Finish Choices

[KwazyTwang]

You guy's probably hate me for this. I just had to bring it up. In my experience older guitars sound better from aging. But only those that don't have a lacquer. (Opinion) Why? Because you restrict the guitar from expanding and contracting like it normally would. If you allow it to breathe it increases resonance "Some"! Keyword "Some" It does not destroy the tone of the wood completely. Many master violin builders in Europe have taken that into consideration for years. They use only maple that they've aged in uncontrolled temperature enviroments for 40 years.
They also use formulated shellac, though on the outside of the guitar to improve tone. Which works for that instrument. As a generality though expensive violins are always from aged woods. You'll agree everything is subjective and up to personal preference.
To back up my opinion here is an interview with Paul Reed Smith. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAgZ6l-oEw&feature=related
He doesn't say lacquer is "Bad". But he does say that finish matters. PRS dries their wood out in ovens, instead of having to wait a looooooong time like those folks in Europe. Anyway's it's a relevant question I think.

 

[Strat Avenger]

The "type" of finish makes NO difference. The thickness of the finish could have an affect on resonance and sustain. Thick finish is gonna act like a damper or insulator.

 

[KwazyTwang]

The "type" of finish makes NO difference. The thickness of the finish could have an affect on resonance and sustain. Thick finish is gonna act like a damper or insulator.

Agreed on thickness. This seems to be a very controversial subject on guitars.

 

[bagman67]

Not gonna lie to you - I've played awesome sounding and crappy sounding guitars with no finish, with nitrocellulose lacquer finishes, oil finishes, hardware-store spray-paint finishes, and so on.  The truth of the matter, as far as I perceive it, is that sonically there is not a lick of difference among them.  The advantages and disadvantages to the various finishes tend to be quantifiable only insofar as one finish provides a more pleasant tactile or visual experience than another (purely subjective), or a given finish may protect the lumber against moisture/pests/dings better than another.  As Warmoth points out, the thickness of a properly applied polyurethane finish is .012 inches.  The degree to which the mass of the finish is going to affect the vibrational tendencies of the guitar is vanishingly small.

An interesting experiment would be to take an unfinished guitar, assemble it, and record it under a set of rigorously controlled circumstances.

Then do it again with the finish of your choice, and compare recordings.

Then strip the finish and re-record, so you can tell whether finishing and stripping has had any effect on the tone.

Apply a second, different finish.  Record again under the same rigorously controlled circumstances.

Lather, rinse, repeat, for as many finishes as you care to monkey with.

It might also be interesting to weigh the guitar naked, and then with cured finish on board - figure out how much mass you're adding to the axe by finishing it.  A more massive finish, it seems to me, would tend to have a more pronounced effect on tone than a comparatively light finish (which is not to say the effect would even be discernible to an unaided ear - it just seems that if there even IS an effect, a more massive finish would have a larger effect).

Now, neither you nor I has the time nor the resources to engage in this kind of experimentation, so obviously my next sentence is subject to critcism on those grounds, but here I go anyway.

Unless your name is Eric Johnson, and you are the Eric Johnson who wrote "Cliffs of Dover," I submit that you won't hear one whit of difference.  And as far as Mr. Johnson's concerned, I think ol' EJ's been standing in too many rooms full of excruciatingly loud amps for too long for his voodoo to really be reliable, either.  

Now, when we consider that unfinished wood does lose or gain moisture over time and may exhibit different vibrational tendencies depending on the level of moisture present, certainly finished wood will diminish those tendencies.  Where  wood is kiln-dried with repeatable results, it's reasonable to proceed on the assumption that if you finish the wood, it will tend to sound the same over some time, barring any compromise of the finish that permits weathering of the underlying wood.

On the other hand, solid-wood acoustic guitars tend to sound better as they age.  I attribute this to two primary factors.  First, a substantial fraction of the wood in an acoustic guitar is unfinished - the entire inside of the body, to be specific.  The protection against environmental variables that a finish affords for a solid-body electric is not available, so the breakdown of cell walls or whatever it is that's going on can happen.  And the wood is much thinner, and therefore there is a substantially greater tendency for vibration caused by actually playing the damn thing to contribute to that process.  

So, in short, finish choice is a purely subjective thing, and is based on individual preference in the tactile and visual channels (and for many  builders, economic considerations), and not the auditory benefit conferred or reduced by the finish.  Beliefs to the contrary are of the nature of a religion, and are not subject to modification on rational grounds.

Peace -

Bagman

 

[bagman67]

In my experience older guitars sound better from aging. But only those that don't have a lacquer.

Better than what?  Better than they sounded themselves when they were newer?  Or better than new guitars? 

If the former, leaving aside the issue of whether your recollection is truly accurate, I propose there may be a lot more going on than just what's happening with the wood.  Pickup height, different tubes in the amp, whatever - there's a lot of stuff to correlate.

If the latter, perhaps it's possible that the older guitars you've heard and liked better were the better examples of what was available, and thus were preserved by their owners.  Reasonably competent guitarists get rid of or modify their crappy guitars over time.

Anyway, it's always a good conversation starter around here to say, "Hey, what finish is best?"

Thanks -

Bagman

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

The "they don't make 'em like they used to" guys would have one believe Nitro is superior.  It fades, shrinks, and cracks, but if it's so good, why isn't everyone still using it?  All that said, I do eventually want a Nitro finish.

 

[KwazyTwang]

Both. I think in terms of resonance the answer is yes. Absolutely. With the latter question the answer is yes if the guitars are the same model. Say a 60's something Fender Strat vs one that was built in 2008. But if you're asking (which I'm sure you're not) whether an Ibanez hi-gain pickup guitar sounds better than a Les Paul, that's personal preference. Neither is better. In fact I believe finish sound, (if it does sound different), is also personal preference and they can all be used creatively. For instance I believe guitars with pickguards have drier much less resonant sound. Whereas those without have more resonance.
On the last statement, I've heard quite a few guitars. I'm a native Nashvillian. I've also played many newer guitars. If I wanted a guitar that had killer distortion tone, I guarantee you I'd be buying a new guitar. But if I want one that has an incredibly smooth and clear sound, I'd prefer and older one. I've actually played a guitar that was cryogenically aged. It was awesome sounding. But these are my opinions. I'm not looking to tell other people what I think though, I just want to know what other people think. They can do that by voting and commenting.  :rock-on:

 

[nexrex]

To back up my opinion here is an interview with Paul Reed Smith. He doesn't say lacquer is "Bad". But he does say that finish matters. PRS dries their wood out in ovens, instead of having to wait a looooooong time like those folks in Europe. Anyway's it's a relevant question I think.

Some of the thing Paul Reed Smith says in my opinion are really just hype. PRS make wonderful instruments, but you also have to remember that thye do cater for the upper level of buyers. I mean this is the guy that was quoted saying that thhis would revolutionize the industry:

http://www.dreamguitars.com/products/prs/prs_private_stock_violin_guitar_2382_25_of_50/prs__10-161724_25_of_50.php

Selling these for 10K(even if they are PRS private stock), is a little bit delusional.

 

[JamesL]

Selling these for 10K(even if they are PRS private stock), is a little bit delusional.
[/quote]


I think arguing that different finishes sound different is delusional.... :tard:

I would say most people can barely hear the difference in pickups and neck/body woods. Let alone all this small stuff like routings/tuners/fret material/FINISHES/etc

That's just ludicrous..

 

[nexrex]

Selling these for 10K(even if they are PRS private stock), is a little bit delusional.

I think arguing that different finishes sound different is delusional.... :tard:

I would say most people can barely hear the difference in pickups and neck/body woods. Let alone all this small stuff like routings/tuners/fret material/FINISHES/etc

That's just ludicrous..


[/quote]

That's a given. I was really just using this as an example to show the hype that a lot of guitar manufacturers use. Thickness of the finish I can understand. Different finish really doesn't in my opinion mean anything.

 

[JamesL]

I totally understand that haha. But that's marketing.  :icon_jokercolor:

 

[nexrex]

I totally understand that haha. But that's marketing.   :icon_jokercolor:

"Sometime when you are at the top, it can be hard to see what's below you" Paul Reed Smith suffers from this a little bit. He has a jaded view of what he thinks his clients are looking for.  :toothy10:

 

[KwazyTwang]

Some of the thing Paul Reed Smith says in my opinion are really just hype. PRS make wonderful instruments, but you also have to remember that thye do cater for the upper level of buyers. I mean this is the guy that was quoted saying that thhis would revolutionize the industry:

10k I do believe is overpriced. But I'm sure everyone on here doesn't  "always' knows what they're talking about. The reason why it's such a great guitar is because of the sustain right? The wood he was using is from the foohills of the Alps. It comes from trees that are very old too. Because of the cold weather in the area they have very tight grain patterns. That's why it's has great sustain. Even though it doesn't look like anything special it really is because most guitars can't do that. I don't think he's crazy. If you start building world reknowned guitars let me know.
http://www.dreamguitars.com/products/prs/prs_private_stock_violin_guitar_2382_25_of_50/prs__10-161724_25_of_50.php

Selling these for 10K(even if they are PRS private stock), is a little bit delusional.

 

[nexrex]

It's got nothing to do with me making world renowned guitars.Who says that this wood sustains any better? HE DOES. Show me that published somewhere as an impartial scientific fact, and I'll believe you.    :icon_biggrin:

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I think arguing that different finishes sound different is delusional.... :tard:

I would say most people can barely hear the difference in pickups and neck/body woods. Let alone all this small stuff like routings/tuners/fret material/FINISHES/etc

That's just ludicrous..

Says the guy unhappy with his pickups.

 

[JamesL]

Uh? Yea? I said "most people" and "barely" besides, when you have pickups THAT bad you can hear it  :laughing7:

 

[Strat Avenger]

 And as far as Mr. Johnson's concerned, I think ol' EJ's been standing in too many rooms full of excruciatingly loud amps for too long for his voodoo to really be reliable, either.  

Yeah, no kidding!

 

[Cagey]

"Sometime when you are at the top, it can be hard to see what's below you" Paul Reed Smith suffers from this a little bit. He has a jaded view of what he thinks his clients are looking for.  :toothy10:

I'm not sure if that's true. I think he knows exactly what his clients are looking for. Whether or not the features/qualities are worthwhile is immaterial. If a substantial percentage of the market believes a certain type of finish is somehow "better", you'd be a fool to try to convince them otherwise. You give them what they want, or they won't buy what you make.

In unrelated news, the various pundits and government/environmental people keep complaining that the automotives are out of touch with the market, that if those dummies would just make some tiny underpowered overpriced cars that got great mileage, that people would buy those instead of SUVs and trucks. But, that's horse puckey. People buy big cars and trucks because they're comfortable and offer utility that matchbox cars don't. The automotives would be fools to build many expensive underpowered high-maintenance hybrids/electrics, because few people would buy them. You gotta give the people what they want, or you're gonna lose sales. People don't buy things they don't want or like, regardless of whether or not it's "good for them" or makes sense to the Enlightened Ones. Now, raise the cost of ownership of what they like, and you'll change what they like. When gas is $4/gal, all the sudden everybody likes (or at least tolerates) matchbox cars. Knock the COO back down, and they're right back in the hogs again.

Back on topic, I don't think finish makes a lick of difference on electrics. There are some famous luthiers who will make a great deal of noise about finishes, but they're talking about acoustic stringed instruments, not electrics. When you're depending on a thin piece of wood to produce all your tone, anything you put on that wood is going to affect it. On a massive hunk of wood like an electric uses, the finish means nothing beyond aesthetics. I suppose if you went to ridiculous extremes like upholstering the body in leather or copper you might be able to affect things in a minor way, but there aren't any finishes out there like that. At least, not in general or in production.

 

[JamesL]

"Sometime when you are at the top, it can be hard to see what's below you" Paul Reed Smith suffers from this a little bit. He has a jaded view of what he thinks his clients are looking for.  :toothy10:

I'm not sure if that's true. I think he knows exactly what his clients are looking for. Whether or not the features/qualities are worthwhile is immaterial. If a substantial percentage of the market believes a certain type of finish is somehow "better", you'd be a fool to try to convince them otherwise. You give them what they want, or they won't buy what you make.

In unrelated news, the various pundits and government/environmental people keep complaining that the automotives are out of touch with the market, that if those dummies would just make some tiny underpowered overpriced cars that got great mileage, that people would buy those instead of SUVs and trucks. But, that's horse puckey. People buy big cars and trucks because they're comfortable and offer utility that matchbox cars don't. The automotives would be fools to build many expensive underpowered high-maintenance hybrids/electrics, because few people would buy them. You gotta give the people what they want, or you're gonna lose sales. People don't buy things they don't want or like, regardless of whether or not it's "good for them" or makes sense to the Enlightened Ones. Now, raise the cost of ownership of what they like, and you'll change what they like. When gas is $4/gal, all the sudden everybody likes (or at least tolerates) matchbox cars. Knock the COO back down, and they're right back in the hogs again.

Back on topic, I don't think finish makes a lick of difference on electrics. There are some famous luthiers who will make a great deal of noise about finishes, but they're talking about acoustic stringed instruments, not electrics. When you're depending on a thin piece of wood to produce all your tone, anything you put on that wood is going to affect it. On a massive hunk of wood like an electric uses, the finish means nothing beyond aesthetics. I suppose if you went to ridiculous extremes like upholstering the body in leather or copper you might be able to affect things in a minor way, but there aren't any finishes out there like that. At least, not in general or in production.

+10000000!

And I believe that a finish could possibly change tone on an acoustic. But not electric.

 

[m4rk0]

I like a combination of Tone worms and smashed dead bugs as a finish...
I also like to route my signal through a crab commuting suicide and an old shoe for that oaky timbre