What finish preserves the sound of the wood
- Thread starter pilot2222
- Start date
erogenousjones17
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,709
I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion except that that guitar is really effing awesome. :icon_smile:
Nightclub Dwight
Hero Member
- Messages
- 689
I can't hear any difference between nitro or poly.
The difference I see is how the guitars age. Poly is hard and tough, and definitely wins out in the long run for looking like new. Nitro, being more delicate, is easier to wear away. Personally, I like the way nitro guitars age, I would never intentionally relic a guitar, but with years of use it seems that nitro wears thin in spots more than poly does. So it comes down to the look.
In my mind, if you want a guitar to look nice and pretty a long time, poly is the way to go. If you want it to show its battle scars more, nitro is better. At least that has been my experience.
I base this on guitars I have owned or played over my lifetime. I don't have any experience spraying either finish.
The difference I see is how the guitars age. Poly is hard and tough, and definitely wins out in the long run for looking like new. Nitro, being more delicate, is easier to wear away. Personally, I like the way nitro guitars age, I would never intentionally relic a guitar, but with years of use it seems that nitro wears thin in spots more than poly does. So it comes down to the look.
In my mind, if you want a guitar to look nice and pretty a long time, poly is the way to go. If you want it to show its battle scars more, nitro is better. At least that has been my experience.
I base this on guitars I have owned or played over my lifetime. I don't have any experience spraying either finish.
Sims, wow I like it, and I agree, you can hang arround and contribute as much as you like.
My 2 cents, solid body electric guitars get their tone from the Pups and the amp, I'm sure all the other things like nuts, neck thickness, woods and paints contribute a little bit to the overall tone, it's mostly the electronics that make the sound.
I haven't played an axe yet that has so much paint, or finnish that it's "Dead" but I can see how an over-abundance of finnish could really be bad, but have you seen ZZ Top Live from Texas video? Billy G has guitars that are completely
covered in finnish, fretboard and body is a metal flake finnish and sounds great. So everytime we think we got it figured out, someone prooves us wrong.
My 2 cents, solid body electric guitars get their tone from the Pups and the amp, I'm sure all the other things like nuts, neck thickness, woods and paints contribute a little bit to the overall tone, it's mostly the electronics that make the sound.
I haven't played an axe yet that has so much paint, or finnish that it's "Dead" but I can see how an over-abundance of finnish could really be bad, but have you seen ZZ Top Live from Texas video? Billy G has guitars that are completely
covered in finnish, fretboard and body is a metal flake finnish and sounds great. So everytime we think we got it figured out, someone prooves us wrong.
SimsCustomShop
Junior Member
- Messages
- 43
Blue313 said:As much as I dig that guitar, I'm really enjoying your demeanor. Some guys visit here and just try to SELL-SELL-SELL. You seem to be kicking back and hanging out.ccasion14:
Welcome to the boards and nice work!
Thanks Blue! I really appreciate that & the welcome!
SimsCustomShop
Junior Member
- Messages
- 43
I think EVERYTHING has some kind of effect on tone (to some degree)....but some more than others though of course. The big factors are of course body wood, pickups, amp....and the biggest THE PLAYER. Next I would say things like size of the guitar (the more wood the more resonance I have found) neck wood, fretboard wood, hardware material (ever noticed how the cheap $39 tremelos NEVER sound as good as a REAL Floyd or Schaller? The cheap ones sound "changy" to me b/c their made out of cheap pot metal)....nut material, scale length, (the longer the string the more sustain) string guage, etc.
Honestly, I think the "type" of finish is one aspect of the big picture that probably makes the LEAST amount of differnece in tone but gets talked about the MOST as if it IS a huge factor in tone. Many people who have guitars that are old, or painted in lacquer & nitro will rant & rave about how GREAT or different their guitar sounds & attribute this to the type of finish that it has for being the reason behind its great tone....but really, the reason it sounds different is b/c its old, the wood is old & has been air dryed vs kiln dried (And how the wood has been dried does have an impact on tone, wether its good or bad, well thats a matter of opinion) type of pickups & how they were wound, etc...thats why they sound so much different.
For example, if you have a '62 strat made out of alder....in order for the wood that was used on that guitar to be big enough to make the body the tree would have had to been at least 30-40 years old in 1962....now, in 2009 it has been 47 years since the guitar was made....making that piece of wood 77-87 years old approx....its GOING to sound different than a new 2009 Strat that has a piece of alder that is only approx 30 years old & was dried in a Kiln....its going to sound different not b/c its painted in poly & the older one was painted in lacquer, but b/c of about 10 other BIGGER factors that I listed above)
Just my honest opinion.
Honestly, I think the "type" of finish is one aspect of the big picture that probably makes the LEAST amount of differnece in tone but gets talked about the MOST as if it IS a huge factor in tone. Many people who have guitars that are old, or painted in lacquer & nitro will rant & rave about how GREAT or different their guitar sounds & attribute this to the type of finish that it has for being the reason behind its great tone....but really, the reason it sounds different is b/c its old, the wood is old & has been air dryed vs kiln dried (And how the wood has been dried does have an impact on tone, wether its good or bad, well thats a matter of opinion) type of pickups & how they were wound, etc...thats why they sound so much different.
For example, if you have a '62 strat made out of alder....in order for the wood that was used on that guitar to be big enough to make the body the tree would have had to been at least 30-40 years old in 1962....now, in 2009 it has been 47 years since the guitar was made....making that piece of wood 77-87 years old approx....its GOING to sound different than a new 2009 Strat that has a piece of alder that is only approx 30 years old & was dried in a Kiln....its going to sound different not b/c its painted in poly & the older one was painted in lacquer, but b/c of about 10 other BIGGER factors that I listed above)
Just my honest opinion.
Heres the reason "older" guitars sound good. They have always sounded good so the owners took care of them long enough to become older guitars.
I can guarantee that a small percent of guitars build today, will survive the next 30-40 years and someone will proclaim that guitars built arround 2005-2010 are the best guitars ever made.
I can guarantee that a small percent of guitars build today, will survive the next 30-40 years and someone will proclaim that guitars built arround 2005-2010 are the best guitars ever made.
Tonar8352
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,198
I have one question. How many people here have stripped a two-component polyurethane finished guitar and refinished it in lacquer?
It stands to reason that a polyurethane finished guitar can sound great or bad, the same can be true of a lacquer-finished guitar.
That said: I have found from personal experience when I strip a polyurethane finished guitar and redo it in lacquer the result is an improvement in tone. Not a slight improvement but a HUGE improvement. That is how I got started finishing guitars, they sound better lacquered.
If you want to argue you have to strip a polyurethane guitar and refinish it in lacquer first to prove your point. :evil4: :laughing7:
PS Nice Guitar!!
It stands to reason that a polyurethane finished guitar can sound great or bad, the same can be true of a lacquer-finished guitar.
That said: I have found from personal experience when I strip a polyurethane finished guitar and redo it in lacquer the result is an improvement in tone. Not a slight improvement but a HUGE improvement. That is how I got started finishing guitars, they sound better lacquered.
If you want to argue you have to strip a polyurethane guitar and refinish it in lacquer first to prove your point. :evil4: :laughing7:
PS Nice Guitar!!
SimsCustomShop
Junior Member
- Messages
- 43
The type of material makes no difference.....it's the amount of material. Lacquer doesn't resonate any differently. The reason u noticed a "huge difference" in tone is bc the lacquer you put on was probably alot thinner than the amount of poly that was on it to start with. If you had stripped the poly off & put the same amount of poly back on that you applied in lacquer the final result would be the same. Poly can be sprayed just as thin as lacquer & when sprayed thin it resonates no differently that lacquer.
I'll say it again, if polyurethane resonated WORSE than lacquer do you really think an acoustic company like Taylor would choose to use it on all of their guitars? Or many violin companies as well as piano companies? I think not.
I went to a SAU University for paint & refinishing (which consisted of everything from painting to the chemical make up of paint, binders, resins, solvents etc) for 4 years and I'm also a PPG Level 5 Master Refinisher (The highest you certification you can which takes 10 years to get....2 years between each level).........I'm not some "hobbiest". I know what I'm talking about. When sprayed in equal amounts there is NO difference in the the tonal characteristics between Urethane, Polyurethane, Polyester. Lacquer or Nitrocellulose. It has also been shown in a study conducted by the Berklee College of Music. Companies use lacquer bc it's the cheapest clear coat money can buy & people buy into all the "super thin" vintage hype that they play up & actually pay more for a paint job that won't last 1/2 as long, cracks (checks) yellows, scratches easy, imprints if layed or sat any anything for longer than a week, etc etc. Its poor poor POOR quality, no way around it. The only thing that's appealing about it in the companies eyes are all the hundred of thousands dollars a year their saving......I know this, bc I paint alot of these companies "Custom Shop" instruments.....I'm just a hop skip & a jump from Nashville (hint hint).....
Why would I lie? I could careless. I'm just passing along the facts. But theirs always the people the refute things even when it's been proven otherwise....like the people that don't think dinosaurs exist even tho we have the bones, or think the moon landing was a hoax.....
Lastly, what sounds "good" to you, or "better tone" may sound worse to other people. The change you noticed that you perceive as a huge improvement someone else may not like the change. So you can never say in a statement something DOES sound better as if it's fact..,,,,bc it's not, it's a matter of opinion on what YOU think sounds better.
I'll say it again, if polyurethane resonated WORSE than lacquer do you really think an acoustic company like Taylor would choose to use it on all of their guitars? Or many violin companies as well as piano companies? I think not.
I went to a SAU University for paint & refinishing (which consisted of everything from painting to the chemical make up of paint, binders, resins, solvents etc) for 4 years and I'm also a PPG Level 5 Master Refinisher (The highest you certification you can which takes 10 years to get....2 years between each level).........I'm not some "hobbiest". I know what I'm talking about. When sprayed in equal amounts there is NO difference in the the tonal characteristics between Urethane, Polyurethane, Polyester. Lacquer or Nitrocellulose. It has also been shown in a study conducted by the Berklee College of Music. Companies use lacquer bc it's the cheapest clear coat money can buy & people buy into all the "super thin" vintage hype that they play up & actually pay more for a paint job that won't last 1/2 as long, cracks (checks) yellows, scratches easy, imprints if layed or sat any anything for longer than a week, etc etc. Its poor poor POOR quality, no way around it. The only thing that's appealing about it in the companies eyes are all the hundred of thousands dollars a year their saving......I know this, bc I paint alot of these companies "Custom Shop" instruments.....I'm just a hop skip & a jump from Nashville (hint hint).....
Why would I lie? I could careless. I'm just passing along the facts. But theirs always the people the refute things even when it's been proven otherwise....like the people that don't think dinosaurs exist even tho we have the bones, or think the moon landing was a hoax.....
Lastly, what sounds "good" to you, or "better tone" may sound worse to other people. The change you noticed that you perceive as a huge improvement someone else may not like the change. So you can never say in a statement something DOES sound better as if it's fact..,,,,bc it's not, it's a matter of opinion on what YOU think sounds better.
Tonar8352
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,198
I am no hobbyist either. I started selling paint in 1977 for the largest privately owned paint company in California. I got in to management in 1986 for the same company and upper management in 1990. In 2000 I became a District Sales Manager and retired in February of this year after 32 years with the same company as a DM. My district sold up to 20 Million a year in sundries and finishes. I taught some of the classes you are talking about. We are of different opinions but we are certainly both equally qualified in our expertise.
Sims, just FYI, since I'm sure Tonar won't say it, and you seem like a great addition to the board - he's the #1 trusted expert on finishing here, has done a lot of the nicest guitars on the board, shows people here through great, thorough posts HOW he does his work, and is who I would call for a custom finish based on what I've seen here over the last couple of years. I look forward to reading a great discussion between you guys but he's not just 'some hobbyist' who thinks the moon is made of cheese or Obama is trying to poison you with H1N1 vaccine. Sorry, had to get in the last jab, I've avoided any political stuff for a long time. :evil4:
MedianMusic1
Junior Member
- Messages
- 143
Tonar's post is anecdotal in reply #27, "I have found from personal experience..." While Sims in reply #28 is referencing studies "conducted by the Berklee College of Music." There's a difference...
SimsCustomShop
Junior Member
- Messages
- 43
Just to clarify, I never said or implied he was a hobbiest, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't. I only stated what I did to show I have the education & experience to know more about the subject than most of the people who talk about this subject but have never even been able to do a professional quality paint job, have no experience with painting (other than in their garage or back yard) and have never worked with ALL the different products available in order to know the difference 1st hand. When someone who has probably painted 5 guitars or less in their life, bought their paint, paint supplies & paint gun at Home Depot, & has never pulled off a flawless mirror slick finish they hardly need to be the ones acting like they know what their talking about (sadly, many times these are the ones who seem to think they know the most)
I'm NOT saying this is what is happening here....I'm just talking in general, it happens alot on the forums & I've witnessed amatuer know-it-all hobbiest's trying to argue with people who are clearly far more educated on the subject & do it for a living.
I'm NOT saying this is what is happening here....I'm just talking in general, it happens alot on the forums & I've witnessed amatuer know-it-all hobbiest's trying to argue with people who are clearly far more educated on the subject & do it for a living.
Nightclub Dwight
Hero Member
- Messages
- 689
MedianMusic1 said:
With all due respect, we are still waiting for more info on this Berklee study. In essence, both Tonar and Sims are speaking from their experience. I am just a hobbyist, so I will be the last person to refute either one of their arguments. But just saying, just because someone says a study exists, doesn't really satisfy my criteria for critical evaluation.
I'm not trying to pick a fight or take sides one way or another. I'd like to read the study before arguing its relative merits.
That being said, +1 in my opinion about the thin finish being an important factor. Let the debate continue.
Just my 2c here. Have not stripped any guitars (lately) to refinish in lacquer. Have not done any tests dealing with finish thickness. Just plain ol' engineering oriented moi.
Thin finish - old finishes were nitrocellulose lacquer. It shrinks. It shrinks continually over its life. Nitrocellulose - look at celluloid pickguards. They curl. They warp. Look at any on old archtops - they go to pieces. Old finish checks. Nitrocellulose based film is dust now. I've played with nitrocellulose (celluloid) film, back in the 70's. The film substrate (base) gets VERY thin, curly, wavy.. before it turns to dust. When nitrocellulose lacquer is applied to a surface, whats left over after the solvents dry, is nitrocellulose. So thats what happens to the finish. Its my belief that a "thin" finish on todays instruments is nothing more than a recreation of what time has already done to the finish on old guitars. I really dont think it effects tone all that much, if at all.
Tone - my tests, limited as they were, but none the less conclusive, having put different necks on guitar bodies with the same pickups to see what happens with tone. The bodies were light ash, hard maple, thinline mahogany with maple cap, thinline mahogany with walnut cap. At one point they all had at least one pickup in common - from the now discontinued "52 RI" pickup set by Fender. The necks were solid goncalo alves, hard maple with pau-ferro, solid hard maple, and mahogany with rosewood. The number 1 tone shaper - the neck. Using the different bodies on the same neck, gave some difference in tone, but nothing like using different necks on the same body. In my way of thinking - this stands to reason - because the most resonant part, the part that wiggles the most from the strings vibration, is not the body, but is the neck. Solid vs thinline, sort of hard to say conclusively because there were wood differences, but the thinlines were (are) not as bright. Hard maple vs ash not as much difference as you'd expect, and really ash vs the thinline mahogany bodies was more like variations on a flavor, not different flavors of tone.
This brings me to - why would a finish alter the tone? To alter the tone, the timbre... we alter the overtones, which are harmonics. Some harmonics can be suppressed (attenuated), leaving others to be more prominent. There is some evidence that a standing waves can occur for certain harmonics, giving the observed effect of more prominence... even though its more of a psycho-acoustic thing than measurable. IOW, its how our brain interprets what is happening. By changing the resonance of the various parts, we alter the overall way the various overtones are either canceled or not, or even pseudo multiplied through standing waves.
I remember doing tests - structural tests but they apply here - basically looking how surf boards are made, and how that would apply to wings, or other structural parts. When we look at a surf board, we can see some really light weight components that act together to make one really strong assembly. That is, the very light foam core, with no outer material on it, is very soft, very limber, and easily bent. But, add some glass cloth and resin, and you have got a laminate. The glass cloth - or I suppose something better than that today, like thin kevlar or carbon fiber - is bound to the core with the resin, which is also somewhat brittle, but has has high adhesion to the core. The result is the sandwich of parts is far stronger than the individual components. This is the effect of lamination - it makes things stiffer when you apply an elastic material to a non-elastic core.
Let me remind everyone that elastic in this sense is not like a rubber band. In this sense, elastic is like a golf ball, which is very elastic, versus a ball of putty, which is non-elastic. The wood is less elastic than the lacquer. The foam of the surf board is less elastic than the glass/resin coating.
You can see where I'm going with this... I hope.
There are far far to many tone shapers to accurate evaluate and predict the overall tone of a guitar - on paper - from looking at the materials and specifications. We rely on experience - the knowledge gained by what already was tried, and we experiment, constantly refining our ideal model - which may only exist in our mind, and not actually be achievable.
Does the finish make a difference. It has to. But I will say - there are far far far more important things - and besides pickups (and hands) the most important tone shaper is the neck, its material, and profile, when dealing with solid body guitars. After that - solid vs chambered or thinline is the next biggest. After that... they're all pretty far down the food chain, and certainly, after hands, pickups, neck and body... far down the list is choice of strings, and even more remotely out in the periphery of things that effect tone, is finish, how thick, what kind, and how stiff.
As a final "aside" to this discussion - back in the late 80's or early 90's Fender produced a terrible instrument in the far east. I think it was Taiwan or Korean made. It used a very light and weak wood for the body. They used the finish to produce a structurally strong instrument. I cant remember the wood, it was some far east wood, not Nato wood, but something far worse. The finish was polyester - applied very thick and cured in a way to make it rather stiff and tough. The guitar had the strength to hold the various components and not break. It sucked. But its an example of how laminates work.
Certainly more change in tone by changing string brand and type than in the finish of the guitar - and I mean no slight on Tonar's experience and expertise. I'm up for lacquer any day, but also go for the epoxy - like this next one will have.
Thin finish - old finishes were nitrocellulose lacquer. It shrinks. It shrinks continually over its life. Nitrocellulose - look at celluloid pickguards. They curl. They warp. Look at any on old archtops - they go to pieces. Old finish checks. Nitrocellulose based film is dust now. I've played with nitrocellulose (celluloid) film, back in the 70's. The film substrate (base) gets VERY thin, curly, wavy.. before it turns to dust. When nitrocellulose lacquer is applied to a surface, whats left over after the solvents dry, is nitrocellulose. So thats what happens to the finish. Its my belief that a "thin" finish on todays instruments is nothing more than a recreation of what time has already done to the finish on old guitars. I really dont think it effects tone all that much, if at all.
Tone - my tests, limited as they were, but none the less conclusive, having put different necks on guitar bodies with the same pickups to see what happens with tone. The bodies were light ash, hard maple, thinline mahogany with maple cap, thinline mahogany with walnut cap. At one point they all had at least one pickup in common - from the now discontinued "52 RI" pickup set by Fender. The necks were solid goncalo alves, hard maple with pau-ferro, solid hard maple, and mahogany with rosewood. The number 1 tone shaper - the neck. Using the different bodies on the same neck, gave some difference in tone, but nothing like using different necks on the same body. In my way of thinking - this stands to reason - because the most resonant part, the part that wiggles the most from the strings vibration, is not the body, but is the neck. Solid vs thinline, sort of hard to say conclusively because there were wood differences, but the thinlines were (are) not as bright. Hard maple vs ash not as much difference as you'd expect, and really ash vs the thinline mahogany bodies was more like variations on a flavor, not different flavors of tone.
This brings me to - why would a finish alter the tone? To alter the tone, the timbre... we alter the overtones, which are harmonics. Some harmonics can be suppressed (attenuated), leaving others to be more prominent. There is some evidence that a standing waves can occur for certain harmonics, giving the observed effect of more prominence... even though its more of a psycho-acoustic thing than measurable. IOW, its how our brain interprets what is happening. By changing the resonance of the various parts, we alter the overall way the various overtones are either canceled or not, or even pseudo multiplied through standing waves.
I remember doing tests - structural tests but they apply here - basically looking how surf boards are made, and how that would apply to wings, or other structural parts. When we look at a surf board, we can see some really light weight components that act together to make one really strong assembly. That is, the very light foam core, with no outer material on it, is very soft, very limber, and easily bent. But, add some glass cloth and resin, and you have got a laminate. The glass cloth - or I suppose something better than that today, like thin kevlar or carbon fiber - is bound to the core with the resin, which is also somewhat brittle, but has has high adhesion to the core. The result is the sandwich of parts is far stronger than the individual components. This is the effect of lamination - it makes things stiffer when you apply an elastic material to a non-elastic core.
Let me remind everyone that elastic in this sense is not like a rubber band. In this sense, elastic is like a golf ball, which is very elastic, versus a ball of putty, which is non-elastic. The wood is less elastic than the lacquer. The foam of the surf board is less elastic than the glass/resin coating.
You can see where I'm going with this... I hope.
There are far far to many tone shapers to accurate evaluate and predict the overall tone of a guitar - on paper - from looking at the materials and specifications. We rely on experience - the knowledge gained by what already was tried, and we experiment, constantly refining our ideal model - which may only exist in our mind, and not actually be achievable.
Does the finish make a difference. It has to. But I will say - there are far far far more important things - and besides pickups (and hands) the most important tone shaper is the neck, its material, and profile, when dealing with solid body guitars. After that - solid vs chambered or thinline is the next biggest. After that... they're all pretty far down the food chain, and certainly, after hands, pickups, neck and body... far down the list is choice of strings, and even more remotely out in the periphery of things that effect tone, is finish, how thick, what kind, and how stiff.
As a final "aside" to this discussion - back in the late 80's or early 90's Fender produced a terrible instrument in the far east. I think it was Taiwan or Korean made. It used a very light and weak wood for the body. They used the finish to produce a structurally strong instrument. I cant remember the wood, it was some far east wood, not Nato wood, but something far worse. The finish was polyester - applied very thick and cured in a way to make it rather stiff and tough. The guitar had the strength to hold the various components and not break. It sucked. But its an example of how laminates work.
Certainly more change in tone by changing string brand and type than in the finish of the guitar - and I mean no slight on Tonar's experience and expertise. I'm up for lacquer any day, but also go for the epoxy - like this next one will have.
Similar threads
