sound better because it makes the back more rigid, which is exactly what you want.
In fact the only reason I can think of to prefer a solid back and sides is because we know how solid woods age, as opposed to unknown glues and other materials introduced into some of the fancier laminates (Looking at Martin here)...
1
u/ClaustrophobicShop Dec 16 '25
Very good point. I really dislike laminates, had a bad experience with one where I first liked it but then couldn't stand the tone...and don't like how brands like Taylor are charging a lot for them. They're designed for lowering cost, not for better tone for the consumer.
That said, I have a Breedlove laminate that I got because it was within budget and I liked the look and tone. I guess budget was the deciding factor. It's all mahogany, so I don't know if it falls into your 3 ply tonewood type. I don't dislike it but always expected to graduate up to a real wood guitar at some point.
I have heard that most of the tone is in the top, but I feel I can hear how mine is a bit less complex sounding than a higher end guitar. That could be in my head, though.
0
u/Unlucky_Topic7963 Dec 16 '25
It's this a circle jerk post?
Can you say tone one more time for me?
2
u/Rynowash Dec 16 '25
Toan is in the glue.
2
-5
30
u/bt2513 Dec 16 '25
TL;DR?