Carpathian Spruce

[peter.coombe]

Have any of you had any experience with Carpathian Spruce? I imported some of John Preston's wood from the US (logged in Romania) for my mandolins around 2 years ago and have been very impressed with the sound I get with this wood. It has a different sound from the European Spruce from the Alps, and it is a sound I really like. I have a Carpathian Spruce/Yassie Oak mandolin here now that I think sounds pretty damn amazing. It has everything - clarity, sweetness, warmth, big ring and sustain, and good volume. Was quite a surprise. Has anyone else used Tassie Oak?

Anyway, my first guitar is using some of John's Spruce (EIR back and sides) and I am curious as to what others have found. Have just routed the binding channel on the first guitar and it has been, bugger, no purphling left of the right size, so I need to wait for the new purphling order to arrive. Have been a couple of other "bugger, won't do that again on the next guitar" as well, but so far these have been fairly minor. So far so good. I'm trying hard not to start the next guitar until I finish this one so as to not make the same mistake twice.

[Bob Connor]

I've got some Carpathian Peter but I haven't built with it yet.

The only comments I've read about Carpathian were from Bruce Sexauer who descibed it as a "one trick pony" in that it was very loud. But it was loud whether you played the instrument softly or thrashed it. I think he found it not particularly dynamic or expressive. However they are his observations from his building techniques and whilst he is a very respected luthier your mileage may vary.

I've built with Tas Oak and loved it.

IMG_0088 (Medium).jpg (71.44 KiB) Viewed 6833 times

[peter.coombe]

Great, thanks Bob. Very tasy looking guitar. Any more guitar makers used it?

To date I have finished 4 mandolins with Carpathian Spruce and have been very happy with all 4. Two had European Maple back and sides, one has Big Leaf Maple, and the other is Tassie Oak. Currently working on the second F hole mandolin with Carpathian Spruce and Tassie Oak. To me when comparing it to identical instruments with the same back wood, Carpathian sounds much like Red Spruce, only a bit warmer and with not so much dynamic range - i.e. it does not go as loud. Clarity is better and it has a finer overall sound quality than Red Spruce. It also does not take anywhere as long to mature as Red. The Tassie Oak instrument has incredible midrange and treble clarity, better than any other mandolin I have ever come across, and the bass has a nice warm quality. The Big Leaf is really loud and bright, with similar mid and treble clarity. The European Spruce mandolins are real sweet, well balanced, gorgeous sounding mandolins, but not as loud as the Big Leaf or Tassie Oak. So, I would not agree with Bruce that it is a "one trick pony", at least not in mandolins.

Not sure wat I prefer, but the clarity and warmth of the Tassie Oak is very alluring, then again the sweetness of the E. Maple is also alluring.

My good email friend Lynn Dudenbostle put me onto the Carpathian Spruce. He is a great fan and describes it as similar to Red Spruce, but with more. I would have to agree, at least for mandolins. If I get similar results with the guitar I will be over the moon.

Peter

[Luke]

I have used Tassie Oak / Vic Ash there similar I think Peter on necks for my odd ball instruments so the recommendation is not from a serious artisan. I have found it excellent also on the two mandolins I have built one using a VW hub cap as the body the other a cigar box I have made the bridges out of Tassie oak and found it sounding excellent. I also made a biscuit bridge for resonator guitar all out of Tassie oak/Vic Ash and I think the tone is superior to the standard USA maple.
I think Jim Dyson whom makes electric instruments is a big fan of Vic Ash.

[Kim]

I would think that Carpathian would need to be assessed set by set just like any spruce, or any wood for that matter. I have a few sets of Carpathian out in the shed, one is very clean, nice tight even grain perfectly on the quarter yet it is without doubt one of the floppiest tops 'across' grain I have ever handled. I have yet another which I received from the same source, it has much more grain variation and some rather disappointing discolouration going on, but it is very stiff having no give at all and rings like a bell when tapped where the first only produces a dull thud.

Certainly I am no expert but I should imagine in order to compare the different spruces in an objective way, you would first need to find tops from each species that display quite identical properties as far as thickness, grain spacing, weight to stiffness ratio etc, etc, and they would then need testing with identical bracing on an identical body before you could really say with any certainty what one type does when compared to another and despite raking the internet for a good number of years now, I am yet to see any clear example of anyone actually doing that. But as I said, this is by no means a statement of any authority, rather it is just my own suppositions.

Must also add that such a comparison would be difficult to achieve with any certainly simply because of the lack of any real certainty in supply of the test boards. For instance it is my understanding that once the foliage has been removed from a red spruce log and a black spruce log, it becomes all but impossible to tell which log is which as the timber they produce is identical. Combine that with the various hybrids, not only Lutz but other also that get thrown in the mix and called Sitka or Englemann, and it becomes difficult to imagine how anyone can be absolutely certain about exactly what it is they have in their shop to test other than it is spruce.

Cheers

Kim

[peter.coombe]

Point taken (i.e. every piece of wood is different), but I have made around 25 mandolins from Red Spruce, around 60 from European Spruce from the Alps and probably about 15 from Engelmann, the rest are King Billy and few other odds and sods. They all sound different, but on average there are some characteristics that can be consistently allocated to each species - e.g. Red Spruce has the biggest dynamic range, and takes a long time to find it's final voice. Much of what I have observed has been backed up by other mandolin makers. There is overlap, and it is difficult to pick what species the Spruce is if you don't know what it is becasue of the overlap, but I am sure I could pick Engelmann from Red in one of my mandolins if blinded. Red and European is much more difficult because there is a lot more overlap. Density and stiffness ain't everything. There is plenty of overlap between Red and Engelmann in density and stiffness, but there are not many experienced Luthiers who would try and claim they sound the same.

Similarly, the Carpathian Spruce I have is certainly very variable in density and stiffness, but all 4 mandolins have a clarity to the sound I have not heard before except perhaps with King Billy Pine. 4 is not many, so I have a way to go just yet before being certain of my impressions. However, the first Carpathian Spruce was as close as I could possibly get to a Red Spruce mandolin I made at the same time so as to have a valid comparison. Same woods and the Chladni patterns were near to identical, so at least stiffness/density ratio was about the same. As close as is practical to having only one variable different - i.e. the wood species of the top. I have already proven that it is possible to build identical sounding mandollins if the woods are the same and the Chladni patterns match in frequency. That was poblished earlier this year in JAMIM. The problem then is that Red won't sound at it's best until it is at least a few years old, but the Carpathian will mature much quicker, so you are still not really comparing apples with apples. At the moment I prefer the Carpathian, but in 3 years time that may change. However, customers get to play both when they are new and just have to take my work for it that Red will change quite a bit with time and playing. Guess what their ears are telling them which one to choose?

The point is, because of the variability of the material, you can't come to any meaningfull conclusions from just a couple of instruments, you need to make a reasonable number and listen for consistencies. It is almost impossible to match all physical characteristics exactly, even if from the same tree, so the only practical approach is in numbers and take the mean. It is also a good idea to try different back woods because some back woods will complement the top wood, or otherwise. I think I have done that, although a few more Carpathian tops certainly would be useful. I am unlikely to use the Carpathian/Big Leaf Maple combination again unless someone specifically asks for it, too bright for my taste. Engelmann and Big Leaf I have used before, and those instruments were quite acceptable.

Maybe things are different in the guitar world and all Spruce species sound the same.

Peter

[Kim]

Great reply Peter, very informative and was loaded with good points. On the other hand I was not near as clear that my comments were directed mainly at the suggestion that Carpathian is a one trick pony...I am certain that Bruce Sexauer is at least twice the luthier I will ever be, but to me that seem a 'very' big call to make.

Cheers

Kim