capmaster Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Maybe it's just a myth that there are any myths? I suggest we start creating some! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I suggest we start creating some! 50+ year-old Les Pauls sound better than new ones because the wood used back then was better and because the guitars have 'breathed' all this time. The ladies who wound the original PAF p'ups had perfected the 'scatterwind' technique - a skill now lost in the mists of time. Brazillian Rosewood sounds better than any other Rosewood species to be found anywhere on the planet (or, in truth, any other planet if it comes to that). The chemical formula used for the aniline dyes in the '50s allowed for 'more tone' than current aniline dyes. Daisy, the cow of legend, produced better hot-hide glue than does current-day Daffodil robbing current guitars of Tone. Modern p'up surrounds have different markings inside them robbing current guitars of Tone. Modern PAF replicas (they're RUBBISH!) don't have the 'L' shaped tooling-marks which robs current PAFs (they're RUBBISH!) of Tone. Modern bobbin-wire isn't as good as old bobbin-wire as it's now too regular in thickness which doesn't allow for any 'magic' to happen and, therefore, means less Tone. Modern green-key Kluson tips are nowhere near as good as the original tuner tips. This disaster robs current guitars of Tone. Modern trap inlays are some plastic rubbish; not the good old celluloid found on REAL Les Pauls. This catastrophe robs current guitars of Tone. Modern 'poker-chips' found on today's guitars are but a pale imitation of those found on REAL Les Pauls, robbing new guitars of Tone. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 50+ year-old Les Pauls sound better than new ones because the wood used back then was better and because the guitars have 'breathed' all this time. P. Wish I could play one of these. Through my rig, with my own fingers. I am curious, if I will notice any difference. No sarcasm, not at all! I am really curious. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 50+ year-old Les Pauls sound better than new ones because the wood used back then was better and because the guitars have 'breathed' all this time. P. I would also take one which has been sealed air-tight all these years. Would she be cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Wish I could play one of these. Through my rig, with my own fingers. I am curious, if I will notice any difference. No sarcasm, not at all! I am really curious... Oh, me too, Bence. Absolutely. I'd really like to put my R0 against any original '59 because I'm pretty confident my R0 will sound just as good (and, possibly, better). I would also take one which has been sealed air-tight all these years. Would she be cheaper? When 'Brockburst' was discovered she was found under conditions similar to those you describe, cap. I think the story goes she had been bought by someone who, very shortly afterwards, passed away. The guitar, in it's case, was put up in the attic when still effectively brand-new. I'm not sure how much she changed hands for but I strongly doubt it was cheaper than a similar, used example! If you have Yas Iwanade's "The Beauty of the 'Burst" she can be seen on pages 74/75 (9 0913). P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Hello again! Pippy! You gave me a good laugh with Your post #27. Joking aside... I've readed in a book written by a great, highly experienced luthier (I often refer to Him) about the good effects of the aging of nitrocellulose finish. He is a firm believer of: when such a finish ages, and all the plasticizers and solvents are evaporated, it will give better ringing properties to the instrument. The finish becomes thin, rigid (and very fragile), but - as He says - it makes the electric guitar sound better. I have a '78 Recording. If I put it next to my '11 Classic Custom, the visuals are evident. The '11 looks shiny, and - kind of - wet. It's finish feels softer, opposed to my Recording which' is thin, and indeed very rigid. However, due to the different electronics, it's no point comparing them. Unplugged? I can't say one or the other is better (but that doesn't means anything: I am a regular guitar enthusiast with mediocre skills and hearing). Anyone a word or two on this? Any experiences? Side by side comparisons? Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Paul Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Daisy, the cow of legend, produced better hot-hide glue than does current-day Daffodil robbing current guitars of Tone. P. The urban myth that went around here when I was a kid was that the LP's of the late '50's had better tone because they used hide glue made from 'Trigger', where as the LP's of the '70's were robbed of tone because they used 'Mr. Ed' instead. Bloody cheapskates! (thought I could hear a difference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 ... I've readed in a book written by a great, highly experienced luthier (I often refer to Him) about the good effects of the aging of nitrocellulose finish. He is a firm believer of: when such a finish ages, and all the plasticizers and solvents are evaporated, it will give better ringing properties to the instrument. The finish becomes thin, rigid (and very fragile), but - as He says - it makes the electric guitar sound better... I pointedly avoided the Nitro aging argument as there might be some truth to the theory for precisely the reasons you (and your luthier) mention. This is, unfortunately, something which is impossible to determine one way or another for the obvious reason that one would need the services of a time machine to compare how one particular instrument sounds now in comparison to how it sounded when it was brand-new. Comparing similar instruments is not a solution as the science (such as it is) would be flawed should two different guitars be used. What time-frame does your luthier mention as a good estimate for the chemicals to 'vanish'? Or is it a case of 'tends towards zero' where the percentage of change means the effects of the chemicals will always reduce but never quite fully disappear? How much difference will the altered chemical composition of the nitro used for today's Les Pauls make to their future end-tone? In my own case even the youngest of my quartet (the R0) is now 20 years old; that is to say 4x the age of Clapton's "Beano-'burst" when the album was recorded. Does that mean that the nitro on mine today is better than was the nitro on his back in '65? And as my mahogany, maple and rosewood are all similarly 'vintage' will that explain why my R0 has more of a 'vintage' tone than his 'youngster'? To sit around a table in a pub supping at a few ales discussing this minutae is great fun. Many times I've heard it suggested that it is not the alteration of one sole factor which is to be credited with the 'older Les Pauls are better' viewpoint but a case of the whole raft of changes taken together which makes the total greater than the sum of it's component parts. Navel-Gazing, of course, but still rather a diverting way to pass the time... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He said (if I am not mistaken) 30 years for this to happen, but I have to check it again. Not perfectly sure... But yes, too many factors here, that can affect such a comparison. However, I feel like my '11 is getting better and better. But that would be another discussion to be held in a peaceful corner of Tibet, between two meditations... :D Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He said (if I am not mistaken) 30 years for this to happen... Ah... So that would help to explain why Clapton's/Green's/Bloomfield's/Page's/Gibbon's/Kossoff's 'bursts all sounded so mediocre. Nitro Too New................. Hey; it might make a difference. Who knows? No-one with 100% certainty. But in any case; is it really that important in comparison to other factors?... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Ah... So that would help to explain why Clapton's/Green's/Bloomfield's/Page's/Gibbon's/Kossoff's 'bursts all sounded so mediocre. Nitro Too New................. Hey; it might make a difference. Who knows? No-one with 100% certainty. But in any case; is it really that important in comparison to other factors?... P. I think it's an exponential thing like the decay of a note. Even luthiers should stay reasonable. For example: 90% vaporizes within one day typically. The next 9% take the second day. On the third day another 0.9% will be gone. After four days, 99.99% are vaporized, and so on. The last molecule will be gone statistically after 24 days. For taking 30 years, only 0.5% of the remaining amount would vaporize per day. Honestly - who would use such a finish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Ah... So that would help to explain why Clapton's/Green's/Bloomfield's/Page's/Gibbon's/Kossoff's 'bursts all sounded so mediocre. Nitro Too New................. Hey; it might make a difference. Who knows? No-one with 100% certainty. But in any case; is it really that important in comparison to other factors?... P. Not for me. To be honest, I am much more curious about a '57-'60 to current Les Paul Custom comparison. But, for that instance, any all-mahogany Les Paul would do against the post-'68 construction. I am impressed by the beautiful tops of 'Bursts (any of them: vintage, new), but that's it. I am not hell-bent for Standards at all. I rather prefer the Customs, or such peculiar models, like the new ES-Les Paul, the 7-string Classic. Anyways, the question of nitro aging wouldn't have catched my attention at all, if it wasn't said by the man who crafted Albert King's legendary V: Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Aging of finish is a story different from vaporized diluents or plasticizers finally getting cross-linked. This is about decay and decomposition. To me it seems reasonable that it may become obvious after 30 years typically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 My Telecaster was made in April of 1977 during the "Thick Skin" (registered trademark) era of Fender, generally whined about and maligned about by armchair guitar experts. In 1990 I left it out in my truck and it was about 30 below that night. The next day I saw the finish on the body had cracked in several places. It never chipped or peeled, just displayed cracks. Not even like lacquer crazing, these were long cracks that would go right across the face and back. I've noted that over the last 2 years or so, I can't clean the guitar's body with anything. Not guitar polish, not a damp cloth, not lighter fluid, NOTHING. Any type of polish or cleaner makes the finish dull and sticky, and even a damp cloth will give the finish a whitish fog for about 3 days. The finish is wearing away along the edges where I handle it or my arm rests on it and in many places it's giving off that vibe like the latex on a cheap guitar stand, like it's starting to deteriorate. I'm not sure what to make of it. To add to the weirdness, in the spots where it's wearing away, it displays different layers of blonde/white and clear, almost like the Zoot Suit SG but obviously much milder, just along the "right forearm edge" more than anything. In addition, those "cracks" from 1990, while still visible, have seemingly melted back together. There is a black line where the crack is supposed to be but with a loupe it's clear it has fused back together and just left a little depression where the crack was. Strange finish. Strange then, stranger now. The patina is incredible though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 My Telecaster was made in April of 1977 during the "Thick Skin" (registered trademark) era of Fender, generally whined about and maligned about by armchair guitar experts. In 1990 I left it out in my truck and it was about 30 below that night. The next day I saw the finish on the body had cracked in several places. It never chipped or peeled, just displayed cracks. Not even like lacquer crazing, these were long cracks that would go right across the face and back. I've noted that over the last 2 years or so, I can't clean the guitar's body with anything. Not guitar polish, not a damp cloth, not lighter fluid, NOTHING. Any type of polish or cleaner makes the finish dull and sticky, and even a damp cloth will give the finish a whitish fog for about 3 days. The finish is wearing away along the edges where I handle it or my arm rests on it and in many places it's giving off that vibe like the latex on a cheap guitar stand, like it's starting to deteriorate. I'm not sure what to make of it. To add to the weirdness, in the spots where it's wearing away, it displays different layers of blonde/white and clear, almost like the Zoot Suit SG but obviously much milder, just along the "right forearm edge" more than anything. In addition, those "cracks" from 1990, while still visible, have seemingly melted back together. There is a black line where the crack is supposed to be but with a loupe it's clear it has fused back together and just left a little depression where the crack was. Strange finish. Strange then, stranger now. The patina is incredible though. The blonde/white/clear is condensation. Perspiration and humidity have gotten under the finish and sit on the wood. A change in temperature cause it to condense under there, and you can see it. Eventually it will lift the entire finish off the guitar such that you can put a set list on the back of it just by sliding it under the edge of the paint. I actually could do that with a late 70s strat I used for a while that had been owned by a guy that played shirtless all the time. Enjoy it for now, but know that it will eventually be wrecked. Probably not in our lifetimes though. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yeah, and if so....so be it. I've always taken care of that guitar but I've also not obsessed about it. We'll fall apart together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yeah, and if so....so be it. I've always taken care of that guitar but I've also not obsessed about it. We'll fall apart together. Brutha that's the best we can hope for, and I hope it for you and that tele. My current #1 is an 18 year old California tele that was lovingly dipped in car paint and won't ever chip or ding. It's been all over with me and out in the trunk of the car overnight and behind bars in the alley by accident all night and it hasn't ever shown a bit of paint problem. I swear they baked it on back then, when they were first getting their paint shop stuff together and into the modern age. I too hope that it and I fall apart together. It needs a fret job, probably pretty bad by most measures, but I've been playing around the tough spots for so long I can't even think about re-fretting it. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaicho8888 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Electric Guitar Myths are created to sell more guitars and thin out your wallet! "Practice, practice, and more practice" to get your tone is not a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
american cheez Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 i wish i had known when i was young, how gullible people are about this subject. i could have made a mint :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdclmn7 Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 I bought a mahogany slab years ago while stationed in Korea. It was 3ft x 18 inch x 2 in. Oh, it cost me a whopping $12. I took a strat neck and bolted it onto a freshly-made strat/lp hybrid body and the results were impressive. The already-good tone was slightly improved, and I realized that you could tone-up with a change in wood. Years later I would also realize that the common element to all types of guitars is the neck and not the body. Its all wood, you can get a dozen guitars made out of the same tree and each will sound different. How do you explain what is obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Hello! What I have noticed, is that those guitars that have a resonant neck would sound louder unplugged, and have great tone when amplified. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 "Practice, practice, and more practice" to get your tone is not a myth. Excellent assumption. In fact, did You notice (of course You all did), brilliant players don't give a damn about their guitars. They use them as a mechanic uses His powertools. Unlike, most of us (including me) here. :D Gary Moore: "I play them, don't collect them" - He had no concerns of the authencity of the '59 Peter Green guitar. He did change tuners, knobs on it. Randy Rhoads: He wasn't obsessed with originally either, and replaced the original machine heads on His '57 Black Beauty. Neil Young: His extensively modified "Old black" - originally a '53 Goldtop. Peter Frampton: Converted his '54 Custom to '60 specs. ...and so on... Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 After some 35 years playing and fixing guitars, I have plenty of reasons to doubt what people say about their guitars. For example, the current fad is that of getting pickups as close as possible to the strings. A horrible idea as the bridge pickup will never sound as loud unless you have a real hot bridge pickup. Pickup height is can change your tone, its clearer the farther away from the strings and has less volume. Tapping the rhythm pickup will make for a clearer sound. The age-old method of comparing a 12th fretted pitch as opposed to its harmonic is a joke, it only applies to that fret and does nothing when it comes to the last few frets. Try fretting and do the harmonics on other strings to get what you need, a bit involved, but it does the trick, do it distorted as the ring of the harmonics will be more obvious. Be skeptical, develop your own criteria, make sure that you aren't just paying for some luthier's new car. The only acurate harmonic on the board is the 12th fret? The scale is tempered but the harmonics don't know that. Assuming you're talking about intonation, only fretted notes should be used. How else is fretting pressure to be acounted for Some of the worst myths come from the best of intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 ...only fretted notes should be used. How else is fretting pressure to be acounted for Some of the worst myths come from the best of intentions. Have to agree with that. Nothing else did work out for me than comparing fretted notes octave apart on the same string. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The only acurate harmonic on the board is the 12th fret? The scale is tempered but the harmonics don't know that. ... Because the scale is tempered according to a root - the 12th - of 2, only 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th and so on harmonics can match on theory and have to be obeyed in practice including their aberrations. Any real adjustment and tuning will have to be stretched, according to the principals of the Railsback curve. They apply to any string and wind instrument. Electronic oscillators are a different story - their exacting harmonics make them sound as "sterile" as they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.