Solid vs book matched

Any opinions on solid vs bookmatched, two piece, top and back on ukuleles?
I have a Martin that is solid top and back.
I noticed that Kamaka brand is always two piece.
Is there a sound difference or preference? Thanks for any thoughts.

I have both kinds, but I don't notice any real difference.

---

This is Michael Kohan in Los Angeles, Beverly West near the Beverly Center
9 tenor cutaway ukes, 5 acoustic bass ukes, 11 solid body bass ukes, 9 mini electric bass guitars (Total: 34)

• Donate to The Ukulele Kids Club, they provide ukuleles to children in hospital music therapy programs. www.theukc.org
• Member The CC Strummers: YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/CCStrummers/video, Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheCCStrummers

I have seen many ukuleles listed and reviewed that say they have a "solid" top or back. The term was used to indicate that it was made from solid pieces of one kind of wood. Usually from the same source. Frequently bookmatched on the higher-priced ukes. But many of the less expensive ones as well.

The top could be made of solid spruce with the back and side made of solid koa. Or a combination of solid woods. With no laminate veneers. (But there might be inlays, bindings and other decorative elements.)

There have been a few older Ko'Aloha and Kanile'a tenors listed with one-piece tops and/or backs made of koa. And even a couple that had a single piece that made up the sides. Those may have been mahogany or koa.

It's pretty rare to find quarter-sawn wood from a large enough log of wood today that would allow a top-grade, one-piece tonewood top or back. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've only seen it used in very high-end custom, luthier-made instruments or vintage offerings.

But that's just based upon my observations of instruments listed for sale here in the Marketplace and elsewhere. It isn't a huge sampling. Not large enough for me to be confident that my conclusion is correct.

Yup. They are both bitchin......

This might help...

https://forum.ukuleleunderground.com/showthread.php?54698-Why-bookmatch-instead-of-one-piece

John

I too am curious. The book matched ones often look gorgeous, when the mirror image of the wood curl/pattern looks good, but I have always wondered if the single piece "should" sound better. I have wondered (on no basis whatsoever) if the joint between the two piece front impeded it's resonance/vibration.

I think I'd prefer a single piece top - the back can be two piece - I just think it would have a better tone, (purely supositional).

My opinion, fwiw, is that any piece of wood available these days that is wide enough to serve as the back or top of any but the smaller sizes of ukulele, is likely to be subject to more internal stress than a bookmatched plate made from a narrower board.

The additional stress may translate into a greater propensity for the wider, single piece back or top, to warp or crack with fluctuations in temperature and humidity than the bookmatched back or top.

This may not have been as big a consideration in decades past, when there were still massive koa and mahogany trees to be used in making musical instruments. But those days are in the past now. And the smaller sizes of trees being harvested would seem to make this an even more important factor.

Of course, I could be totally wrong... but in my experience, the wider the board, the less dimensional stability it will have.

The only one-piece top and back ukulele I have is my old Harmony Baritone (solid mahogany) and everything else is bookmatched two-piece construction. Appearance wise, I actually prefer the bookmatched construction. I don't beieve that either style is going to have an effect on the sound. A properly glued two-piece set should be just as strong and vibrate just as well as a solid top.

"Solid" usually implies that it is not a laminated veneer that has the described wood type only as a thin surface layer. This is sometimes visible in the soundhole or for figured wood if the inside is exactly the same as the outside. Bookmatched refers to the number of pieces used for the top and back and is visible in the symmetry of figuring. With single piece front and back the figuring is all over the place and the ends may have completely different colours. Most people prefer solid wood for better sound and bookmatched tops for looks. Another reason why manufacturers use book matching is that large enough pieces of quality wood such as Koa can be difficult to find. I have a concert size KoAloha with single piece Koa top, bottom, and sides that looks pretty cool though.

I have a 2004 Ko'Aloha KTM tenor and the top and back are both made of a single piece of quarter-sawn koa wood.
My 2017 Ko'Aloha KTM-00 tenor has a book-matched quarter-sawn top and back.
I have both strung with Living Waters Low-G fluorocarbons. The older tenor does sound different. It's sound is skewed slightly more towards the bass end. The middles and high end are a little more open, and the sustain is slightly longer on the newer one.
I can't, however, attribute the sound differences to the single piece versus two-piece construction because the box brace in the 2004 is substantially thicker and heavier than the one used in the 2017 model.

Many of my tenors have a center line bracing strip behind the seam of the two-piece backs. I have to think that this longitudinal brace affects the vibration characteristics of the back.

I have to admit that it is a little disconcerting seeing the grain on a one-piece back. I'm so used to seeing symmetrical grain patterns on the fronts and backs that the asymmetry of single-piece looks a little odd at first to me. Beautiful in its own way.