-
I have a 1958 Hoyer Special archtop acoustic. It has a 2 PU floater on it too. A lighter customized version of the one it came with)
When I bought it it had a loose neck and various non life threatening problems that needed to be attended to and I took care of them resulting in a cool unique and playable guitar. The interesting thing is that I'm not entirely sure what they should sound like other than having been told. I do know that it had likely sat dormant for many many years as I bought it off a collector and I got the impression it had been need of repair for years. Prior to that there are indications that it was played a lot.
These are hand-carved solid wood instruments, some say roughly equivalent to an L-5 or a Super 400 in build quality or better. They have REALLY high neck angles and are built like tanks, with a REALLY thick top and back but supposedly thinner 'recurves' (around the edges where the top curves up to the edge) Parallel braced.
I've check some stuff on line and there's a couple clips of one being played acoustically, one clip seems to be more professionally recorded as it's a sale demo I think.
I've read they're are bright and mine certainly is, but it also has good mids and bottom and volume (when one doesn't mute the back) I get the feeling though it could have more potential. I'm curious if I cant get a bigger and slightly louder sound out of it if I make a point of trying to break it/play it in a little
What do people think about needing to play in/break in guitars that have sat dormant for many many years?
Or even new guitars?
I wouldn't resort to devices to break a guitar in. Today for example I spent some time strumming it very very loudly and moving through various chords in various positions. It's currently strung with round wound 13-56 steel string strings (for the floater) and currently has a one piece ebony bridge(not pictured)
Here's a picture of it wearing it's stock acoustic outfit... lest the purists reel at the sight of it in it's electric party suit.(NO tops were harmed) Thanks!
-
09-13-2020 03:09 AM
-
I can't see a way to tell.
Can you remember how it sounded before you broke it in?
If you recorded it, can you guarantee that you played it with the same feel? Strings are the same age, or whatever other variable might matter?
-
Originally Posted by What now?
-
Originally Posted by What now?
-
First off, I don't know what the hell that thing is, but it looks damn cool. Is it German? Feels that way to me.
Second, I've heard that this is the case with certain woods, specifically Adirondack/red spruce. In what I've noticed from my red spruce acoustic, it does seem to open and close with time. But that's just my experience.
-
Congrats for a resurrected beauty!
Some players think that break-in of a guitar (or a speaker) is utter nonsense but then there is lots of players who believe in it.
I have not enough experience with different aged guitars to say this or that about the question but once I had a stiff feeling newish Gibson semiacoustic.
I loaned a Tone-Rite vibrator from a pal and treated the guitar over a week with it. I thought that difference was clear, the guitar felt livelier after about a 200 hours of vibration.
But was it really? This is impossible to measure scientifically. I treated some other guitars with it too but they didn’t feel different.
So I encourage You to play a lot with Your guitar! Maybe the guitar won’t change but Your ears will get used to it’s sound and You like it better all the time!
-
Originally Posted by Herbie
-
Certainly is the case on spruce-topped classical guitars: they develop over the first year or two of playing, but will close up a bit if left alone for a few months or more, only to open up with a few days of playing. Ne reason to think that arch tops would behave differently.
-
developing guitars. guitars opening up? i don't know. mumbo jumbo.
-
Originally Posted by Marcel_A
And now within the last month I’ve been going through a very similar process with a gorgeous Lacey archtop. It was ordered as a custom build by a collector and barely played. When I got it, it was quiet and almost tinny sounding. Now a month in, the bass and mid response is blooming and sounds noticeably far louder.
I have a ToneRite on the Lacey right now and it definitely helps, but playing at least an hour a day does more than anything in my opinion.
The one thing these two guitars have in common is that they both have Adirondack spruce tops, and it seems to me like Adirondack is especially in need of opening up and more prone to close up. Once opened up though, almost nothing can beat Adirondack as a soundboard wood.Last edited by ThatRhythmMan; 09-15-2020 at 09:15 AM.
-
If it is without a doubt, it should not be difficult to substantiate your claim with a clip. Or with a physical change to the guitar.
If this was a real thing, it should be most noticable with acoustic guitars. I played acoustic guitars my whole live and never noticed this phenomenon. I'm not even sure how i would notice it. If i pick up a guitar and play it again tomorrow, what am i noticing? What am i comparing it to? My memorie of how this guitar sounded yesterday?
Again . . . mumbo jumbo.
-
Fair enough, maybe its a phenomenon that doesn’t exist for you. I was actually skeptical years ago, but it is now undoubtable to me. I’ve played hundreds of acoustic archtops at this point in a private setting and while I’ve observed it in less than 10% of guitars, it definitely happens. Even if I were to make recording which I and many others thought clearly showed this, it doesn’t mean that you would observe a difference. It would be a subjective test. I’m sure it could be scientifically measured, but I certainly do not have equipment or the proper space to do a scientifically valid experiment.
I think it worth noting that George Gruhn, someone who has possibly played more acoustic guitars than anyone on the planet, is in agreement with me. Admittedly, this is his subjective impression as well.
-
Yeah I'm not sure why I used that particular word. 'Supposedly" Maybe it's because I've measured the top thickness but not the thickness near the recurves and didn't want to say for sure something I hadn't checked myself. mea culpa etc etc.
Also I didn't intend to open a can of worms.
Regarding 'measuring' differences :
One would have to make meticulous before and after recordings. Maybe If one standardized mike placement and distance and did a few samples from each time playing the same thing (to even out variances in playing style etc.), with all else being the same you'd probably get a good approximate of a accurate test that you could listen to with more objectivity.
I too am wary of an claims that can't be substantiated, things like magical capacitors , tubes, cloth wire etc. etc. (I build my own amps and I used to sell vintage tubes and capacitors)
Regarding guitar tops though, I remember I took a guitar building course 30 years ago from a local Luthier of long standing reputation and he was keen on using old piano soundboards as top material as it had been vibrating to music for years already.
It seemed to make sense when he said it.
-
Really, hundreds of guitars? How did that work? All new guitars that you personally broke in? What number are we talking about? 600? 700?
-
It's absolutely a thing.
I have an old L-5 that sounds good but kind of muted if I don't play it for a while. But w only a couple hours of play after sitting for a while it sounds superb, a very noticeable difference. .
It seems it's not the case w every guitar, some sound about the same all the time, others I'll notice a big difference after "waking up"
-
Originally Posted by Marcel_A
My experience is mainly playing vintage guitars, mainly Epiphone and Gibson. It would be exceedingly hard to play that many new archtops in this era without being a dealer of lower end models (Loar, Eastman). I’ve played more than enough to have developed an ear that can tell me which ones are “tight” most of the time right away. Much like noticing the way flavors develop in a fine wine, some can detect the changes in the palette and others cannot. I know there are many who have a much better sense of smell and taste than I do. That I cannot detect subtleties that they can does not invalidate their experience. Your experience does not invalidate mine.
-
Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
If you pick up a guitar, it sounds like it does. There is not really a way to know if it is tight, loose, or whatever.
If you play it for a few hours, there is no way you can objectively make a judgement about it 'opening up'. It's just not possible.
Your argument would have been better if you had the one guitar that you know very well.
Another thing that strikes me with these type of claims: the sound allway improves. You need to break it in, because it will bring you heaven!Last edited by Marcel_A; 09-14-2020 at 01:53 AM.
-
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it believe the earth is round
-
Originally Posted by Marcel_A
I don’t know what the flat earther comment has to do with anything. It’s not analogous in any way.
If you pick up a guitar and play it, each note is the way it sounds in that moment. I could change many things about the way I play that just that note alone and change the way the guitar sounds. Two different players can bring out different qualities in the same guitar. What exactly is your argument here.
I did give you anecdotal evidence of one guitar I know very well, the Epiphone Emperor. That’s just what that is though, an anecdotal example. An n of one is the least scientifical example of all.
I’m in a fortunate situation to be able to compare an example of a stable guitar to one that is opening up, played back to back. That’s a fairly objective way to listen to them. I have done this and experienced this change. I’ve also had others around me notice the change and comment on the change unsolicitedly. My wife who is also a musician will consistently notice the change in the same guitars that I do and can also identify a tight archtop. That’s as objective as I care to be. Maybe if I made a living as an acoustical engineer I would consider undertaking a study. I don’t think you would believe the data even if it backed me though.
-
What do people think about needing to play in/break in guitars that have sat dormant for many many years?
-
While I don’t discount the possibility that extended playing time might alter the physical structure of the instrument resulting in a “more open” sound, it seems to me that a more significant factor would be the player’s experience. The more we play a particular guitar, and the more attentive we are, the better we learn how to bring out its unique voice by varying small aspects of technique.
-
It's a continuous benign feed back loop. The guitar "opens up" and the player refines/adapts his/her technique to the instrument to get closer to the tone in his/her head.
In my opinion.
-
Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
I would. That's just it, isn't it? You don't have the data, because the data does not exist to my knowledge.
-
Originally Posted by What now?
-
Originally Posted by Marcel_A
I’m quite sure no one has done a scientifically valid study on this. Why would anyone? It would require a very vigorous analysis of the tonal spectrum. People who hear it are convinced that it happens and what good would it do to prove it scientifically? What would it change?
I enjoy hearing a guitar open up and reach its potential. I not only hear it, but can feel it vibrate differently against my chest. At first they may behave more like a solid body guitar player unplugged. In the unusual guitar, it’s nothing short of remarkable. Admittedly, most always sound the same. I would argue though, that the very best usually require some opening up.
Sonny S. -- Les Paul Player
Today, 04:18 AM in The Players