pickguard/finger rest

[billkath]

Hi-Billy's the name, and I'm a newbie!
Just bought an Epi ES 175 Reissue,and am looking forward to learning and playing some jazz.

I've been doing the setup, as I do on all my guitars- truss, intonation-the usual.
One thing that kind of annoys me whilst I've been playing it-the pickguard/finger rest. It's in the wrong place for me-I either knock it, or tap it down on to the puckup casing. Apart from aesthetics, is there any reason for me NOT to remove the pickguard and bracket? My style of playing is with my fingers, or a combination of pick and fingers a la Knopfler. I've a fairly light hand playing- I've never been a "pub strummer".
Any thoughts on why removing it might be a bad idea?
Thanks everybody.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

No reason not to! I have a ES-335 and it was the same for me. I know removing the pickguard is a common thing to do on 335s.

[randyc]

That sounds fine to me - a couple of the guys here have removed their pickguards for similar reasons and their guitars look really nice without them. (One size doesn't necessarily suit all, especially regarding the technique that you use.)

You will have to deal with one small hole near the neck that will be visible but that's usually a two minute fix: toothpick forced into hole, trimmed and carefully scraped flush, colored with a crayon* and then covered with a dab of paste wax --- polish for a moment, done. No permanent effect, the toothpick can be easily removed if you want to replace the pickguard at some point ...

*can use "lacquer sticks", the wood-stain crayons from woodworker's supply or literally a child's coloring crayon. (Children's crayons won't affect the surrounding finish of the guitar - the residue buffs off just like paste wax.)

[billkath]

Thanks, BDLH! I've been playing with it "off" for the last half hour or so, and now feels "right". There's a few things that I will change on this guitar, but what astonishes me is how it just "changes" the way you play-style, chord sequences etc. Very weird. But very enjoyable!

[billkath]

That sounds fine to me - a couple of the guys here have removed their pickguards for similar reasons and their guitars look really nice without them. (One size doesn't necessarily suit all, especially regarding the technique that you use.)

You will have to deal with one small hole near the neck that will be visible but that's usually a two minute fix: toothpick forced into hole, trimmed and carefully scraped flush, colored with a crayon* and then covered with a dab of paste wax --- polish for a moment, done. No permanent effect, the toothpick can be easily removed if you want to replace the pickguard at some point ...

*can use "lacquer sticks", the wood-stain crayons from woodworker's supply or literally a child's coloring crayon. (Children's crayons won't affect the surrounding finish of the guitar - the residue buffs off just like paste wax.)

Great idea, Randy.
A better idea than mine, which was to cover it with a tiny, stick-on Smiley face decal!

[randyc]

Great idea, Randy.
A better idea than mine, which was to cover it with a tiny, stick-on Smiley face decal!

Do you suppose we may have accidentally solved the mystery regarding the "heart" on Wes Montgomery's L-5 ?

cheers,
randyc

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Do you suppose we may have accidentally solved the mystery regarding the "heart" on Wes Montgomery's L-5 ?

I've seen that heart mentioned in passing before here. What's the story?

[billkath]

I'd say that's a big 10-4! I know a guy with a Mex Strat that swore that it was American, and the nudie pic on the neck plate was purely for decoration-nothing to do with a Corona stamp being missing in action.

[randyc]

I've seen that heart mentioned in passing before here. What's the story?

Wes' L-5 had a heart decal, positioned near where the pickup selector switch would be for a 2-pickup version. Nobody seems to know why it was there ...

You can see his finger resting on the decal here: http://www.thejazzman.com.au/Page/im...Montgomery.jpg

[hot ford coupe]

I had heard at one point that the heart was actually some kind of inlay done to protect the top's finish. Wes had some other guitars where because of his fingers sticking over the guitar, he had worn out an area of the finish and it looked kind of bad. On one of his newer guitars, I believe Gibson was who put in the inlay. And the rest is history.

I know a lot of other guitarists take off the pick guard because it interferes with the sound coming out of the treble hole. Barney Kessel was one of them.

[SamBooka]

I am pretty comfortable with the "Wes' fingers wore through the finish"
Guy has massive hands and his fingers are right there.
Now.. why are heart? Havent heard yet.

I took the PG of my Epiphone Emperor Regent (Proudly made in the finest Korean tradition). I hated the old one (prefer L5 Style PGs), didnt need the controls since I mounted them on the top. Didnt want to cut it to get it to fit a P90 (not that it matters because it was uggo).

I too rest my fingers on the top sometimes. I was afrait it would be to far and was looking at making a benedetto style rest. In the end I had no problems (and I have the fingers of a little girl).

[hot ford coupe]

I am pretty comfortable with the "Wes' fingers wore through the finish"
Guy has massive hands and his fingers are right there.
Now.. why are heart? Havent heard yet.

.

I think that someone at Gibson chose the heart design. I'd have to do some more googling to find a better answer. Let me see what I can pull up. The source of the original info I got the story from was an article in one of the big guitar mags. Apparently, they had found one oof Wes's actual guitars with the heart inlay and were able to verify it. Some clown tried to refinish it by pouring paint stripper all over it and literally trashed the whole guitar. The guitar was subsequently re-restored to factory condition. Where it is now, I don't know.

[billkath]

To my ears, having played it sans PG for a couple of hours-it certainly seems to have freed up the sound. Of course-that's probably the top freeing up correctly. I don't know if any of you keep up with some of the gizmos around, but have you heard or tried the ToneRite?

ToneRite® Guitar | ToneRite

I've heard nothing but good things about it, and I'd imagine it's a good piece of kit for those who don't play their guitars in, or don't have the time to play as often as they wish. Nobody here, of course!!!

[randyc]

No offense Bill, that's an interesting item but I'm a bit skeptical. Regarding why older guitars sound nicer, I'd always thought that it was due to the wood aging, the individual components gradually losing moisture content and the sap transitioning from a semi-solid to a solid state. Following the thought behind this, does it mean that a D-28 produced in 1938 wouldn't sound so good if it had just been stored in its case for seventy years?

I'm guessing that this (rather expensive) device is simply vibrating the bridge area of the guitar top at the line frequency, 50 to 60 Hz. It wouldn't be hard to build something like that for about $8.00 (U.S.) if some benefit could actually be derived. Or one could just duct-tape an electric razor to the guitar top and let it buzz for a while.

Of course I could be wrong but it seems that if the thing actually worked, all of the major accoustic guitar manufacturers would be using it ...

cheers,
randyc

[billkath]

Sure, aging of wood is important. But not THE most important thing in acoustic instruments. A Stradivarius built and put away wouldn't sound as sweet as one played for 50 years. See-it's all about how wooden instruments are put together. You NEED the top to vibrate freely. When newly built, no guitar sounds great. As for the vibrations-no, a 60 cycle vibration just wouldn't cut it. You see-60 hz just isn't a "note" on a guitar. You need to vibrate the instrument as if it were being played normally, and that's from about 100hz to 3 khz, and then double and triple that for the harmonics/overtones. Guitar bracing and tops, sides etc are designed to resonate to enhance and amplify a specific frequency range. When built, they are all "tight" from construction. Wood shrinkage (minimal) will occur, but guitars are designed to free up with playing.

Could all or some guitar manufacturers do that? Sure-but why bother, when normal playing will get you there anyway, in time. All the great guitar manufacturers specifically tell you in their literature that the instrument will improve with PLAYING, and not just with age. This device seems to do just that.

See-it's just like headphones, speakers and monitors. They need a "play in" time. No studio would put a new set of monitors in and just start mixing with them as a reference-they need to have music played through them for at least a solid week. Music, now- not pink or white noise. Microphones-especially top tube mics need a burn in time as well.
I've not used this device myself, but a few of the session musicians I've worked with have sworn that it did the business as stated.

[randyc]

Yes, Bill, I get your points. I'm a retired engineer (M.E. + E.E.) and those points don't satisfy my curiosity, my need for credible explanation and my ingrained suspicion of those who profit by taking advantage of us trusting musicians.

I took the tiime to look up twenty or thirty endorsements of the product. Most were favorable but not a single person made before/after recordings, much less actual measurements. The universal "test procedure" was as follows:

play the guitar and listen to it

attach the device and let it vibrate for 72 hours

play the guitar and listen to it

It's not sensible to expect one to differentiate tonal/volume differences after five minutes have elapsed, certainly not after 72 hours. Like so many after-market devices and components, no measured data is offerred by the manufacturer, no independant testing from a reputable lab, and so forth. Just some weasel-words about "how" it works.

You asked for opinions - I gave you mine as an engineer, as a life-long woodworker (and as a musician). If you desire affirmation for a decision that you've already made, there are lots of favorable endorsements of the product on the internet and you don't need my critical thoughts

cheers,
randyc

P.S. One of the reviews that I read offerred a sensible alternative suggestion: prop the guitar in front of a speaker and introduce any kind of pre-recorded material you like through the speaker. I assure you that the guitar will get a more thorough work-out than the "near-silent" one the manufacturer of the device suggests. (Quote from his ad.)

[lpdeluxe]

This opens a case, more than a can, of worms. Years ago, a columnist for Guitar Player (before it became a display of tattooed, grimacing teenagers) spoke of his music store, where he and his employees took new guitars from their cases, strapped them to speakers, and cycled them through hours of loud music before putting the guitars out for sale. He thought it worked great.

Closer to home, but still anecdotal: in 1986 I acquired a custom-made jumbo flat top acoustic, made by a luthier friend to the highest material standard (fiddle-back maple back and sides, with a laminated fiddle-back/rosewood/ebony neck, tightly grained spruce top, and decorative details including abalone/mother of pearl/gold wire butterflies and rosewood and ebony binding).

I never bonded with it; but a close friend ordered a sister instrument from him, with roses instead of butterflies, with the guitar in all its wooden components made from the same flitch of wood, as identical as it's possible to get. The luthier, having moved into renewable woods, had not made another fiddle-back guitar since mine, and the chunk of maple, along with the ebony and rosewood, had been sitting in his wood pile for two or three years (a mere moment, considering how long it takes from-the-tree timber to equalize its moisture content).

Unlike myself, my friend played the bejeezus out of his jumbo. It came out of its case at every opportunity, and he played with a free and heavy hand.

After a couple of years, my unplayed guitar (hey, I'm an electric player!) still sounded "green" and new. My friend's sounded like a representative of the golden era.

Anecdotal, but telling. No one else I have ever talked to has had the experience of comparing two so-very-near-to-identical acoustics side-by-side.

I remain a skeptic about such pixie-dust things as "speaker break-in" but to me, the breaking in of a guitar is a real thing, akin (perhaps) to the way that engines break in as the components respond to the forces provided by the reciprocating movement of the pistons and levers and gears and whatnot.

[randyc]

Lpdeluxe:

Interesting, and eloquently expressed, as always. But suggesting that a valid accoustic comparison between two guitars made several years apart is stretching things a little. The sonic qualities of two sections of wood from the same billet can vary so much that one might think a completely different species was being compared. Woodworking forums, of which I am a member, continually note the mystifying differences in the characteristics of common furniture-grade hardwood - tonewoods being a rather small subsection of this material, one can infer that the permutations are more complex.

Differences (subtle ones) in bracing configuration, location, glue distribution, clamping pressures and so forth - these things apparently are what attract some major artists away from traditional major manufacturers of accoustic guitars - that's an incidental and not necessarily germane observation. One would think that a mass-producer of guitars could produce consistently performing instruments, but we know (OK, we've "heard" anecdotally) that it's not typical.

If Gibson, Martin can't produce accoustically identical guitars on the same day of the week, using the same lot of materials on the same machinery, jigs and fixtures, with the same workers, why would a luthier - with all the individual forms of expression suggested by his craft - be able to produce instruments that are sonically identical, several years different in the dates of manufacture?

Not that producing sonically identical instruments is a desirable thing - my point is that I don't think that your example supports your propostition. (Not disagreeing with the proposition, however, I simply want to point out that metrology is a complex process at best, even when dealing with ultra-pure semiconductor grade materials ... or elemental chemicals. Organic chemistry (which I failed) is orders of magnitude more complicated and unpredictable in physical behavior. Not to mention the human ear as a measurement instrument is not very reliable.)

I'm reminded of the Bob Taylor "pallet guitar" - the one that he made from oak pallet wood to illustrate the importance of design and structure as opposed to material selection. And let me hasten to add that I'm neutral on the topic of "exercising" a wooden instrument until it reaches optimum tone. I lean a little toward the change in physical properties over age, but not all that strongly.

I'm getting far afield of my initial point which could be condensed into a sentence or two, sorry ...

What I commented on previously, was the unsubstantiated claims of the manufacturer of a device that purportedly aged and exercised wooden guitar tops in 72 hours so that their sonic characteristics were notably improved.

Here's an interesting discussion that I read a while back, this instrument-maker has quite a varied "reportoire":

Keith Hill -The Art of Instrument Making

I derive no conclusions from this writing other than those I've held for quite a while. I think that one has a head-start on producing a good sounding guitar with a proven design, good materials, good workmanship, good fixturing, good process control and good inspection procedures.

Anyway, as I've mentioned from my most initial posts to the forum members, I despise dishonesty in business practise with especial emphasis on the false, misleading claims of manufacturers who hope to benefit from those whose personalities, education and characteristics are more artistically inclined rather than physically inclined.

I'm a nerdy old engineer that (crankily) points out things that I regard as misleading. No offense intended to those with viewpoints differing from mine. In case no one has noticed, I usually preface all of my critical remarks with those words

LPD, thanks for the post - as always you make us think about things !!

cheers,
randyc

[hot ford coupe]

In my opinion, there are so many factors (age of materials, age of the instrument, how the instrument is played, ad infinitum) involved with the sound of a particular wooden instrument (violin, guitar,cello, etc) that simply vibrating only a top for such a short interval cannot be that big an influence. Besides, it's only one factor amidst a great many. (Plus, when you're dealing with organic materials like wood and glue, there's too many variables you can't control and you can never make anything identical. Only my opinion.

[billkath]

Yep-and don't get me wrong-I'm not endorsing it-just wondering. These things MUST be challenged.

Playing Devil's Advocate- putting a guitar in front of speakers can not have the same effects as playing (speaking from my experience, which is also engineering, albeit recording and acoustical engineering). The whole instrument would be vibrating, instead of the way a guitar works, which is that the string vibrates, and that energy is transferred through the saddle, to the bridgeplate and thence into the amplification chamber. In fact, it could damage the guitar, putting it in front of a speaker like that. Sympathetic vibrations will set up, etc, and I'd imagine that it'd have the potential to shake the guitar to bits, over time. Things that are not supposed to vibrate, vibrate. The SPL from the speakers would have to be so high to actually vibrate the strings to pass the energy "correctly" along to the saddles that you'd soon be raided by the noise police. I assume that you're talking about the before and after on Youtube, and the reply the guy gave? He just doesn't understand the physics, that's all, by suggesting that placing the guitar in front of a speaker would work the same way.

By the way-breaking speakers in is not pixie dust-it's simple mechanics. The manufacturing tolerences need to be loosened, the excursion of the cones etc- just like breaking in a car. You need something with dynamic range-music-not just constent noise going through them for this process to happen.

However-one area that I think they've "missed" is amplitude of the vibrations. I believe that the SPL created within the guitar when a guitar is played (rather than just vibrated silently) would have a significant effect on the top and loosening generally. They might counter that this is why they need the extra days, but I'm not convinced with that argument. That's where, to me, this product falls down, and is probably why it has not been picked up by the guitar manufacturers. The low amplitude of the vibrations is helping, but it's not the whole story. Maybe the Tonerite MKII will actually create some sound?

But, as I said before, some professional players are noticing a difference. The two session guys I worked with were both adamant that it was working for them. That could of course be a king's new clothes thing, their technique changing slightly. You'd need to mechanically set it up, using a robot to play,with proper recording techniques to judge definitively. Using built-in piezos, etc, is not going to show you diddly-squat compared to a decent mic- it'd have to be done in a studio. You'd easily then be able to verifly if RMS values or frequency content have changed.

Maybe I'll write to them and offer them the playoff.

[SamBooka]

If it cant be measured it doesnt exist.
End of story.

[billkath]

If it cant be measured it doesnt exist.
End of story.

So much for religion, then-eh? Quantum theory also gets a bit of a kicking.

[lpdeluxe]

The same issues occur to me, Randy; I used the example I did because it's the single case where I knew the exact provenance of even the wood.

I personally believe that break-in happens, or doesn't happen, to acoustic guitars based on the amount of use they get. I say, "believe," since it's obviously impossible to account for all the differences in any significant way. But there are "green" guitars and there are "broken-in" guitars, and many people can distinguish the two. In this context, the butterfly remains green and the rose has been broken-in.

You'll note that I'm not extending the principle beyond the acoustic guitar.

[randyc]

You'll note that I'm not extending the principle beyond the acoustic guitar.

Yes, that occurred to me last night - I was thinking of woodwind instruments, specifically. The comparison with guitars usually only goes as far as violin or cello but there ARE other wooden instruments and someone might have a hard time making the case that a recorder has to be "broken in"

Even so, the wood makes a major contribution to the sound the recorder produces. I happened to own a fine German instrument (Dolmetsch), made of rosewood and trimmed with ivory. Even the rankest novice can discern the difference in tonal qualities between the Dolmetsch and a mass-produced instrument.

Bill, you're right with your premise that these things need to be questioned. My instinct always tells me that "if it sounds too good to be true it isn't". The music industry - especially aftermarket stuff - is noted for rip-off schemes, new ones seem to develop almost daily. They rely on the fact that musicians are trustful and don't have much of an interest in technical explanations.

We went through the thing about "breaking in" speakers a couple of months back, probably beat that subject to death or at least until some plausible explanation/rationale emerged from the discussion.

It's good to "air out" this stuff; as I try to point out when making these rants, if we become more educated about these things, then the manufacturers will have to change their ways and start specifying their products properly. Or, in this particular case, provide some substantive fact-based data to back up their claims.

cheers,
randyc

PS: Forgot to add that defending a purchase - especially a purchase involving a nebulous decision process - seems to be an almost universal reaction. Some of the reviews I read on Harmony Central, for example, support this premise. I don't know that it applies everywhere (I suspect that it does) but seems to be especially strong among us musicians. (I'm certainly guilty of rationalizing poor decisions made about equipment. Heck I'm STILL rationalizing bad decisions that motivated me to sell certain guitars over forty years ago!)