• From: Nottingham, UK
  • Registered: 2006-08-08
  • Posts: 690

Topic: Old vs New

Q. Old guitars must be the best because they go for thousands at auction.
A. No, those prices come from collectors who want a bit of rock'n'roll history.

Q. Doesn't the wood season though?
A. Wood is already seasoned when the guitar is made, any additional mositure loss over the years is minimal. Afterall the guitar has a nitro coat to prevent humidity cracking it.

Q. But don't old stradivarius violins sound better because of old wood?
A. Maybe*, but that's a  hollow instrument built from two planes of wood that need to be acousticly right.

Q. So acoustics might sound better with age.
A. On an acoustic the top needs to vibrate with the bridge to get a good sound and this resonant capacity should improve with age as the wood gets used to flexing with sound waves. So jazz archtops may improve this way but instruments that have barely been played will not. I have heard old 60s acoustics enthused over when they have plywood tops that won't be improving (more likely delaminating). Alot of percieved 'tone' is in the player's mind.

Q. So why does nothing sound like an original vintage instrument?
A. Partly because when big makers do a reissue or whatever they call the recreation they rarely get all the details exactly right. They may get the wood cosmetics right but use modern pickups. They may get the pickups right then use modern tone/volume electrics. There's a tendency to want to give the best of both worlds.

Q. But the custom shop will do one that's really perfect.
A. Yes  but then there's the amp to consider. Again a modern Vox AC30 differs quite alot from a 60s model. The voicing is right but the interior layout has changed for all sorts of practical reasons.

Q. But if I got everything 'just so' then I'd sound like the recording?
A. No, studio recordings use alot of trickery like single piano notes placed behind guitar chords to sweeten them. You'll get close but all sorts of on the day factors like the temperature of the valves will determine the precise sound.

Q. So will I ever sound like the greats?
A. No, but you will sound like yourself playing a good instrument on a good setup.

* Top violin players are often loaned stradivari for landmark recordings but they are too valuable to use all the time. A good modern instrument often matches a stradivarius tone but can't match the historic buzz, the kudos of knowing it's masterbuilt.

'The sound of the city seems to disappear'
  • From: Cincinnati, OH
  • Registered: 2007-07-16
  • Posts: 282

Re: Old vs New

this is a very, very good post....and gives me some great excuses why I never sound like the recording!

3 Reply by dguyton (edited by dguyton 2007-12-18 15:43:30)

  • From: Central Flatland
  • Registered: 2007-05-30
  • Posts: 223

Re: Old vs New

I would go so far as to say that most vintage instruments suffer, if you can call it that, from the 'stradivarius effect'-- the subjective tone that your brain adds to the sound independent of what your ears actually hear.  That is to say, if you can't see the difference between two instruments/setups on an oscilloscope, then no actual difference exists.

We're of course neglecting the virtuosity of the player for purposes of this discussion. wink

"There's such a fine line between genius and stupidity."
                              --David St. Hubbins
  • From: Cincinnati, OH
  • Registered: 2007-07-16
  • Posts: 282

Re: Old vs New

Be interesting for any of us to do a blind test--go into a guitar store, play some insturments not knowing the brand & see what we think.

  • Registered: 2007-01-29
  • Posts: 533

Re: Old vs New

Good Post...I'm often amazed at this Vintage craze at the Guitar shows. I would much rather pay 1000 to 1500 for a modern American Fender Strat than 10,000 to 15,000 for a Vintage one...even if I had the money to spend. Personally I would rather play the current Fenders and Gibsons instead of the old ones! But then again, I'm not a collecter. Lousy player but I love to play and collect user guitars...

Middleaged Redneck sorta guy who refuses to grow up...passion for music, especially Southern Rock but like bout everything cept Gangsta/Hip Hop. Collect guitars, mandolins, and love to ride Harleys.
  • From: Grimsby, UK
  • Registered: 2006-03-04
  • Posts: 604

Re: Old vs New

Hear, hear!  I'm just happy to have a guitar.  (2 after christmas lol)

I'm the son of rage and love
  • From: Nottingham, UK
  • Registered: 2006-08-08
  • Posts: 690

Re: Old vs New

"We're of course neglecting the virtuosity of the player for purposes of this discussion."

I had thought about a 'gauze curtain test', a studio player repeats the same passage on two guitars  to listeners who can't see the instrument they're playing. This sort of thing is quite common in the hi-fi world.

However the problem I forsee is does the session player try to play the strings like a robot or do they allow themselves to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the instrument? I'm sure a top player could make a Squire Affinity sing like a hummingbird, although they might complain about not enjoying it.

'The sound of the city seems to disappear'
  • From: Central Flatland
  • Registered: 2007-05-30
  • Posts: 223

Re: Old vs New

The test would have to be approached scientifically, only altering one variable at a time.  Same player, cord, amp, piece of music; just switch guitars.  I would probably specify that the player give it his best each time through.  You'd have to do it by comparing recordings to allow the player to get familiar with each test instrument.  Effects make a difference too, I think we are all aware that guitar models are affected differently by various effects.

I know that over on TheGretschPage some of the posters do this sort of thing with recordings of different pickups in their axes, but they always label the clips (that's how I decided which pickups to order for my 5120).  To be truly scientific about it, they should only be numbered.  Still, you're also testing the aesthetic sense of the listener and I have no idea how to correct for that.  I suppose by averaging the results from a large number of unique listeners you could get a statistically significant sample.

Another question: is comparing different brands an apples-to-oranges problem?  Or can we assume that it's safe to compare solid bodies (Strat vs. Les Paul), archtops (Gretsch vs. Gibson), and acoustics (Taylor vs. Martin)?

"There's such a fine line between genius and stupidity."
                              --David St. Hubbins
  • From: Bellevue, WA
  • Registered: 2006-06-15
  • Posts: 3,336

Re: Old vs New

I don't know a single luthuier that would agree that aged wood is no different than unaged wood, or that a wooden hollow body guitar does not need to be played in order to settle in.    Wood is a cellular material, and will settle as it vibrates.   I sat in a seminar last year and listened to a renowned guitar maker talk about  this specific topic for almost an hour.

Someday we'll win this thing...

[url=http://www.aclosesecond.com]www.aclosesecond.com[/url]

jerome.oneil's Website

  • From: Nottingham, UK
  • Registered: 2006-08-08
  • Posts: 690

Re: Old vs New

Can you give us a brief summary of that seminar Jerome, it sounds fascinating. I've looked for any real discussion on the improving of wood online for a while but as yet not  found real reasoning. You could be my enlightenment.

The real thrust of my argument was regarding solid body (no tone chambers) electric guitars. To me it's notable that electric guitars can be made of plywood (early Fender strats), plexiglass (Dan Armstrongs etc), fibreglass (60's Airlines), masonite chipboard (current cheap Danelectros). Whilst guitars made from these materials aren't top flight neither are they hideously flawed soundwise. Last month's 'Guitar and Bass Magazine' featured a one off electric guitar made from copper piping which was said to have a nice jazzy tone...

Obviously there are some materials that shouldn't be used. A cork electric body would dampen the string sound horribly as the bridge and neck would hardly resonate against it. A guitar body made from cast metal or granite would sustain to extreme lengths. Inbetween we have a world of choices. Clearly wood is a great material, it has the right acoustic properties, but does ageing really contribute? Part the problem is luthiers are already dealing with fine tone woods and appreciating tonal differences most of us wouldn't notice. They are after a maximum result. However electric guitars make optimal fairly easy to achieve.

I'm struggling to re-Google a New York luthier's web page that tried to dissuade customers from bringing in old electric guitars for repair/refurb. His reasoning was cost of replacing parts, resetting necks etc. was greater than buying a decent new guitar. Nowhere did he mention the magic of an old guitar body/neck.

Any thoughts?

'The sound of the city seems to disappear'
  • From: Bellevue, WA
  • Registered: 2006-06-15
  • Posts: 3,336

Re: Old vs New

It was at the Wintergras Bluegrass festival, and the two guys at the seminar were luthiers putting together very high end custom acoustics.  They talked for a while about the nature of the wood, and how each kind of wood had to vibrate to get the guitar to sound a certain way, and that if the guitar wasn't played, the wood would "deaden."  Wood is a celular material, so even if it's dry, it is still organic in nature and will deteriorate and change as at ages.

I agree with you about solid body electrics.  I don't get the vintage craze there, other than the historic aspect of it.  Electricity does what electricity does, and has since the Big Bang.  I've asked several people about wood in solid body guitars, but I've never recieved a satisfactory answer.

Someday we'll win this thing...

[url=http://www.aclosesecond.com]www.aclosesecond.com[/url]

jerome.oneil's Website

  • Registered: 2007-12-19
  • Posts: 2

Re: Old vs New

I havent really bothered too much with guitar knowledge and history before now but I'm enjoying this discussion immensely...
Can anyone explain how differently my ten year old semi-acoustic Ovation Celebrity (plastic back) may perform over the years given regular playing.
Will the fact it hasnt a wooden back mean that it will keep a similar tone down the track.
Or is the front of the guitar more important?

13 Reply by cytania (edited by cytania 2007-12-20 14:56:22)

  • From: Nottingham, UK
  • Registered: 2006-08-08
  • Posts: 690

Re: Old vs New

Hi SO, yes as I understand it for acoustics the main resonant plane is the front wood. You pluck the string and the bridge converts the vibrating string into a vibrating wood top. The back and sides do resonate a little but the top is where the action is AFAIK.

I've not heard of Ovation's having any trouble, plastic is a very stable substance. What the wood is doing is flexing and it get's better at flexing in the right way the more it does so. Plastic also flexes very well but I don't know if it improves over time.

<and that if the guitar wasn't played, the wood would "deaden."  > Many thanks Jerome this is a bit of the jigsaw I'd not heard before, I assumed that once a guitar had been 'worn in' it would stay that way, but I can see that unplayed the wood might start to stiffen up.

This playing-in principle applies to acoustics with solid wood tops but not those which use plywood (I suspect these won't improve because the glue and crosswise grains in the laminate is too tough/stable) and electric jazz guitars (often called archtops) since these have flexing tops. It doesn't apply to solid body electrics and semi-hollow electrics. I am not sure how the middle ground of semis with central blocks will figure, I suspect alot is in construction and glueing, so a Gretsch 6120 will improve but a Gibson 335 won't, generally... if they're the regular types...

I'm off to exercise my Seagull now, I've been neglecting it recently...

'The sound of the city seems to disappear'
  • Registered: 2007-05-02
  • Posts: 5

Re: Old vs New

There could be a substantial difference between very old acoustic instruments and the actual ones: the great changing has happened since they started to accelerate the aging of wood by putting it inside special essiccation rooms. A luthier in the '20s or '30s could easely purchase wood aged 10 or 15 years (or even more) NATURALLY and SLOWLY before using it to make a guitar or a violin. Today this kind of traditionally aged wood is almost impossible to find on the market. All our wood (also the one used the most expensive Martins or Taylors) is aged artificially in a few weeks. There is a big difference between slow-aged wood and today's wood, even if it's mahogany or the best red cedar. I'm not a luthier nor an expert, but i've seen wooden things made in the 1500 or 1600 age and it's clear that nowadays we cannot buy anything that's made with that kind of maniacally choosen and slowly aged pieces of wood. So I think there might be some real difference in resonation of very old wooden instruments and modern ones.

  • Registered: 2007-12-19
  • Posts: 2

Re: Old vs New

Thanks Cytania, you've inspired me to keep playing my Ovation more often...and thanks to everyone for their comments on this forum.
Guitar Rocks!