Addendum to the Rosewood thread.

You know if guitarists were such idiots, this wouldn't be an issue. If you recorded a track with a Strat with a rosewood fretboard and one with a pau ferro fretboard, nobody could tell the difference. But Gibson used rosewood in the 50s so you have to have rosewood or its inferior. There are plenty of woods out there that look similar to rosewood that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sound. Now, I am sure with acoustics there may be a difference, but acoustics are for sissies :embarrassed:
 
You know if guitarists were such idiots, this wouldn't be an issue. If you recorded a track with a Strat with a rosewood fretboard and one with a pau ferro fretboard, nobody could tell the difference. But Gibson used rosewood in the 50s so you have to have rosewood or its inferior. There are plenty of woods out there that look similar to rosewood that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sound. Now, I am sure with acoustics there may be a difference, but acoustics are for sissies :embarrassed:
to be fair.....Martin used rosewood in the 20's and 30's......so i think that gibson just climbed on board in the 50's
just sayin'
 
to be fair.....Martin used rosewood in the 20's and 30's......so i think that gibson just climbed on board in the 50's
just sayin'

Electric guitars. Orville Gibson and were CF Martin were making instruments in the 1800's, I'm sure they used some rosewood then too.
 
You know if guitarists were such idiots, this wouldn't be an issue. If you recorded a track with a Strat with a rosewood fretboard and one with a pau ferro fretboard, nobody could tell the difference. But Gibson used rosewood in the 50s so you have to have rosewood or its inferior. There are plenty of woods out there that look similar to rosewood that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sound. Now, I am sure with acoustics there may be a difference, but acoustics are for sissies :embarrassed:
Your arguments are as inferior as baked maple.
 
Back
Top