-
Originally Posted by jzucker
There is truth there.
Robben Ford famously recommended playing a guitar for six months before deciding whether to keep it or not. I found that a lot of guitars get better after a few weeks of playing. The neck contour, general comfort, string tension and tone really improve.
I conclude that the guitar breaks me in, not the other way around.
-
12-10-2015 03:50 PM
-
Many ply guitars still have solid wood for bracing, so if bracing matters at all then I could see some break-in occurring to the overall guitar feel/tone.
-
the reason an instrument's tone changes for the better 100% of the time is because the subjective quality of that change is something which is imparted on by humans and is manufactured by consensus. If we concede that older instruments have a unique quality that newer instruments don't, and that unique quality is prefered, then older instruments will be sought out for that quality which is imparted on them by time - in 100% of cases where people prefer that sound. If there was a consensus that time changed instruments for the worse then we would all happily throw out our vintage archtops in the bin and seek newer ones.
some people may actually prefer and seek out the sound of a newly built guitar over an older one, but they are not part of the concensus that say older instruments sound better, they are part of another concensus that 100% agree new instruments sound better.
-
Guitars sounding 'better' could really just mean sounding like many of the sounds we grew up listening to.
A lot of people gravitate to the sound of tweed or blackface Fender's, imo, because those were some of the most recorded amps. We're accustomed to that sound as being 'good tone' - that's the tone we grew up listening to.
For the longest time, people thought tube amp distortion was bad. Now lots of us search for that sound.
Sure - some of the guitars recorded were new, but perhaps most that we associate with historical 'good tone' were at least a few years old. Buying a brand new guitar seemed to be Plan B either because of cost or availability of the guitar the player really wanted. The blues-rock guys who were lucky to find a Burst - the grail tone - in the late 60s were playing guitars that had been assembled for 6-10 years. You couldn't buy a new Burst in the late 60s.
Freddie King and his Goldtop - 7 years old when Freddy King Sings came out, Albert King and his '58 Flying V - 8 years old when Stax recordings started coming out, Keith and Micawber - a '54 obtained '70
You, obviously, have exceptions like the benchmark tones of Wes and Jimi who played brand new guitars. But, I think we'd all agree, these guys are very special. Wes with his thumb and Jimi with his effects+amps (and their alien talent).
I don't know many monumental tones made on brand new guitars except maybe George Harrison "Ticket To Ride", "Hard Day's Night" or Byrds "Mr Tambourine Man", "Turn, Turn, Turn" on the 12 string Rick, but the popularity of those is possibly moreso the uniqueness of that sound at the time.
Clapton in Cream could be one - a '64 335 recorded starting '66. Santana - Moonflower - Yamaha guitar.
-
And lots of people agree. Here's a quote from another thread by an Eastman employee Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
Here:
Eastman Finish Issue?
"If it were up to me, id say use all Polyurethane, but most purists request that we use real Nitrocellulose Lacquer so we kindly oblige. Polyurethane, when applied properly, is a vastly superior finish that protects much better, glosses much better, sands easier, and has no sound difference. No scientific study has ever proven that a person can hear the difference between Polyurethane and Nitrocellulose Lacquer, and most people couldn't even point out which guitar is which when looking with their own two eyes! If one is much thicker than the other, that will affect the sound, but then it is down to the mass. "
-
Most of the changes on finish came about because of the health and safety issues with the old varnishes. Nowadays inbthe UK most Luthiers are using water based varnishes and dried in vented cabinets. Never heard a luthier say they very much wanted to go back to the 60's finishes (and die?)
And my last word on ply. Ply was a cheap way to make guitar bodies once someone had worked out how to steam press ply into a carved top shape. I guess steam is 100x faster than solid wood and carving, planing, and sanding. They get away with using ply because it's an electric - the acoustic sound is not great. So in a way, and just by chance, they came across a way to make an inexpensive cello bodied guitar way cheaper AND it had an interesting sound that fitted what jazz players wanted. The only thing the ply wants to do over the coming years is to go back to being a flat sheet of plywood - so just get on and play it at its best -,its unlikely to get a lot better over time!
Once you start looking at handmade violins, violas and cellos you begin to realise the 'normal' price point of a handmade instrument of this sort - and suddenly all the Sadowky, Collins, Gibson, Guild, solid top guitars seem to be relatively cheap at around $8,000+.
-
The same happened to my Painter. When new there was very little bass acoustically and there was no difference in sound whether I dampened the back with my belly or not. Now there is a difference, and the bass frequencies do get dampened very audibly when the back is dampened. That said, it's still not an acoustic guitar. It still sounds very much like the plywood guitar it is, but the sound is sufficient for unplugged practicing. I don't think I can hear any change in the amplified tone from when it was new and till now. Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
-
I agree with the idea that the player gets better over time. I find I make tiny little adjustments in my playing as I find sweet spots for particular types of tone on specific instruments. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
I also think something indeed does happen to the wood over time. My Martin D28 is now 40 years old, and I am quite certain it sounds worlds better than it did new when I popped it out of the case for the first time. By the same token, I have a 55 year old laminate flat-top that sounded pretty good for maybe 30 years--my first "real" guitar--but it is truly tone-dead now. I think it's really about cheap glue in the lamination, though, and less about any magical action in the wood.
-
So tone is socially constructed. Wow. The long, cold dead finger of post-modernity touches the guitar ;-) Originally Posted by BigToe
the reason an instrument's tone changes for the better 100% of the time is because the subjective quality of that change is something which is imparted on by humans and is manufactured by consensus. If we concede that older instruments have a unique quality that newer instruments don't, and that unique quality is prefered, then older instruments will be sought out for that quality which is imparted on them by time - in 100% of cases where people prefer that sound. If there was a consensus that time changed instruments for the worse then we would all happily throw out our vintage archtops in the bin and seek newer ones.
some people may actually prefer and seek out the sound of a newly built guitar over an older one, but they are not part of the concensus that say older instruments sound better, they are part of another concensus that 100% agree new instruments sound better.
-
Wood in laminates has resin, so if a solid piece of wood opens up, so should a laminate.
"There are a lot of rumors going around, a lot of theories about guitar tops, their vibratings and aging and all that.
George Gruhn wrote an article on this subject, and even though I cannot quote him word for word, here is the content of what he said.
The tone of a solid wood acoustic guitar does not “come and go”, and have to be played constantly in order to “open-up” to its fullness. Nor does it get better and better as the years go by.
What happens is the resins in the wood of a new guitar are stiff, and yes, it does take some vibrations to get those molecules rattled. This is done by playing the guitar vigorously, or by putting it in front of a guitar amp, and playing it loud (the electric) so the top vibrates, or in front of your stereo cabinets, etc. All these things will excite the top, make it vibrate, shake up those resins, and the guitar opens up. And sounds better.
This process takes place in the first few years of the guitar’s life, and then . . . it stops.
Yes, contrary to popular opinion, the guitar doesn’t go anywhere past that point. The resins settle in, and remain so for the life of the instrument. No matter how much you bang away at it!
(Old Martins sound good not because they keep getting better as the years go by; they were just made with better wood, better processes, finishes, etc.)
Now, if that guitar gets put away in a closet for a long time, say, several years, the “aging” process reverses itself, and the guitar goes back into its original state.
(Hoo, Boy; I betcha didn't know that!)
Then, the guitar has to be played, the top vibrated; either by outside sources (IE: the stereo, or the guitar cabinet, etc.) or by normal playing, just to “wake it up" again.
But it doesn’t need to be a daily thing.
Hope this clears up any misunderstandings"
from "waking up" a top
-
Just had a neck reset done on a '79 Martin D-35 under their wonderful lifetime warranty. I paid for a fret level and crown and new bone nut and saddle. The guitar plays and sounds better than ever. This luthier, Buchanan's Music of Mesa, is the go to Martin guy for Phoenix. Took six months to get to the top of his waiting list. There were three of us picking up our guitars that Saturday. Mine was the oldest by a couple of decades and we all agreed it sounded the best. Always kept it with a case humidifier. Kept the old patina'd plastic? nut and saddle in case I ever sell it to a purist. It's not particularly collectible. The ones from the '60s have the Brazilian Rosewood where mine has the cheaper Indian. But it did age well. Or so we all socially consented.
-
Break-in to where????????
-
The tone chamber. Originally Posted by MysticBob
(sorry, couldn't resist)
-
I think the break-in myth was invented to make you practice ....more
-
Yep, not entirely convinced that ALL archtops of any constuction get better with playing. I've had plenty of archtops that were killer when new and will stay that way. Ones that don't 'have-it' are not going to get it. Just my opinion.
Heard too many stories from luthiers and dealers alike saying 'oh, that's going to be a wonderful guitar when it's played-in'. Or, even better 'archtops take 50 years to really come into their own'. Right, well what the fek good is that to me now??? Besides, if you listen to Eddie Lang playing his L5 it sounds great and it was a new guitar, NOT 50 years old.
A good guitar should have a good sound when it is new, yes it may 'mature' but it will never loose it's quality of being the good guitar it started out as.
If it was a sipmle case of resonating a crap guitar to make it good do you not think that some smart-ass would have invented a machine to take care of that?
-
Ta-daa: Originally Posted by MysticBob
https://www.tonerite.com
Oh boy, was I smelling snake oil when I first read about that. I am not a big connoisseur on acoustics so I can't judge it but after several discussions with experts and reading I now think that maybe it has something.
Talking about plywood guitars one have to remember that as some one said; even plywood is wood! And don't forget the neck, which has enormous influence on the sound. It is normally made from full wood, so tat can develope in resonance.
I understood that someone doubted the break-in of the speakers and suggested that our ears just get used to a new speaker after hours of playing. I believe in breaking in the speaker. Once I had brand new Greenback which sounded stiff. I have no enough time to wait for the break in so one morning I took the amp to the cellar with my Ditto Looper. I put yhe looper on playing three open chords and some whacking on strings and adjusted the volume on 9.
After some hours on afternoon I took it upstairs and the Greenback was totally different speaker. No stiff. Full sounding. Just great!
And finally about J. Zucker's healthy suspection about how can vibration ALWAYS make guitars better reminds me about a question: how can toasting a bread always make it taste better?
Anyway, keep on playing, folks!
-
Perhaps part of it was that, after a few years, your playing had improved to the point that you were capable of bringing out the tone of the Ramirez much better than when you were less skilled? Originally Posted by Greentone
-
People just use stereos or put the guitar in front of amp speakers, as my post above alluded to. Originally Posted by MysticBob
There was a service that would 'excite' the top for $100.
-
Wow, Bob Benedetto endorses that Tonerite thing. Originally Posted by Herbie
(I definitely believe in speakers breaking-in. I have about 80 speakers at home right now.)
Reply With Quote
Gibson Thin line Guitar Models
Yesterday, 11:07 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos