Official Luthiers Forum!

Thanks Alan. I was relying on memory of something I read some time ago for the 3 min time limit and that may be wrong. Whatever it is, auditory memory is SORT. Any comparison test needs to take that into account or else the results will be meaningless. Also, a rating system is unreliable because different people have different tastes for sound and will rate differently, as Alan has pointed out. A much better test is to try and answer the question, can they tell the difference, and design the test to answer this question. Tests should also be designed to reduce the number of variables to one only if that is at all possible. The Fylde guitar test fails all three requirements, so the results are meaningless, and the conclusions are load of bull IMHO.

I get it down to a lot less than 15 seconds. I play either open strings or strings capo'd - same note on two different guitars, direct comparison, guitars facing me.
I've never done it on near identical guitars though, consecutive cut soundboards. That kind of makes any evaluation of back/sides a bit meaningless. How can you know that any differences that you are hearing are a result of the difference in the soundboard rather than the wood type of the back/sides.
I have done a similar test with strings (not blind) eg. two high 'E' strings on the same guitar then their positions swapped around. My conclusion (hardly scientific or definitive) is that people tend to exaggerate the differences between string makes. Quite often I couldn't hear any difference.
I haven'y used tropical wood for back/sides for a few years now. The darkest (colour) wood I use is walnut. With darker grades of shellac, dragons blood and alkanet I can get it looking reasonably close to EI Rosewood Won't fool any experts but a few players might be taken in! Of course then it will sound at least as good as any EI Rosewood guitar

Well, I once made to identical guitars. The backs and sides and top we're maid from the same flitch. Same body type same bracing style same thicknesses etc... They ended up being two different guitars. Granted this was very early on in my building "career" but still it was interesting. And that demonstrates to me a blind test is pretty meaningless in trying to determine what material the backs and sides of a guitar are made of.

What a road of clap / Seriously ??? . LOL Just another bunch of wood bigots , Tooting their faves , an touting unscientific, unreliable , and unsubstantiated claims, I like to look at the early masters of our craft, (1400-1500 /s) and start from there. They used what was available locally to them , with some exotics f for colour and durability. E.G. the spanish luthiers of the 1800/s used local spruce and cypress it was very reasonable available and low in price to make it affordable for local musicians, Some of these guitars are still around today and sound wonderful. NO cnc machines , no quality control, no blindfolded tests, no fancy shmansy marketing techniques etc etc. Just honest craftsmanship and a high level of skill.

I also have to say, having played a reasonable few fylde guitars they are certainly not 'woody' sounding guitars, clear and articulate yes but not loud particularly and a lot more string than wood in the sound if you know what I mean. Gordon giltrap usually plays one unless he's changed in the last few years.