| Official Luthiers Forum! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=31675 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | ernie [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
Have any of you builders used these 2 woods for classicals ?/ my only experience is in using englemann. I am considering buying a batch of spruce in may for long term use. I know that sitka is favored for steel strings. Would lutz be closer to the density of euro spruce or can you really hear the difference. thanks |
|
| Author: | WaddyThomson [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
Never built a classical with Sitka, but have built with Euro, Lutz and Engelmann - a couple of each. IME, they are very similar, but you cannot make blanket statements. Each piece has it's own idiosyncrasies. My understanding is that Sitka has some damping properties that are not the best for building classical guitars, however, John Gilbert used it successfully for a while, though he did not continue to use it. Lutz has some Sitka in it, but it certainly does not seem to have the high damping factor that I understand is typical of Sitka, which is what makes it good for Steel String guitars. |
|
| Author: | Alain Moisan [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
On top of what Waddy mentioned, Sitka is usually heavier than lutz, thus makes a guitar with less volume than with lutz. You may find a piece of light weight siktka here and there, but it's generally heavier. |
|
| Author: | Scot Tremblay [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
I've made a few and have a sitka/maple made by another luthier. All are disapointing instruments. But after two or three that didn't turn out the way I expected I went back to what I know works for me which is Englemann and European. John Gilbert, Sergi de Jonge and Larrivee are a few luthiers that regularly use or prefer Sitka for their classicals with superb results. Many luthiers I know swear by Lutz spruce. I'm just starting to work with it so cannot give an accurate assessment but so far, personally, I definitely prefer it over Sitka for nylon string instruments. |
|
| Author: | Shane Neifer [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
I have sent a bunch of Lutz Spruce sets to Robert Ruck after he built a guitar with a set he bought from me during GAL in 2006. He liked the new sets enough that he ordered a bunch more which he is waiting to be processed. Most of the classical makers I know (like or own Michael Collins for instance) just really like the stiffness to weight ratio, it seems to be in the ball park for good classicals (and steel strings  ).Shane |
|
| Author: | Mike Collins [ Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The difference between Lutz spruce and Sitka for classical |
I use Lutz only when spruce is called for classicals & Flamencos. It's a great wood,lite in weight,stiff as ALL HELL has excellent tonal properties. I get mine only from High Mountain because Shane knows how to select the right trees and cut the tops. Sitka can run from heavy to lite more then Lutz. I have some Sitka here that should have been used in boats or airplanes. Denser then my first wife!! Mike ![[:Y:]](./images/smilies/smiley20.gif "Thumbs Up")
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|