Gibson ES175 fret change/sound change?

[teleboli]

Hi all. I bought a 1953 ES175. Played very well, sounded great. It did need a fret job so I went ahead and did that. I knew new frets would change things a bit. I was hoping it would play better and maybe sound a bit different. I'm finding it has lost a good bit of sustain, plays a bit better but not a whole lot and the overall sound is not as sweet as it was before the fret change. Any thoughts on this? What about another fret dress to bring them down a bit? Thanks in advance

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by teleboli

Hi all. I bought a 1953 ES175. Played very well, sounded great. It did need a fret job so I went ahead and did that. I knew new frets would change things a bit. I was hoping it would play better and maybe sound a bit different. I'm finding it has lost a good bit of sustain, plays a bit better but not a whole lot and the overall sound is not as sweet as it was before the fret change. Any thoughts on this? What about another fret dress to bring them down a bit? Thanks in advance

When it comes to vintage guitar and to some degree all guitars, I'm a big believer in Karma. What's confusing to me is, you stated that the guitar "played very well" . . . then you stated "It did need a fret job". Those 2 statements seem to be in direct conflict to me. Why didn't you just leave the guitar alone? But, hopefully some of the skilled luthiers and techs will jump in here with replies that make more sense than not upsetting the Karma of a guitar. Could be it needs a better fret dress. The strings could be too close to the next fret up the neck due to uneveness. Could be that some of the new frets are not properly seated and bonded. Could also be a difference in your own touch due to the different feel of the newer frets. Could be a difference in the fret material.

Who decided it needed a fret job . . . you or your tech?

[teleboli]

My luthier and I both agreed. I was 80% ish happy with it and couldn't help but think new frets would take it to the next level. It was visually obvious the frets were pretty darned low. I took the gamble. Ofcourse the changes in tone and feel after the new frets could be in the fret dress, height, set up etc etc.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by teleboli

My luthier and I both agreed. I was 80% ish happy with it and couldn't help but think new frets would take it to the next level. It was visually obvious the frets were pretty darned low. I took the gamble. Ofcourse the changes in tone and feel after the new frets could be in the fret dress, height, set up etc etc.

Yeah . . . I'm sure you'll be fine with it. Were the frets that you replaced the original ones? Was the neck binding removed and replaced or was it refretted over the binding? What were the strings on it when you got it and what were they replaced with? After a refret, there is usually a whole new set up required (obviously) did the set up include any work on the nut?

[PTChristopher]

Um. I think it is pretty necessary to try to decide where you want to go with this experience (the old 175 and the reasonable need to do some maintenance).

Please bear with me a little here since some of this may sound a little rude at first. I am giving opinion here and my intent is not to belittle anyone's opinions or observations.

>>> big believer in Karma

I am a HUGE believer in a player's reaction to an instrument as being very important.

It is also my observation that a player's reaction to an instrument often includes a mix of reactions to actual observations, and reactions that are very hard to tie to any actual aspect of the instrument. It happens; nothing wrong with it so long as it does not drive poor decisions.

>>> I knew new frets would change things a bit.

Well maybe. There are some things frets can change and some things they are very unlikely to change. One thing they almost always change significantly is the feel of a guitar with which a player is very familiar.

The toughest example are folk strummers. They will have worn the frets into deep grooves in the cowboy chord zone - worn to the point that the guitar is almost unplayable - that is unless you have been playing "Circle Game" and "Leavin' on a Jet Plane" on the thing for 15 years. In that case, it feels just fine.

Then some innocent (as much as any of them really are innocent) luthier replaces the first 6 frets, fixes or replaces the nut, and generally makes the thing play with far less effort, far more clarity, and far fewer dead skin cells and inexplicable goo (that seems to creep around on its own,...) all over the fingerboard.

Then folk-guy comes back and hates the guitar. It lost all its feel. The strings buzz (because they have not been on there since the Carter administration).

The player would say that the mojo, kharma, vibe, gas, soul, is gone - but he reads enough to think it may carry more weight to say something more seemingly objective. So "sustain, harmonics, intonation, and hell maybe mojo too" are all deeply compromised, somehow.

I once slobbered paste wax and then Chapstik all over some new strings and frets to try and get that good old dead feel back for a player. This was, in retrospect, intemperate at best.

I guess my point (such as it is) is that you need to help your luthier a little here by trying to be as specific as possible about what your have now vs. what you want to have.

Back to the subject at hand:

>>> I was hoping it would play better and maybe sound a bit different.

Play better in what way? I agree that you should expect improvements, but exactly what did you expect to change? This is not a casual question. Whether re-fretting, or invading a middle eastern country, it may be best to ask:

1. What are we doing?

2. Why are we doing it?

3. What specific (SPECIFIC!) observations do we make that say we need to do it?

4. What specific (no, really SPECIFIC) observations do we expect to make that will demonstrate success.

It works. It really does.

Your guitar is a mess, a real mess. You may think your underwear drawer is a mess; you may think your first post-high-school relationship was a mess. But they are/were models of human order and progress compared to your guitar.

It's not personal. My guitars are a mess too - and I have convinced myself (possibly through delusion) that I have quite a bit of control of all the detail involved in playability and sound.

So to work with this mess we make all sorts of adjustments while playing. Maybe you squeeze a little to improve intonation of some notes without even noticing. Maybe you know to go easy on you fattest plain string and spank the thinnest wound string a little. You probably do all sorts of things that neither of us would notice - but are the key to your sound. It's how many players sound recognizable whether they are playing a Telecaster or an L5.

And now you have new frets. Many things probably are better (but you need to be specific if your luthier is going to be able to help you), and maybe some things are genuinely worse.

>>> it has lost a good bit of sustain

This is highly unlikely, but possible under a few very specific conditions. I would suggest leaving this one aside for a while.

>>> the overall sound is not as sweet as it was before the fret change.

I believe you (like who cares what I believe, but here we are anyway). But reduced sweet-o-sity is overwhelmingly likely a combination of many factors.

Some likely ones are:

1. New strings.

2. Nut height affecting your approach to lower position playing.

3. Pickup height and tilt. It has changed vs. how it was before even if no screws were turned in the making of this film.

4. THE SHAPE OF THE FRET CROWN. This affects the string vibration a little, and very much affects how you play - particularly when you choke right up behind a fret.

5. Overall fret height. This comes more into play when you are fingering in the mid-point between frets.

6. Your subjective reaction to all the changes. It's a mess, remember. Objectivity is hard, but sometimes a little necessary.

>>> What about another fret dress to bring them down a bit?

That would be "ready, fire, aim". I suggest taking the current situation and thinking through ANY action with your luthier more or less as:

1. What are we doing?

2. Why are we doing it?

3. What specific (SPECIFIC!) observations do we make that say we need to do it?

4. What specific (no, really SPECIFIC) observations to we expect to make that will demonstrate success.

All in my opinion. I am sure others may be more directly helpful.

Chris

[teleboli]

I'm thinking the frets that were replaced were not the original ones because there was a small piece of the fretboard missing right next to one of the previous frets, leading me to believe the frets had been removed at least once before. The new frets were installed over the binding. I put a set of D'darrio(?) 12 flats on it when I got it and after the fret job the same strings were put back on. He also installed a new bone nut. Any clues?

[teleboli]

PTChristopher. That is alot to digest. I appreciate the thought on my behalf. I think I will take your advice and step back for awhile. See what a liitle more time with the instrument might bring.

[jasonc]

I highly doubt the frets changed the sound of anything. To do the work you have to take it apart. The bridge height will change, which I suspect is the cause of all of this. Your bridge height surely went up, increasing the break angle (and also the distance from your string to the pickup as well). This will put more pressure on the top and could possibly account for your loss of sustain.

[PTChristopher]

Considering the layout of a 175, how do you see increased downward pressure reducing sustain?

I mean, we see some significant complexity of bridge pressure and volume/sustain on some fairly critical designs, like a Maccaferri. But the small change via higher frets on a 175 having a measurable effect?

In my opinion.

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by PTChristopher

Considering the layout of a 175, how do you see increased downward pressure reducing sustain?

I mean, we see some significant complexity of bridge pressure and volume/sustain on some fairly critical designs, like a Maccaferri. But the small change via higher frets on a 175 having a measurable effect?

In my opinion.

Well, I wasn't paying attention to it being an ES-175. However, my point about plenty of things being changed is valid. Just having the strings off of it for however long can affect something as nebulous as "sweetness". I had a pressed top D'Angelico (Vestax) that was very sensitive to bridge height, granted it's not the laminate of an ES-175 but you get the idea. Or are you asking me why I would think that downward pressure would reduce sustain?

[NSJ]

I sold a '53 ES-175 recently. When I got it, originally, it was definitely a player's guitar and desperately needed a fret job, the frets were ridiculously worn down. So I had it re-fretted.

I didn't notice a change in sustain, before-affter.

It was a fine-sounding guitar--there is really something to be said for that dog-eared P90, and it also had a decent acoustic sound--which is largely non-existent in modern 175s, but it didn't sound as nice as my Sadowsky Jim Hall, and it didn't play as well as the S.J.H., so there was no point in keeping it around.

[PTChristopher]

Hi Jason,

>>> asking me why I would think that downward pressure would reduce sustain?

Yeah, that was my question.

>>> my point about plenty of things being changed is valid.

Absolutely. I'm just throwing the subject around some. Maybe it helps the OP, or maybe we just have fun talking guitar nuts and bolts some.

In any case I have no interest in suggesting that anyone's views are not valid. Rather, it can be interesting to follow the thinking as little - sometimes it reminds someone of an earlier experience that may be helpful in sorting things out.

>>> nebulous as "sweetness"

Har-har. Yes I guess it can be nebulous, but I also understand that sometimes you just have to throw a reaction out there and see what happens.

I still think Strats have a slippery stainless steel sound to them. I have no idea what I mean by that, but it is the best I can do to describe it.

And sometimes stainless steel is just the right sound.

[RuffRider]

If the guy that worked on your guitar - after the fret job was done, felt that the neck needed to be adjusted via the thrust rod and he did so...this action my very well have changed the sustain and tone of the guitar. Adjusting the neck does sometimes have a big effect other than the purpose that the adjustment was done for.

[jasonc]

Hey PTC,
The greater the breakover angle the more downward pressure on the bridge. That increased force is also increasing the resistance that the top has to overcome to stay in motion, bringing it to a stop sooner....decreasing sustain.

[PTChristopher]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response.

Some have the view that reducing the dissipation of string vibrations as sound (via top vibrations) will most typically increase sustain.

The string energy has to either go somewhere, or keep the string vibrating. It either moves air, vibrates the top, moves the magnetic field of the PU, dissipates as heat via hysteresis in the string or components of the guitar, vibrates other components of the guitar, vibrates the player - or keeps vibrating the string

There are arguably some very small effects involved beyond this list, but I think I have the main ones covered.

If we suppress the vibration of the top, we have more energy available left to keep the string moving (more sustain) unless we suppress the top by some means that does something else with the energy.

100% agreed that increased bridge pressure can inhibit top vibration (although under some conditions it can also improve transmission of vibration from the bridge to the top). But:

Where does the string energy that is not dissipating as top vibration go?

[jazzbow]

In view of the fret job, were the frets glued in, hammered or pressed in?
There is a school of thought that the micro gaps around the fret rob tone transfer and glue seals this gap! Pvc glues are easy to work but are plastic and inhibit tone transfer, some prefer horse hide glues but you need to be so on your game to use it as the working time is minutes. I use a gel super glue which works well and does a good job.
There is a lot of 'cork sniffing' when it comes down to fret work. A tech/luthier should give you choices, you can't just 'bang in' frets as you can put in too much back bow and cause more trouble. You can get vintage thin frets for old guitar refrets and you have to check the fret slots on the fingerboard, sometimes the slots are wide from lots of refrets so we have to find fat tangs (ooer!) or repair the slots with same wood infill and re-cut the slots.
Are the new frets the same size as the old thin frets? Or have you gone for super low fat shredding fret? Ah, did the luthier put in what was lying around?
Anyhoo, allow for a fingering fretting (f)phase, getting used to the newness etc

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by PTChristopher

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response.

Some have the view that reducing the dissipation of string vibrations as sound (via top vibrations) will most typically increase sustain.

The string energy has to either go somewhere, or keep the string vibrating. It either moves air, vibrates the top, moves the magnetic field of the PU, dissipates as heat via hysteresis in the string or components of the guitar, vibrates other components of the guitar, vibrates the player - or keeps vibrating the string

There are arguably some very small effects involved beyond this list, but I think I have the main ones covered.

If we suppress the vibration of the top, we have more energy available left to keep the string moving (more sustain) unless we suppress the top by some means that does something else with the energy.

100% agreed that increased bridge pressure can inhibit top vibration (although under some conditions it can also improve transmission of vibration from the bridge to the top). But:

Where does the string energy that is not dissipating as top vibration go?

But I don't think you have "more energy available". The more force is acting on the top the more force is required to drive it (the quicker the energy dissipates?). I think I understand what you're getting at...the more the top is inhibited the more like a solid body...more sustain. Is that right? In a solid body the string is not driving the top, so there is more energy available to the string in that system. Or at least the way I see it but I'm not a physicist so I'm certainly no authority.

[PTChristopher]

>>> I think I understand what you're getting at...the more the top is inhibited the more like a solid body...more sustain. Is that right?

Yes. My opinion is that under increased downward bridge pressure, the mass of the hollow body guitar has not changed, but the ability to resonate may have changed. So in that way it could be more like a solidbody when bridge pressure is increased. (But I'll contradict myself on this in short order.)

>>> In a solid body the string is not driving the top, so there is more energy available to the string in that system.

I would just put it a little less absolutely and say that the string is vibrating the body of the guitar to a far lesser extent in a solid body, but yeah.

I am likewise claiming no authority whatsoever, just enjoying the subject.

>>> The more force is acting on the top the more force is required to drive it

I believe that this is not the case. Most hollow body guitar designs very specifically stress the top as part of the ability of the top to make music noises.

I understand that getting that level of stress wrong can change the volume and frequency response of the top - but I do not think that it is a direct relationship that more stress requires more energy to move the top.

When we pluck a string we are not trying to get the area under the bridge to start moving air and making noise. As I understand it, we want the bridge to start waves that shake to top all over the place.

Under some conditions, increased pressure can increase acoustic volume. (Of course, this would reduce sustain which is arguably ironic in our diuscussion,...)

Check out some pics that show the major top movement not necessarily near a bridge at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13573631

Chris

[jazzbow]

Originally Posted by PTChristopher

Check out some pics that show the major top movement not necessarily near a bridge at all.

BBC News - In Pictures: Stringed theory

Chris

Now there's some beautiful pictures.

[whiskey02]

Originally Posted by teleboli

Hi all. I bought a 1953 ES175. Played very well, sounded great. It did need a fret job so I went ahead and did that. I knew new frets would change things a bit. I was hoping it would play better and maybe sound a bit different. I'm finding it has lost a good bit of sustain, plays a bit better but not a whole lot and the overall sound is not as sweet as it was before the fret change. Any thoughts on this? What about another fret dress to bring them down a bit? Thanks in advance

Different shaped frets absolutely will change the tone. If your new frets are more flatter, more squared than rounded, it will give a harsh, dirty tone. A good friend bought an early nineties es335 and it had those notorious square Gibson frets; a fret job turned it into a completely different instrument.

[pingu]

Just to throw this into the mix

I had a refret done on a Hofner President accoustic recently
it had very low frets before

Put on jumbo , when I got it back I couldn't play it in tune
frets too high I was pushing the notes various amounts of sharp
Had the luthier stone down a bit and recrown ........
Plays good and in tune now

(Ever wondered how the usual flat-top bridge works ?
those strigs must be pulling the top laterally towards the nut
can't be right can it ?)

I'd say live with it for a while till you know what you wanna have adjusted
Its got a new nut too so the nut height might need sorting too

agreeing with PT here on the physics

[PTChristopher]

[pingu]>>> (Ever wondered how the usual flat-top bridge works ?
those strigs must be pulling the top laterally towards the nut
can't be right can it ?)

Yep, more or less. But a flat-top is also designed so that the string tension stresses the top by also pulling upwards on the top area behind the bridge, and pressing downwards on the top area in front of the bridge. In effect trying (and sometimes succeeding) to yank the bridge right off the top.

The stress on the top is an important part of the way it all works.

Our archtops stress the top by pressing downward at (VERY roughly) 25 to as much as 100 pounds. So yes indeed, an archtop with .014's on there and a pretty steep bridge break angle could support a light person - well, I mean if you removed the strings first, then sat the person on top.

***********************
EDIT: I was out of the real range of downward pressure in the comment above. In practice a range of 15 to 50 pounds is far more representative of the practical downward force in many modern archtops.

Figure a set of "10's" and a low bridge break angle, 5 or 6 degrees, would get you to the low end of the range. A set of "14's" and a high break angle of 14 or 15 degrees would get you to the high end.

***********************

If the downward pressure sounds like more than you figured. Try lifting straight up on an archtop bridge.

But back to flat-tops. Yes, string tension does several things:

1 - Yank the bridge nutward (which sounds dangerous).

2 - Rotate the bridge as if to roll it up toward the nut (OK, now I have my legs crossed).

3 - STRESS THE TOP upwards in some places and downwards in others to get to ready to make noises in our favorite frequency range.

4 - Try to crush the entire guitar by collapsing the top, while deforming the sides and back.

And over time, the string tension does a fairly good job of getting started on #4. This (and not a neck joint creep or failure) is why most flat tops will need a neck reset if they live long enough.

Now really just blathering on,...

An interesting variant is the Maccaferri (Django) guitars. These are flat-tops with rather light downward bridge pressure. You may or may not like the sound, but they (especially the "Grand Bouche") can be remarkably loud.

And another variant on a stressed top - a banjo stresses the top via head tension and bridge pressure. The Gibson "fingers" tailpiece is faintly ridiculous on a guitar. But on a banjo, the downward pressure can be fairly important and individual adjustment can make an actual difference. The fingers tailpiece (or Oettinger Tailpiece) actually does something on a banjo.

Blah, blah, blah,...

[oldane]

Originally Posted by PTChristopher

Our archtops stress the top by pressing downward at (VERY roughly) 25 to as much as 100 pounds. So yes indeed, an archtop with .014's on there and a pretty steep bridge break angle could support a light person - well, I mean if you removed the strings first, then sat the person on top.

I think one of the refinement of archtops - and any stringed instrument with the same arrangement, most notably the violin family - is the way the forces balance each other out.

The strings create a downward force on the top via the bridge, and we always talk abut this downward force. But at the same time - due to the arch of the top - the pull of the strings between nut and end of tailpiece will attempt to compress the top front to back and drive its mid upwards, thus counteracting the downward force at the bridge (ideally completely, in real life "more or less"). I figure those balanced forces is the reason for archtops lasting much longer than flattops (provided they are well built and well cared for), and it's why fine violins have survived centuries. Flattops and classical guitars are often pulled into deformity after 20-30 years despite good care.

If I sat up on the top of an archtop guitar, it would likely break under me, because in this situation there are no other force to counteract the pressure from my (sadly considerable) weight.

[Synchro]

Any time you make a change in a guitar there is a risk that it'll come back feeling, playing and, perhaps, sounding unsatisfactory to its loyal owner. I would definitely wonder about fret profile but it would not be the first place I'd make changes.

To me, setup is an ongoing process. I tend towards minor, incremental changes, secure in the knowledge that I can always take another step later on. I start by tuning, checking neck relief, setting string height and finally, setting intonation. There's no mojo, no magic, no karma, just simple mechanics.

That having been said, sometimes I've noticed that I can't make peace between all of the elements being adjusted and nothing seems to work. My answer to that is to go back to the starting line, take it all apart and start from scratch.

One other thing to be aware of is the effect of strings. Strings of the same gauge but of different origin can have quite different characteristics . . . especially if the core diameter is different. More than once I've removed a nearly new set of strings because of problems. Just one defective string can put you into setup purgatory.

[PTChristopher]

I was thinking about downward bridge force on archtops a little and realized that I was off by about 2X in an earlier post on this thread.

[Earlier comment] >>>Our archtops stress the top by pressing downward at (VERY roughly) 25 to as much as 100 pounds. So yes indeed, an archtop with .014's on there and a pretty steep bridge break angle could support a light person - well, I mean if you removed the strings first, then sat the person on top.


[UPDATE] I was out of the real range of downward pressure in the comment above. In practice a range of 15 to 50 pounds is far more representative of the practical downward force in many modern archtops.

Figure a set of "10's" and a low bridge break angle, 5 or 6 degrees, would get you to the low end of the range. A set of "14's" and a high break angle of 14 or 15 degrees would get you to the high end.

Sorry for the sloppy use of figures, suggesting about 2X the real pressure involved, in the first post.

[pingu]

Thanks for the correction PT
I was just about to sit a small person on my archtop

phew ....... that was close

[PTChristopher]

Yeah, sorry to have put grandma in mortal danger for a moment.

Chris