Welcome to the Acoustic Guitar Community.
Latest Activity: on Friday
Started by FloridaGull. Last reply by Tom Riccardi Jan 19.
Started by ra harris. Last reply by Sal Pisciotta Aug 31, 2015.
Started by Bob Furia. Last reply by Bob Furia May 26, 2015.
“It’ll sound even better when it opens up.” Almost anyone shopping for a new acoustic guitar, or even just talking about them, has heard that line or a variant with roughly the same meaning. Whether the key phrase is “breaks in” or something more colorful, like “when she gets used to bein’ a geetar,” the point is always the same: when you’re playing a new guitar you can count on it sounding better in the future. This isn’t a new concept, or even leftover guitar-karma newspeak from the ’60s; statements about wooden musical instruments improving with age appear in the earliest printed catalogs of American guitar manufacturers from the late 1800s. But what really happens, and why? Is it merely age that makes a guitar sound better, is it being played that makes the difference, or is it both? There’s far more speculation about all of this than there is scientific fact and serious research, but this article will explore what is known, what’s widely suspected, and the common mythology behind why many players feel their guitar sounds better with every passing year.
It’s hard to quantify what happens to a guitar when it is played, but there are a few reliable facts about how guitars age. With few exceptions, virtually all guitar bodies made of solid wood are unfinished on the inside, regardless of how the exterior surfaces are treated. And of course there’s that big soundhole in the top (or two smaller f-holes on an archtop), making your guitar’s sound chamber much like a room with a good-size window that’s open year-round. So, even if the instrument has a thick polyester finish that would hold up to a skateboard’s wheels, the interior of an acoustic guitar takes on moisture when exposed to high humidity and then loses it again when exposed to drier air, in delayed sync with the climate around it. This process of “breathing” continues even in older instruments, but the guitar-building community has learned from years of experience that new guitars react more dramatically to changes in their environment when compared to an older instrument. Because guitar woods are so thin (usually less than 1/8-inch for flattop models), it’s easy to imagine that most of the woods in a guitar body, not just the interior surfaces, are “aging” rather quickly, primarily from the inside out.
The wood is not the only part of a guitar that continues to age after it’s completed, strung, and tuned. Many new guitars are still finished with nitrocellulose lacquer, a durable, fast-drying coating developed almost a century ago. Even after lacquer has dried enough to be buffed to a mirror-like surface, it continues to harden and contract over time, partly from the evaporation of the solvents that held it in a liquid solution so it could be flowed onto the guitar’s surface. Even the more modern catalyzed finishes, which harden by chemical reaction rather than by evaporation of solvents, change over long periods of time, although not as dramatically as nitrocellulose lacquer does. Even when your guitar is brand new, don’t let its hard, shiny exterior surfaces fool you, for while we often think of modern guitar finishes as being a sealant against just about anything but harsh chemicals, they are not. True, water will run off the surface, often without leaving a sign, but water vapor still gets through to the wood beneath the finish eventually. As finishes like nitrocellulose lacquer age and begin to break down, they usually become even more porous.
To more fully understand how a guitar ages, it helps to remember how it went together in the first place. Though the thinly sliced wooden boards used to make a guitar’s sound chamber—the top, back, and sides—may have been dried from a few months to several years, once most guitar makers start to put a guitar body together, that part of the building process is completed rather quickly. Obviously, the sides of the guitar get dramatically manipulated by steaming and bending, but the top and back are tweaked in the process as well. Virtually all modern flattop steel-string guitars have tops that aren’t really flat at all, but are slightly domed by arched bracing glued to the underside. Guitar backs have an even more pronounced convex shape, also caused by the arched bracing visible when you look through the soundhole. This means that in just a few days, or at most a few weeks, a little stack of flat pieces of guitar wood is transformed into a box with curvilinear sides and an arched top and back, all held together with glue.
If you look inside a guitar, the importance of the adhesives used to hold all those pieces together is obvious. The book-matched halves of the top and back are glued together, the all-important braces are glued to those same surfaces, and the bridge, which transmits the vibrating energy of the strings to the soundboard, is also anchored with glue. (The bridge is also a structural brace; it just happens to be the only one glued to the exterior of the guitar body.) The modern adhesives used by guitar manufacturers set rather quickly, which allows for faster assembly, but most of these glues continue to harden somewhat over an extended period. Since such adhesives are the bond between pieces of wood that vibrate as the guitar is played, they also have at least a small role in the instrument’s overall response. Is the glue holding together a 20-year-old guitar significantly harder or different than the same glue in a guitar half that age? Probably not. In fact, all of the differences discussed here are most noticeable when comparing brand-new instruments to older examples. A one-year-old guitar will have changed in comparison to an identical model just completed, but a 20-year-old guitar won’t be 20 times as different.
When it comes to identifying how guitars improve as a result of being played, it’s much more difficult to determine what happens to an instrument and how much it changes. There’s no doubt that there is a lot of tension on the soundboard, and on all the other parts of the body, when a guitar’s strings are tuned to pitch. Even a set of light-gauge bronze strings, tuned to standard pitch, exerts more than 150 pounds of “pull” between the top and neck of a guitar, and the tension of a medium-gauge set is roughly equivalent to adding a seventh string to a light-gauge set. With 150 pounds of string tension vibrating as you play, it’s no wonder you can often feel your whole guitar, not just the soundboard, humming along. But is it the effect of the string tension, or the vibrations that result from those strings being plucked and strummed, that makes the difference between the sound of a brand-new guitar and an older one? Guitarists sometimes talk about “warming up” a guitar by playing it, suggesting that once the guitar body has been resonating for a few minutes, it begins resonating better, or more musically, than it did when it was first pulled from its case. But is the guitar actually warming up or is the player making subtle, subconscious adjustments in his or her playing that results in a perception of improved tone?
This is why testimonials about how much better guitars sound as a result of use, whether it be a few minutes or hundreds of hours, can get tricky. Part of the problem is that most guitars being tested are not quite the same, even when they’re from the same manufacturer. Even something as seemingly insignificant as neck width or string action can make real-time comparisons between two almost-alike guitars problematic, and this is especially true when one of the instruments is older than the other. Comparing the same guitar in a “before and after” test is hampered by the fact that humans have a proven difficulty remembering subtleties in tone over long periods of time. Most audiophiles agree that to accurately compare speakers, for example, the A versus B comparisons have to take place within seconds.
Even more troubling is that most testimonials comparing guitar tone result from tests where the player knows which guitar he is playing, and thus knows which guitar should sound better based on conventional wisdom. Fortunately, there are a few examples of comparisons of two nearly identical guitars, built at the same time, where one has spent years under the bed or in the closet while its sibling was hauled onto the world’s stages and into countless hours of solo practice, group rehearsals, and jam sessions. In one such example observed in the shop I co-own—Gryphon Stringed Instruments, in Palo Alto, California—two 1983 Martin dreadnoughts that sounded very similar as brand-new guitars have been occasionally reunited. When both the heavily played guitar and its rarely played littermate are strung with the same brand of new strings and tested by a player who is not allowed to see which guitar has the nicks and dings, the two instruments still sound nearly identical to listeners. While this is hardly a scientific test, it does suggest that an acoustic guitar that has spent 25 years or more in the closet is not necessarily going to be a tonal slacker until someone finally puts a few hundred hours of playing on its strumometer.
For guitar makers, the astronomical prices currently paid for some guitars made three-quarters of a century ago make building, and marketing, new instruments that are “just like the old ones” an obvious goal. One of the bonuses of this trend is that we now know a lot more about those “golden age” instruments than we did 20 years ago. And while the new reissues may not be exactly the same as the originals, they are often close enough that when direct comparisons between the sound of new and old take place, the results are often surprising. True, the older guitars usually win out, but in blindfold tests here at Gryphon, listeners rank the new guitars much higher than they do when they know that instrument A is worth more than ten times as much as instrument B. This is partly because contemporary guitar makers are now using the same glues, neck construction, and bracing patterns as was used when constructing the old guitars, not just the same species of wood worked to the same thickness. When an excellent-sounding reissue is heard alongside a not-so-exceptional vintage example of the same iconic model, it’s obvious that age and lots of use are no guarantees that any one particular guitar will have great tone.
There is no question that stringed instruments change as they’re aging and are getting played. On some instruments, the changes people detect are dramatic, while on others they’re more subtle, making it difficult to predict the sound a new guitar will deliver in the future. For these reasons, it’s best to not count on specific tonal improvements when purchasing a new guitar, but rather to choose one that sounds great to you now; think of anything else as icing on the cake!
Richard Johnston is cofounder of Gryphon Stringed Instruments and is an Acoustic Guitar contributing editor.
Hear, hear Edward! Well said.
I also really enjoy the "Made to be Played" tag line. That is the quintessential definition of a Guild.
Didn't you talk about your neck joint locking strap button(s) a while back? I have never had an incident, but I think about it from time to time.
Christopher, I am with you...I want my guitar to sound incredible and also be clean and shiny and great looking, so I take good care of them...and though I now have "collected" about 25 guitars, I am definitely a "Player!" I play all of mine regularly and the four or five I travel with to use on stage have definitely been made "stage-ready" in terms of added pickups and a neck joint locking strap button! It's a musical instrument and needs to be played, even though I know that taking them on the road puts wear and tear on them! It's what they were built for..."Guild, made to be played!" One of my favorite sales tags! It makes me mad to see collectors hoard guitars in hopes of turning a bring return when they resell them, or those that lock them in a cabinet and never take them out, especially those that would be incredible "players!"
Ted, couldn't really see the log that well cause the pic is s small, but I am sure you had a hard time finding the pic. Doesn't really look familiar! Now that's a scarey thought, I thought I knew them ALL!!!
Anyone recognize this logo?? Thanks
Thanks, Ted, I practiced! ;~}
Dave, you surely get my vote for the customization. I think it will turn out gorgeous (remember to share a couple of before and after photos with the group - we live for this kind of thing!). Saving the original parts is a really good idea, as one "never knows".
Repairs on vintage instruments appear to be inevitable as time takes it's toll. Over the years I have listened to many folks debate the particulars of "restoring" versus "customizing" these instruments. I have my own understanding of the issue. I see three levels of vintage instrument owners; Collector, Reseller, and Player.
If you are a purebred collector, and your instrument resides in a humidor in a museum, the value of the instrument is intrinsically tied to it being in as original a condition as possible. Collector - Don't alter it.
For the reseller (even one who may wish to occasionally play the instrument) the primary consideration is (or one day will be) sales price. It is necessary to decide from the very beginning who the eventual target buyer will be. If that buyer will be a collector, they will value the instrument in it's most original condition. If that buyer will another reseller, they will also tend to value the instrument according to it's original condition. If the buyer will be a player, they may not value the customization like you do, then again, they may. Reseller - Don't alter it (or do so with an understanding you may really limit your chances of selling it).
For the player it is a very easy decision...make your instrument the instrument you always wanted to own. Wood binding, or abalone or mother-of-pearl inlay(s), or sunburst or hand-rubbed finish, etc. Player - Have at it!
I fall into this latter category and have customized several guitars over the years, with absolutely no intention of reselling them. Why not keep a vintage guitar vintage, and just purchase a custom guitar? For me, in addition to factors such as tonal quality, playability, nostalgia, etc., cost actually weighs in pretty significantly. A vintage Guild, regardless of condition, does not command the resale price that a comparable Martin or Gibson (or even a Taylor for that matter) does. If it did, I would be hard-pressed to consider altering it. I can often pick up a great-sounding, great condition vintage Guild for much less than I can purchase a new one. In some cases I can even pay less for a not-so-great condition Guild, repair and/or customize it, and still be under retail price. And I am able to benefit from owning the guitar I like the most, the guitar I want to own.
I hope these thoughts do more than simply add to the weight of your decision. ;~}
Welcome toAcoustic Guitar Community
Sign Upor Sign In
Check Out the Latest in Acoustic Guitar
Visit the Acoustic Guitar Bookstore
Sign up for Acoustic Guitar Weekly—the weekly e-mail newsletter that delivers coverage of players and gear, lessons and technique tips, and advice about performing and recording. Get it now!
Be alerted to the latest articles on AcousticGuitar.com, including lessons, CD, guitar, and gear reviews, how-to tips, and player profiles.
© 2016 Created by Acoustic Guitar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.