Guitar woods

mahogany is usually a good choice. but i could be wrong. im not familiar w. acoustic and i forgot all this stuff. research around a while on google and ull find.

Trouble is that combinations of woods will also affect the end result.

It also depends on what an individual calls a deep tone, some may call it boomy.

Then there is the decision of a solid top or a laminate - that will sffect the sound, perhaps more than the actual wood used.

I would recommend that you go to a large guitar store and try every acoustic you can lay your hands on.

for low end boom, go for rosewood back and sides. I dont know what your price range is but the all mahogany Martins are exellent IMHO

Not sure what wood to recommend, but play a few Martins and see what you think.

thanks... i kinda figured that rosewood and mahogany would be my best bets.... i want something that will give me a decent tone but more on the deep side but not too pricey.... just something to move up from the guitar i have now... its got nato back and sides and a mahogany top.... :? ....lol.... it works for now but i want something that sounds a lil better

sorry... spruce top, not mahogany!!

The size and shape of the acoustic also has a lot to do with the low to midrange frequency response -- just as important, if not more so, than the side and back woods. To your question:

Dreadnaught: Strong low end and usually somewhat attenuated midrange (scooped response)

Jumbo (e.g., Gibson J200): Good, strong low end, but with a more balanced midrange (balanced response)

HE SAID "WOOD"!

Yeap! Solid Rosewood or Mahoganey wood back and sides with a solid Spruce top and you'll like what you hear... unless you can afford Koa.

I own a Epiphone EJ-200 jumbo with Maple back and sides which is huge, loud and bright... plus it has medium strings on it. When I bought my Martin, it was because I knew I wanted a quieter guitar, and settleted on Rosewood over Mahoganey. Smaller bodied with light strings too!

Mine's a 16 triple ought cutaway model but the dread's have more low end and classic Martin tone. Extremely different from the Epi or any maple bodied guitar.

HE SAID "WOOD"!
.

How could I possibly have missed that? :roll:

I attempted to address the intent of the question. Sometimes an answer is complicated, and asking a simplified question gets a only a partial or inadequate answer. Frequency response of a guitar is not merely dependent upon the woods, but also dimensions (Helmholz resonance), wood thickness, bracing, string gauge, top finish and ...

BTW, the Epi 200 does not sound nearly as nice as the Gibby 200 -- could it be because there's more to it than woods ... and even size? Finishes, thicknesses and bracing often are different Epiphone to Gibson in the "same" models -- and very likely suspects.

Best advice is to play the guitar one is considering and go for sound and feel first -- everything else second or third. Unless, one is a singer in need of a good looking prop.

More info on wood vs. design? Check this link: Taylor Palet Guitar

I have a Yamaha FG-04 Limited with rosewood back/sides and a solid spruce top. It's very loud and bright, but still has a rather authoritative 'boom' to it and sounds extremely full. I chose this particular guitar over several more expensive Martins and I don't regret it for a second.

It's all very subjctive of course, since anyone else could pick mine up and know it wasn't the particular sound they were looking for. As others have said - play every one you can put your hands on and make your choice that way. The Yamaha was probably somewhere between the 15th and 20th guitar I test drove that day. :)