side wood other than tonewoods

[Happy Builder]

for a guitar

does the side wood have to be same as the back wood

can i use a non tonewood

[Antonio Cotichini]

I've seen guitars whose backs were two or three pieces of different tonewoods. What you mean by non-tonewood?

[Happy Builder]

i mean wood that is traditionally not a tonewood like oak and burmese teak wood

[Rory]

I've never mixed n' matched side & back woods on full size instruments but I used to do a lot of unconventional pairing of back woods & sides on my travel guitars. For example a mahogany back with purpleheart sides and vice versa. One travel guitar I did had a walnut back & maple sides- they looked great together.
You'll be treading in unknown waters-there are so many potential combinations & factors who knows what the specific sonic results are or will be? From what I understand, the sides do not contribute as much to tone as the back or top, so you might take that into consideration? Of course, if selling your product, it can be a tough sell to do something out of the norm. On the other side of the coin, there is no 'wrong' so long as it plays, plays in tune and makes a pleasing tone.... go for it!! And keep in mind the likes of Mr. Benedetto have built full guitars out of lousy knot-filled palette wood and apparently they sound good. His point was to establish that the instrument design and the build quality are more important than fancy woods.
As far as using a non-tonewood, I'd proceed carefully. There are some valid and some not so valid reasons that some woods are 'tonewoods' and some not so much.

Rory

[Happy Builder]

specifically i would like to use oak as sides on a rosewood back
reason oak bends easily even if thick like 8 mm
would give the guitar structural strength
and able to make top and back thinner
anything wrong with oak sides

[Pierre-Antoine Roiron]

Making 8mm sides sure would bring strenght... to the sides! The forces applied on top are the same, whatever the sides' strenght, so it wouldn't allow you to thin the top. Maybe the back. By the way, thinning a top does not improve sound : there are great guitars with thin top, and great ones with thicker tops. What make the sound of the top is the global system composed by the soundboard and the bracing.
But I don't see why you couldn't use oak. Go for it, tell us the result and tell us in five or ten years how it aged, it would be a good experience.

[FRANK]

I WAS TOLD OAK ABSORBS TONE ?

[Frank Ford]

Mismatched species of wood for back/sides on acoustic guitars is simply not considered attractive by the vast majority of players and builders. And, if you add that extra thickness, you'll increase the overall weight - another unpopular choice.

Then you'll be starting off with two reasons for the majority of guitar players not to like your work - if you care about such things.


As to heavier sides allowing thinner top, sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Read and absorb the literature, look at fine old instruments, and get the traditional down first before reinventing the wheel. . .

[FRANK]

i have seen a acoustic guitar made from oak and pine the 2 i would refuse to build with and it was ok for what it was

[FRANK]

i would not buy it though

[Tim Mace]

I've used nice semi matched up poplar for back and sides from Home Depot.One of the best sounding flat top mandos
I've made. Wider for back.Cheeeeeap!!!One w/ ovangkol back and butcherblock maple sides.Looks like ice cream and sounds great.Eng/spruce top.I got plenty of good neck and side wood out of my wife's discarded maple b/block.

[Tim Mace]

0uch!!

[Ned Knepp]

I've seen a couple of old parlors that were built with quartered oak that sounded pretty good. I don't know if I would use something as soft as popular but back and sides but I wouldn't blink at using well seasoned quartered oak. ( I could be wrong about popular since I haven't seen or heard an instrument that used it.)

Ned