Speaking as a forestry professional, one who has devoted his life to actually planting and growing some of these timbers for high quality markets (including the sale of thousands of tonnes of material for use in instrument manufacture), I would pay a great deal of attention to the basic density of the timber you are considering. Maple is prized for its sustain qualities perhaps rather more than Ash. However, Maple is also a very hard wood - harder in fact, than Oak, and, therefore, less susceptible to wear. This is a quality you will rarely hear an instrument maker refer to - much less a musician. Ash is a very dense wood and with quite an open pore structure, but is the most resistant of any UK timber to shock. For this reason, it was used in tool handles and for sports equipment. Grain is often really straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwoods
Fast grown Ash has more wood formed in the early Spring, so is lighter and stronger (more shock resistant) at between 510-690kg/cubic metre. If, however, you can find some slow grown Ash, it will be incredibly dense - as much as 830kg/m3 & I would think that would be far, far better for your purposes than a lump of Beech.
I could tell you all sorts of stories about instruments & musicians prejudices for one wood type or species over another. For God's sake don't listen to guitarists about the tonal qualities of one type of wood over another (and my house is full of guitars). Speak to a cellist or violinist and they'll have a far better connection to the quality of an instrument and its construction.
However, there are so many factors at work here as to make generalisations almost meaningless. For example, the density of MDF is supposed to be guaranteed to be equal to that of Beech, and coupled with it's machinability, that's supposed to make it the perfect 'wood', ...........ahem.
Things like grain orientation, age and moisture content at time of felling, how the timber was sawn (eg 'through and through' or 'quarter sawn'), which part of the log it was cut from, how the woodland was thinned though the lifetime of the tree, even whether the log was ever floated down a river and how the sawn timber was stored all have a bearing on the performance of a given piece of wood.
The reputation of a species of wood for 'good sustain' in a guitar has only tangential relevance to the use of wood in hifi and depends entirely on the particular purpose you're intending that piece of wood to be put to.
The reputation of a particular species for its ability to sustain a note on an electric guitar is more a result of how it allows the string and the hardware to function unimpeded by other influences - ie to vibrate naturally, and for the note to decay without interferance from other factors. In simple terms, if the string is allowed to finish vibrating in its own time, and nothing prevents it from doing so, then the instrument has what is called 'great sustain'. Therefore, its not the wood that has the 'good sustain', but rather that the wood merely allows the string to fulfill its function properly or not.
Now, if you translate this to your hifi, you have to ask yourself what exactly it is that you want your piece of wood to do?
For example: A person making speaker cabinets may want the wood to allow the drivers to perform as naturally as possible, then they might prefer a timber that (in a guitar), has 'great sustain', because it will not set up, or transmit as many interfering resonances as another species.
In short, I think you want a wood that has 'great sustain'.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
