The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 47 of 47
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    My story with my current classical guitar went like that. When it got finished, it had all sorts of overtones, like I never heard before.
    The sound of the chords was so rich... jeez. Spent an hour just playing all kinds of those without bothering to play a damn tune.
    But it wasn't made for me. And I got it about 5 years later. It was still in good shape but wasn't as amazing as fresh out of the workshop.
    I liked it very much though, so I got it. Already knew about the "theory" and the possible fix for later.

    With classical guitars, aging will be a problem at some point. There are a few articles how they get better and better over time but I doubt it.
    Rather, I find those misleading and subjective since I've tried plenty of old ones. A few (from respectable quality maker) were pretty damn numb.
    That pleasing "round smooth" sound can also mean that the overtones are lost.

    edit: forgot one interesting case. One guitar here, very nice big sharp sound. It got broken - got a heavy bang to the "head" and it split off. So it went to repair, got fixed (by the original luthier). Nothing else was broken or loose. But it didn't sound good anymore.
    Can't believe it was just the head part that ruined it. The bang... you know, it did something bad to the rest of the guitar also. Who knows what it was.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    "With classical guitars, aging will be a problem at some point. There are a few articles how they get better and better over time but I doubt it." emanresu


    Hi, E,
    General consensus is that a luthier-built artist model Classical guitar should last 20 years of professional playing(4 plus hours daily) before it begins to "fade." Segovia replaced his Ramirez with a Wagner after about 20 years ,as an example since, it was said, he noticed a real difference in sound. Twenty years of professional playing is a long time! Play live! . . . Marinero

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    I had a carved top/floater guitar a few years ago that I purchased new from the builder. At first it sounded amazing plugged in - better than my laminate/routed model from the same builder. At first the carved top/floater was also quite subdued acoustically...kind of disappointing to be honest.

    Over time it started becoming kind of a bear to play plugged-in, with feedback increasingly becoming an issue, and after about a year I stopped. The acoustic voice was however becoming bigger and more pleasing.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    All I can expect with time is that my playing goes better.
    Unfortunately, it ain't so.
    Still wondering about my ageing guitars as I can't feel it due to my lack of ability

    Note aside :
    A friend of mine gave me a T-shirt marked "Vintage Guitar Player"
    Always wondered what is supposed to be vintage : the guitar or the player ?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    In my case, the player would be vintage. I have a t-shirt that says "Never underestimate an old man with a guitar", along with a picture. I'm an old man, and I have a guitar, so it seems appropriate.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I am convinced that wood changes over time. I've seen pine timbers that have been in buildings for a half century or more, under load, that had become so hard that it was impossible to drive a nail into them. But I can't say for sure what effect that may have on the sound of a guitar. I am convinced that psychoacoustics is a real thing. I encounter it all the time. If I play a guitar through an amp over a period of time, it becomes the sound I prefer. But it's ephemeral, and eventually I don't like the sound and change amps. I adjust that one, play it for a few weeks or months, and tire of it, and swap again. They are all in the same place, never move, and the sound I perceive changes. It's me, no doubt. I'm also convinced that my memory of what I heard in the past is faulty.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Am I a psycho-acoustic player?
    well, of course! That is how humans function, after all. We all do this.

    In addition to the psychoacoustic phenomena that have already been alluded to, my personal belief is that my technique changes slightly with different guitars seeking the sound that I am looking for in the context of the tunnel response of the instrument. With a dark instrument I play a bit more sharply and with a bright instrument I play with a softer attack. I may move my picking hand toward or away from the bridge. I may hold the instrument slightly differently. As a result, I can get a sound that I recognize as "me" out of very disparate instruments- especially after having played it for an hour or so because my "ears" (really, my brain) adjust.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    well, of course! That is how humans function, after all. We all do this.

    In addition to the psychoacoustic phenomena that have already been alluded to, my personal belief is that my technique changes slightly with different guitars seeking the sound that I am looking for in the context of the tunnel response of the instrument. With a dark instrument I play a bit more sharply and with a bright instrument I play with a softer attack. I may move my picking hand toward or away from the bridge. I may hold the instrument slightly differently. As a result, I can get a sound that I recognize as "me" out of very disparate instruments- especially after having played it for an hour or so because my "ears" (really, my brain) adjust.

    Hi, C,
    Interesting! It's difficult to refute the adaptability of the mind/psyche. Once a musician reaches a certain level of musicianship, I believe they have inculcated in their mind/psyche their "sound." In the best of cases, it represents their unique view of musical communication and how they perceive their voices in the miasma of sounds unpleasant to their ears. I believe when I play, my voice is unique and to other musicians . . . recognizable. It combines the talents of the musician with the personality of the instrument. And, what you say about adapting to instruments(above) is true, but if you follow that approach you will never become intimate with your individual instruments. You will always be ignoring the instrument's personality. For example, let's say you are a man who is always attracted to intelligent women. But, one day, you meet a stunning woman with a great personality to whom you are very physically attracted but is less than your requirements for intelligence. Do you accept her for her personality and physical beauty or do you seek to change her into something of which she is not capable of being? Can you ever know her if you are constantly trying to change her? This is my point with instruments. We must discover each instrument's voice for what it is and if it doesn't work for you . . . what's the point?
    Play live! . . . Marinero

    P.S. I do, however, believe that both we and our instruments change. The degree, however, is still debatable.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Yes it does sound better the more it's played. Especially with acoustic guitars with spruce tops. But that said unless you primarily play without amplification, the results are somewhat moot.
    I totally get it if you play totally acoustic or record acoustically. But I would think better time spent on working on playing.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    Interesting! It's difficult to refute the adaptability of the mind/psyche. Once a musician reaches a certain level of musicianship, I believe they have inculcated in their mind/psyche their "sound." In the best of cases, it represents their unique view of musical communication and how they perceive their voices in the miasma of sounds unpleasant to their ears. I believe when I play, my voice is unique and to other musicians . . . recognizable. It combines the talents of the musician with the personality of the instrument.
    yes, I think that is a very good way to describe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    And, what you say about adapting to instruments(above) is true, but if you follow that approach you will never become intimate with your individual instruments. You will always be ignoring the instrument's personality. For example, let's say you are a man who is always attracted to intelligent women. But, one day, you meet a stunning woman with a great personality to whom you are very physically attracted but is less than your requirements for intelligence. Do you accept her for her personality and physical beauty or do you seek to change her into something of which she is not capable of being? Can you ever know her if you are constantly trying to change her? This is my point with instruments. We must discover each instrument's voice for what it is and if it doesn't work for you . . . what's the point?
    Play live! . . . Marinero
    That is an interesting point. Different instruments do offer different things and no two sound exactly alike. And the same instrument, if it's voice is distinctive enough, can be identifiable in the hands of different musicians. For example, if you were to go to YouTube and watch videos of Jerry Garcia, Warren Haynes, and John Mayer, playing the same guitar (called "Wolf" by luthier Doug Irwin) it is striking how consistent the sound is even though those three players are quite different in their approach to the guitar and in their amplification, etc., and they are playing it decades apart. There is a persistent personality to that guitar. Granted, that is a solidbody instrument rather than an archtop, so perhaps it is less adaptable in some way.

    I have an archtop on which I have tried at least five different pickups, sometimes the same pick up more than once, looking for the amplified sound that I want from it. The acoustic sound is basically perfect. It is my favorite guitar to play. But amplified I have never been satisfied with the sound. I have other electric guitars with which it is simple and easy to get a sound that I like, two of them being solidbodies (Tele and Strat) and one of them being an Ibanez GB 10. But the carved archtop confounds me in that regard, even though it sounds so good to me acoustically. So your point is certainly worth pondering, that I am trying to impose a sound onto that guitar and missing what it has to offer that is unique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    P.S. I do, however, believe that both we and our instruments change. The degree, however, is still debatable.
    I certainly agree that the musician adapts to the instrument; I am less sure that the instrument adapts to the musician but certainly many people have believed that over many years. Some of the things that have been discussed in this thread are the moisture content of the word, changes to constituent components such as lignin, hemilignin, resins, etc. Time and aging probably account for much of that. I wonder to what extent if any that vibration accounts for changes in the structure of the wood, glue, etc.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    I am convinced it is not in my head at all. I bought Gibson LeGrand about 5 weeks ago. I is basically mint and I don't think played much at all. I have been playing in especially the last week about 2 hours a day on average. Today I notice it has opened up and I even think it has much more power and presence. Now to be honest I did move the action but as this was really low action when I got it. But I did that few days after getting the guitar but now I think the top is responding to the touch. I have been playing acoustically almost entirely.

    I know many what to tell me it is in my head......but my ears say otherwise.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Your ears are on your head, and lead directly inside. As you become accustomed to a sound, it starts to sound better. I've found that to be the case many times.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    Your ears are on your head, and lead directly inside. As you become accustomed to a sound, it starts to sound better. I've found that to be the case many times.
    I read that is your are telling me in effect that it is all in my head?

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    I'm pretty sure it's all in mine, so it could be in yours.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    I'm pretty sure it's all in mine, so it could be in yours.
    Your head is not mine and my ears judge. We simply agree to disagree about the topic. My ears are far more relied that my head.?

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
    Let's just think through: if a 300 years old "aged" carved spruce top would lead to "more responsiveness, greater projection, warmer tone, more fundamental tone, more overtones, more bass", you'd expect that all violins from the 17th century should sound divine
    That would not be my expectation. Other factors come into play. The general build quality, the type of glue used, how the instrument had been stored or played or abused for centuries, etc.

    That's like saying if wisdom does in fact come with age, all old people should be brilliant--which is quite obviously not the case. I offer myself as a prime example.
    Last edited by Flat; 08-05-2020 at 10:19 AM.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Your ears only sense the vibrations in the air and transmit those to your brain, which interprets them. So technically, it's all in your head. How your brain interprets what it receives from your ears is something I can't see or explain. I do believe that my brain interprets some sounds differently at different times.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Hearing is ultimately an act of consciousness. How our brains process sensory input and how that is experienced consciously is unique to each person. And even the input into the brain is unique to each person. From the ambient vibrations in the air of the world around us, the energy of those sound waves enters my ears, activates my tympanic membrane which in turn activates the other structures of the middle ear and inner which then transduce that mechanical energy into a neurological signal, sending it to the brain for experience and interpretation. Once that sound is in my consciousness, a number of additional things can be applied to it. I may be comparing that sound to other songs that I have heard, for example. I may be judging whether I like the sound I am hearing or not. I am applying the values of what I believe is a "good" or "bad" guitar tone. My mood and thoughts unrelated to the experience of hearing that sound may also affect my interpretation of it. We each hear part of the world as it is- within biological limitations- but that pure sensory experience is overlaid with a lot of other stuff that is difficult if impossible to separate.

    I think we can all agree that guitars have a unique tonal signature and each will sound different in larger or smaller ways. Compare two real D'Angelicos and they will sound different as well two D'Aquistos, two Gibson Johnny Smiths, two L5s, etc.; compare those with a Telecaster or a Stratocaster or a Les Paul. You can hear a difference. Two different amplifiers, even of the same model, often sound different. Speakers sound different even in the same amp. By the same token, ears "sound" different. The shape of the inner and outer ear, the flexibility and responsiveness of the tympanic membrane, etc., all affect how we hear. When audiologists test one's hearing, they generate a graph of how people hear different frequencies and everyone's will be slightly different. As a result, the same note played on a guitar will sound different to different people. Over a period of decades, that same note would sound different to the same person because the mechanical aspect of our hearing changes with aging, exposure to loud noises, etc. One of the things that I have noticed in my favorite guitarists following their career for decades is that as they get older their sound tends to get brighter. I think it probably sounds the same to them but as their ear function has been impacted by a lifetime of playing in loud environments, the adjustments they make to get "their" sound result in a different experience for them than for the audience.

    It is very clear to me that at 60 I do not hear the same way that I did when I was 30. I am less sensitive to higher frequencies, a process that I expect to have continue. I used to be able to open the basement door and from the top of the stairs could hear whether or not the dehumidifier was running in the basement. Now I have to walk halfway down the stairs to be able to hear it. As a result, when I try to determine whether the spruce top of my guitar has "opened up" over the last 30 years of playing it, I am not comparing apples to apples because my hearing is different than it was. The instrument may very well have "opened up" but I am not sure that I am really in a position to hear that.

    In practical terms, however, we move forward in life as if what we hear is factually correct. Otherwise we are second-guessing ourselves to the extent of driving ourselves crazy. This is one of the dangers of my profession as a psychologist! If you've ever wondered why most of us are weird, I think I've just explained why.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    I have a Vestex D'angelico NY 18 inch made in about 2000. This guitar has the pressed top but is solid spruce. My ear says acoustically it sounds better than some Johnny Smith Gibson's and certainly has more acoustic sound than my Super 400CES ( I would expect that) but the S400 top is actually carved. The Vestex has also held its own against some pretty name boutique guitars. It seems to respond acoustically better because the top is generally free to vibrate and wood can do things we always know.

    Now compared to my real 49 New Yorker, it does not cut the sound in terms of depth and sustain or power. The real D'a is much more sensitive to touch and responses much better to how it is played or attacked. It just picks up the whole process of playing better and dynamically. However I might add that in some ways this may not warrant all the fuss of a real D'a. In the end product might not be as much different as we might like to think at least for the average listener. To me the player it is not apples an oranges, but the difference between a my lawn and a putting green. The golf ball rolls better over the green.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    I think it's easier, and much more reliable, to hear the difference between guitars than it is to hear and remember the sound of one guitar over a period of years or even months. I can certainly hear a difference between any or all of my guitars if I play them sequentially, and even if I play them days apart. I'm not convinced that I can reliably do that with just one guitar played last year and today. My memory was never that good, I don't think, and it certainly isn't now.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Funny my 49 D'a sounds to me the same way it did 25 years ago. My ears hear the same but who knows?

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    thing about pressed tops is that the slab of wood is pressed by force (and heat/humidity) into form...so that the wood is still there, it's just been compressed...like a dry sponge...a carved top has the wood removed...carved...gone!..big difference

    compressed wood can expand with temps and humidity..a carved top less so...since the extra wood is gone!

    pressed tops were used early on as a cost saving device...harmony guitars made lots of pressed spruce tops...they can sound good..but are very prone to the elements...many developed cracks around the top ends, near the binding

    i worry more about their survival, than tone

    cheers