Jesse_Dylan Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Summary: I did not go out to buy a guitar with a torrefied top. Frankly, I could not have cared less about the notion. I was set on a Standard Hummingbird, but, as I said, the combination of looks and sound on this Vintage just floored me. I was already seriously thinking about them just from looking at photos on the internet, and that had nothing to do with torrefication (although it does make the top look pretty darn cool), and I had never heard one until I played one. I would not say a torrefied top is inherently "better" any more than I'd say a vintage guitar is better than a new one (although all guitars will one day become vintage, just as human beings will). But does a torrefied top sound more "vintage" than a new one? Yeah. There are few things I can say with 99.9% conviction in life, but I can say and commit to that. Now, read on for the full ramble, or skip to the reply button and vehemently disagree with me. :) _________________________________________ I am posting this under the delusion of posterity, that someone Googling may one day find this useful, as I've certainly found much use in many old threads here and elsewhere (though I will not go to the trouble of reposting this on multiple forums). ____________________________________________ I have started many Hummingbird threads as well as detailed choosing between a 2016 Standard and a 2016 Vintage. I was able to compare the two, side by side, and I chose the Vintage, which happens to have a torrefied top, so I feel compelled to share some rambly thoughts on the topic. Prepare for a book. That said, it is hard, even with these two variations on the same model ("Standard" vs "Vintage" 2016s), to narrow any quality 100% down to the top. Individual guitars vary, as we all repeat and know. However, beyond that there are also so many other factors here. The bracing seems quite different (my Vintage is light as a feather, and I believe the Standard was heavier than my pre-2012 D-18--not to say it was super heavy, but it was solid), the pickguard is perhaps different (might be thinner on the Vintage, or maybe not--the paint is on top instead of on the bottom, I can say for sure), the finish is different (how different, I don't know), and perhaps most importantly (other than bracing, which is really important to tone), the bridge/saddle are bone on the Vintage versus Tusq on the Standard. Which also reminds me--the Standard has an L.R. Baggs Element under the saddle which can change tone and certainly changes the weight somewhat and even slightly alters the body cavity. All that out of the way, yes, the Vintage definitely seemed to have a more dry tone, more dynamic range. The trebles were a bit sweeter and perhaps a bit more strident if you hit them hard. It had a more enveloping sound quality while the Standard was more projective. The depth of tone, and the bass, had more oomph and dryness on the Vintage. Again, I think the Standard would catch up in a lot of ways. On the other hand, it might take it 100 years to totally catch up, according to the hype (the torrefied top is "aged" 100 years in the kiln). (Feel I need to mention again that they were seriously both life-alteringly awesome guitars, and the Standard was certainly not lacking in bass or lacking in anything at all and could really thump.) Torrefication is certainly not the same as actual aging. In addition, the rest of the guitar is still brand new, including the bracing from what I can tell (the bracing looks white as my bum, so I don't think they torrefied anything but the top). So I wonder, how will the tone change as the rest of the guitar ages, as the entire guitar begins to meld together as a guitar instead of different pieces of different trees, as the glue ages, as it all vibrates together, and even the top itself, I wonder if it still will change. People say vibration, too, is part of the recipe. But, all those caveats out of the way, yeah--to my ear, it does sound more dry and vintage than any new guitar I've ever played, no matter what the bracing or anything else, and I can't imagine anyone actually disagreeing with me, so obvious is the effect. The combination of the looks and sound really sold me. However, I would have been very happy with the Standard, too, and would no doubt have enjoyed watching it grow old rather than coming out of the box "aged". On the other hand, by the time a Standard has aged 100 years, I'll be 133, and I don't know how much guitar-playing I will be doing at that age (hopefully even more than I am now). I think most of the problems with torrefication show up during production, such as glue not sticking when gluing braces and needing to be clamped much longer. Nothing like that should affect my guitar. The only other problem would be that old wood can't take a knock like new wood can, because it's stiffer. But I don't think a new top or an old one would appreciation the kind of knock it would take to do damage. Another benefit of a torrefied top (or torrefied anything) is that it will be much more resistant to temperature and humidity changes, particularly humidity changes. It will no longer absorb and exude moisture like a new top. It will be pretty solid. It is basically "dead," which is sad to think about, but those 1934 Martins and Gibsons we admire so much are all made out of wood that has basically almost completely died, where as new guitar tops are still kind of alive and respirate. The back/sides/neck/bracing and everything else that is not torrefied, on the other hand, will still expand and contract like we are used to guitars doing in weather, but I don't expect it will cause any issue. (I will obviously still take care of the guitar and keep it humidified, but I will not do so with the same panic and fervor I do with a normal, new-topped guitar.) A lot of people think guitars sound better when they're dry, as in so dry they are about to explode. Or implode. The "best" guitars are often considered to be the ones on the verge of implosion. It is a balance, a bit like ice-skating. You have to make a guitar that will hold itself together, but only just--too sturdy, and you lose some tone. (That is all up for debate. In theory, the top of a J-45 Standard will actually vibrate less, and be sturdier, than the top of a J-15, J-29 or J-35, but many folks still strongly prefer that J-45, whether due to implied value with the higher price or actual tonal preference, but still, build it too solid, and it won't vibrate at all.) So why do dry guitars sound better? Because there is less water in the wood. An old top, or a thermally aged one, will have little, if any, water in the top. The resin will have all crystalized. This is what causes a "vintage" tone. Other than all that, again, it is just a mystery as to how putting an "old" top on an otherwise new guitar will work as the other wood and glue become old and as it all learns to vibrate together. It will continue to change, for sure (maybe even the top will a little), but the question is, in what quantity and in what quality? In the future, we may start seeing guitars where every component has been torrefied. Many guitars have been built this way, but I imagine the cost difference would be stark on something like my guitar were they to carefully torrefy the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 This is how torrefication "colors" the top, differently than one aged naturally over time. It darkens like natural, but it gets some streaks in it. Personally, I find it an attractive accident. Others might not like it. These are the guitars I compared. I'd imagine both have now sold, because they were absolutely phenomenal, the best Gibsons I had ever played (to my ear/sensibilities/preferences, perhaps not yours), and I felt they were the best guitars I had ever played, period. (Of course that is totally loaded... I think in general Martin makes a "better" guitar than Gibson, but I also find I prefer the Gibson to the Martin. Others will prefer any Taylor to any Gibson or Martin.) The one I now live with and plan to retain for all my conscious days in our present conception of reality (and hopefully when I leave, someone else will have it, and they will be lucky as can be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Drank much coffee today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Drank much coffee today? Are you implying my contribution to the literature is drug-induced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Lengthy read and I respect your opinion and enthusiasm. We all like different things. Glad you found an instrument that speaks to you. I suspect that to my ears each of my Gibsons sounds as good and likely better than any other guitar around. "Terrified" or not. Keep on pickin' and enjoy your guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Lengthy read and I respect your opinion and enthusiasm. We all like different things. Glad you found an instrument that speaks to you. I suspect that to my ears each of my Gibsons sounds as good and likely better than any other guitar around. "Terrified" or not. Keep on pickin' and enjoy your guitar. Yes, I agree! Just one more factor in the grand scheme of things, and many of us would prefer to "age" our guitars ourselves! Or we might even prefer the sound of a new guitar, or a real old one instead of an "aged" one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Yes, I agree! Just one more factor in the grand scheme of things, and many of us would prefer to "age" our guitars ourselves! Or we might even prefer the sound of a new guitar, or a real old one instead of an "aged" one. You can't age one yourself in this case, unless you have a lot of years. Torrefaction changes the structure of the wood on a cellular level, in the same way many, many years of age and slow drying do. It is not a "relic." P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 You can't age one yourself in this case, unless you have a lot of years. Torrefaction changes the structure of the wood on a cellular level, in the same way many, many years of age and slow drying do. It is not a "relic." P Right. I do address that in my large diatribe, too. I don't know how much simulated aging one would reckon my Hummingbird has, but one figure I heard (which might have been marketing hype) said it would take about 100 years of real aging. I would be 133! Of course, one could debate about the effects of 20 years of aging versus 100, or 30 or whatever, and diminishing returns, but even 20 years is a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 A fine, solid, detailed and competent post. The topic is highly intriguing/relevant and you just gave one of the first in depth reports. Though more than satisfied - in fact happy - with my own HB's, I personally can't wait to play an ex of the new ones. Please continue to speak as you move forward. Predict even a torrefied guitar will show changes within the first 3 to 6 months, , , and of course further. You with your trained ears/skills and insight are an invaluable witness to the process. Reflections on the development will be valued by any interested reader of these pages, no doubt. Thanx▲ look forward to the outdoor pics too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherofpearl Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Drank much coffee today? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 I can probably add some input as Ive had some experienced with this process. My Furch OM (locally produced, but world renowned maker) had this treatment when I bought in 2009. Visually it already had that vintage, dark look on the sitka top and it already sounded .... well, vintage. But the interesting point is that in the 6 years Ive had it now it has developed in tone and complexity more than any of my other guitars. So Im guessing it will help in having already a relatively 'broken in' tone to start off, and will only accelerate the development process compared to a new spruce top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J45fan Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Jesse, sounds like you are sold on the "baked" top guitar. Very interesting read, thanks. There is a lot of discussion on this topic lately, also over at the UMGF. I have a problem with when somebody says it sounds "better". I have both vintage guitars and more recent ones. My 30's vintage instruments sound different for sure, but I wouldn't say better. Different yes. I own a 2007 Martin 000-18A and haven't played another 000-18 which I like better, vintage or new. To me the change in color on the torrefied tops are not very appealing. But I think Martin VTS look at least better. Vintage guitars don't have that look. But that comes down to personal taste, which is good otherwise we all would play the same instrument. But I really like the different ideas on how to get closer to that "vintage" sound. HHG, Adi tops, thin lacquer and now Torrefication. We are living in the Golden Age of guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt237 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Jesse, I've really enjoyed reading your excellent posts, and was pleased to see this particular one with your thoughts about the torrified top. I like your posts, because I can feel the excitement and passion you have about the guitars, but also your evaluations are objective and non biased. Great stuff, I loved 'riding along' with you to Bozeman to choose your Hummingbird!! Don't stop posting! Anyway, I was hoping you'd tell us your findings with the new 'Birds (and keep us updated!) There is a lot of magic in choosing a guitar - often its more than the tone - it can be the name on the headstock, the colour, the way it feels, that changes our individual perception about the instrument. I don't know how many 'technical' differences there are between the standard and the vintage birds in the 2016 range, but as you rightly say, there are things that make them sound and play differently, whether thats down to the individual instruments you tried, or across the board with the models. I love my 2013 Modern Classic bird. I found a HUGE difference in tone and feel by removing the LR Baggs UST pickup, and replacing out the sloppy fitting tusk saddle and replacing it with proper fitting bone (I did the nut too). I also find there is differences in the sound, just by changing the setup - neck relief and string height definitely has an impact on the final sound on my guitar. I have it setup how I like it, and the changes to me makes it sound more aged and settled in than before.....my point being, I believe there are other factors in the sound difference between the 2016 vintage and the 2016 standard you tried, other than the aged top. They are all ingredients, which together give that final sound! I certainly like the torrefied tops, and can believe that they are an improvement to a standard soundboard, when all the other ingredients are right too. I personally could never justify the price difference between the standard and vintage. Especially now - the 2016 Vintage is going for £800 (approx $1250 US) more than the stock of Modern Classics can be picked up for here in the UK! I'm pleased you found your beautiful guitar, and I'm happy you're sharing it with us. Keep it going my friend P.S. PLEASE DON'T SELL THOSE MARTINS!!! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Are you implying my contribution to the literature is drug-induced? Lol. No way! Apologies if my joking offended in any way. I enjoyed your odessey while buying the guitar, and of course am interested in this'new' aging technology. Congratulations on the guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Sorry - Martin content, but they have been at the torrefaction for a couple of years now..... Here is a video from Eddies Guitars with Matt playing a Martin D35E Anniversary Model - the top looks like they burned the toast a bit, but the sound is great.... BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 BK - is Matt from Eddies guitars playing that 35 in open tuning of some sort? Pet peeve of mine. Jesse I am not surprised that you are fast concluding that Hummingbird is a fabulous guitar - I have played a few True Vintage models over the years, and kicking myself for not buying one. I'm going to start surfing for couch change and hunting down one of these with that thermally cured top - I think your must've been the first one to leave the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 BK - is Matt from Eddies guitars playing that 35 in open tuning of some sort? Pet peeve of mine. Dan, I have no idea what he is doing - he certainly has an unusual style. I have watched a lot of his guitar tests since they started loading tests and have got used to his test style, just like we get used to MV test style with Tony. ( who don't seem to have any tests with the new VTS System as yet, but it seems to be everywhere, so....) BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Please pardon my mass of replies! A fine, solid, detailed and competent post. The topic is highly intriguing/relevant and you just gave one of the first in depth reports. Though more than satisfied - in fact happy - with my own HB's, I personally can't wait to play an ex of the new ones. Please continue to speak as you move forward. Predict even a torrefied guitar will show changes within the first 3 to 6 months, , , and of course further. You with your trained ears/skills and insight are an invaluable witness to the process. Reflections on the development will be valued by any interested reader of these pages, no doubt. Thanx▲ look forward to the outdoor pics too Thanks, my friend--I appreciate it (and please see the new photos in the NGD thread! plan to get some sunnier ones today, though, as yesterday was cloudy). I am especially excited to see others chiming in with their experiences as well. Although apparently I've been beaten to the punch on other forums. :) I can probably add some input as Ive had some experienced with this process. My Furch OM (locally produced, but world renowned maker) had this treatment when I bought in 2009. Visually it already had that vintage, dark look on the sitka top and it already sounded .... well, vintage. But the interesting point is that in the 6 years Ive had it now it has developed in tone and complexity more than any of my other guitars. So Im guessing it will help in having already a relatively 'broken in' tone to start off, and will only accelerate the development process compared to a new spruce top. That is very interesting to me! So not only "probably" will my guitar still grow, but it sounds as if it's likely to grow even more starkly than others? Was your Furch OM torrefied entirely, or just the top? Really interesting. I have no idea what to expect really. Jesse, sounds like you are sold on the "baked" top guitar. Very interesting read, thanks. There is a lot of discussion on this topic lately, also over at the UMGF. I have a problem with when somebody says it sounds "better". I have both vintage guitars and more recent ones. My 30's vintage instruments sound different for sure, but I wouldn't say better. Different yes. I own a 2007 Martin 000-18A and haven't played another 000-18 which I like better, vintage or new. To me the change in color on the torrefied tops are not very appealing. But I think Martin VTS look at least better. Vintage guitars don't have that look. But that comes down to personal taste, which is good otherwise we all would play the same instrument. But I really like the different ideas on how to get closer to that "vintage" sound. HHG, Adi tops, thin lacquer and now Torrefication. We are living in the Golden Age of guitars. Yes, and I am definitely not saying torrefied tops sound better, just that I am pretty sure I can hear a difference in tone. :) I would say the difference is as stark as comparing tonewoods (which is not actually as stark as people like to act) or bracing. However, I do realize that for my comparisons to really be scientific, I would have had to have compared a True Vintage model to my 2016 Vintage model. Comparing a Standard, we are dealing with different bracing, and that makes a huge difference. To my ear, the True Vintage models (which I only heard in recordings!) always sounded a little softer and subtler than the Standards, but my Vintage seems to have more bite than the True Vintage models. That is 100% speculation, though. I guess I don't know if I'm sold yet. I think there's something special about the old way of building with new, white spruce. But I can see some benefits with torrefication, and I definitely do think there is a tonal difference (but not "better" or worse)--for me, I guess it just came down to my overall preference for one amazing guitar over another. Jesse, I've really enjoyed reading your excellent posts, and was pleased to see this particular one with your thoughts about the torrified top. I like your posts, because I can feel the excitement and passion you have about the guitars, but also your evaluations are objective and non biased. Great stuff, I loved 'riding along' with you to Bozeman to choose your Hummingbird!! Don't stop posting! Anyway, I was hoping you'd tell us your findings with the new 'Birds (and keep us updated!) There is a lot of magic in choosing a guitar - often its more than the tone - it can be the name on the headstock, the colour, the way it feels, that changes our individual perception about the instrument. I don't know how many 'technical' differences there are between the standard and the vintage birds in the 2016 range, but as you rightly say, there are things that make them sound and play differently, whether thats down to the individual instruments you tried, or across the board with the models. I love my 2013 Modern Classic bird. I found a HUGE difference in tone and feel by removing the LR Baggs UST pickup, and replacing out the sloppy fitting tusk saddle and replacing it with proper fitting bone (I did the nut too). I also find there is differences in the sound, just by changing the setup - neck relief and string height definitely has an impact on the final sound on my guitar. I have it setup how I like it, and the changes to me makes it sound more aged and settled in than before.....my point being, I believe there are other factors in the sound difference between the 2016 vintage and the 2016 standard you tried, other than the aged top. They are all ingredients, which together give that final sound! I certainly like the torrefied tops, and can believe that they are an improvement to a standard soundboard, when all the other ingredients are right too. I personally could never justify the price difference between the standard and vintage. Especially now - the 2016 Vintage is going for £800 (approx $1250 US) more than the stock of Modern Classics can be picked up for here in the UK! I'm pleased you found your beautiful guitar, and I'm happy you're sharing it with us. Keep it going my friend P.S. PLEASE DON'T SELL THOSE MARTINS!!! Matt Hey buddy, thanks so much! How can I get my Martins over to England?? That's where I'd be moving, and I could definitely sell them for more there than I can here! :P I played a Hummingbird Standard at a shop in London, and I practically had to wrestle it out of the employees. They did NOT want me to play it and offered me a Yamaha instead (thanks), then suggested maybe I try a J-15. I was shocked at the price. I'm sure VAT works into it, and import costs and everything else... and rarity... You can get a Standard here for $2200, maybe the equivalent of 1400-1500 quid. If you ever visit the U.S., buy one here, and you can make a mint reselling it. :) (Okay, so that's illegal technically unless you declare upon re-entry!) At the deepest discounts, the difference between a Standard and Vintage is about $1000 still, or maybe more. Pretty crazy. I don't know if it's worth it. For me personally, I was paying with trade-ins, not "real" money. If I had been paying with cold, hard cash, maybe I would not have been able to justify it either. I would not have been able to afford it at all with cash, that's for sure. But it wasn't just the top that sold me on this one, just the whole package, from the looks to the sound. However, the Standard was every bit as fantastic in its own way, and I would not be surprised if some folks preferred the Standard, regardless of price. Anyway, you're right, and for us to truly find out what difference a baked top makes to tone, we would have to compare apples to apples--we'd need the same guitar with baked and non-baked tops. Comparing the Standard to the Vintage, there is just too much, and like you said, even just the saddles and having a pickup inside can make a huge difference! Not having a pickup in the Vintage was another selling point for me. (A guy in the shop said to me, "Why would you ever not want the 'microphone' installed?" I just said, "I think they sound the same in every guitar they're in: bad.") But either way, I would just say the torrefied top has a different sound, not necessarily a superior sound. It does sound more vintagey. Lol. No way! Apologies if my joking offended in any way. I enjoyed your odessey while buying the guitar, and of course am interested in this'new' aging technology. Congratulations on the guitar! Nope, no offense taken! I should have used a smiley :) Now I want coffee though hmm... Sorry - Martin content, but they have been at the torrefaction for a couple of years now..... Here is a video from Eddies Guitars with Matt playing a Martin D35E Anniversary Model - the top looks like they burned the toast a bit, but the sound is great.... BluesKing777. That D-35 has a lot more different-type stuff going on than just the top, too, though. It has scalloped, adirondack spruce braces for one thing, so it will sound different from the D-35s we've heard before, just for that reason (and different from the HD-35s, too)--lots of factors! It does sound great, though, and it does seem to have a vintagey-vibe thing going on there. I agree, not too sure about the top! That's one thing--a baked top doesn't exactly look like a vintage top either, I guess! Is that what mine looks like under the dark cherry sunburst??? Not that it looks bad, just... again... different...? BK - is Matt from Eddies guitars playing that 35 in open tuning of some sort? Pet peeve of mine. Jesse I am not surprised that you are fast concluding that Hummingbird is a fabulous guitar - I have played a few True Vintage models over the years, and kicking myself for not buying one. I'm going to start surfing for couch change and hunting down one of these with that thermally cured top - I think your must've been the first one to leave the factory. Pet peeve of mine, too (for sample videos), and I think you're right. Maybe it's open E or something. It doesn't sound like the bass string is dropped in pitch, but his fingerings don't look like they'd make those sounds in standard tuning! :P Did the Standard and True Vintage models have a pretty stark price difference before, too, or is that just now because of the thermally cured top? I have to wonder how much the top adds to the price (maybe a lot!). Of course, it is just one more factor, and I have to say, if you liked the True Vintage models above the Standard, you will like the 2016 Vintage models above the Standard, too. All amazing guitars. Actually, to me, I think the 2016 Vintage is even more of an "improvement" over the True Vintage than it is over the 2016 Standard, but that is, again, pure speculation. The True Vintages all just sounded a little soft to me (New Vintages as well from Wildwood), but my 2016 Vintage has more bite than even the Standard I played. Again... pure speculation though. :) I don't mean to fuel the flames or generate hype. You will have to test and compare yourself, and hopefully you can let us know how you think the 2016 Vintage compares to the True Vintages and Standards! I'd be super interested to hear your thoughts. I wish I could have had some help from you guys in the store that day, but in the end, you can only choose with your heart anyway, and that's what I did. (Well, I chose with my heart and with my trade-ins.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsharp Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 BK - is Matt from Eddies guitars playing that 35 in open tuning of some sort? Pet peeve of mine. Jesse I am not surprised that you are fast concluding that Hummingbird is a fabulous guitar - I have played a few True Vintage models over the years, and kicking myself for not buying one. I'm going to start surfing for couch change and hunting down one of these with that thermally cured top - I think your must've been the first one to leave the factory. Towards the bottom of the comments he said it is tuned to open Dmaj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 https://youtu.be/18qn1wsPPPo Here's one in standard tuning. Another thing to keep in mind is that not only are the tops torrefied on this version and braces scalloped (normal D-35 does not have scalloped braces, although the HD-35 does), but it's European spruce instead of sitka. And there's apparently a wedge of brazilian rosewood on the back, but I actually would imagine that would have much less impact on tone than the type of spruce even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Anyway, you're right, and for us to truly find out what difference a baked top makes to tone, we would have to compare apples to apples--we'd need the same guitar with baked and non-baked tops. I'm almost 100 I have played enough contemporary Birds to figure the differences between this and that (and that) when the possibility to play a torrefried comes along. But yes, we are curious for a tape now - I can feel you have us all waiting. . A fairly decent recording, some finger- and flat-picking plus a good healthy strum will tell the world a lot. Have both popcorns and cans ready as I speak. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 https://youtu.be/18qn1wsPPPo Here's one in standard tuning. Another thing to keep in mind is that not only are the tops torrefied on this version and braces scalloped (normal D-35 does not have scalloped braces, although the HD-35 does), but it's European spruce instead of sitka. And there's apparently a wedge of brazilian rosewood on the back, but I actually would imagine that would have much less impact on tone than the type of spruce even. Its interesting to hear these two examples of the terrified D-35. My view is that Martin dreads excel at single note picking and hybrid strumming (where you only strike a couple strings. In the first video the guitar really shines as he lets the Martin breathe, and with all that bass and overtone these guitars need space to breath. This video here where the kid was strumming through actually showed the Martins weaknesses, where the total lack of midrange made the guitar sound really muddy and uneven, at least to my ears. I find the same with my J-40, it really excels in hybrid strumming and is superb in single notes, especially on the bass. It is although suprrisingly a goos strummer capoed beyond the 4th) Martins are great, but they are just not as versatile as Gibsons, but at certain jobs they are brilliant. And to answer your question about the Furch, only the top had the treatment, and yes, you should expect the guitar to continue developing and I would suggest at a faster rate, of course a lot depends how much you play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Its interesting to hear these two examples of the terrified D-35. My view is that Martin dreads excel at single note picking and hybrid strumming (where you only strike a couple strings. In the first video the guitar really shines as he lets the Martin breathe, and with all that bass and overtone these guitars need space to breath. This video here where the kid was strumming through actually showed the Martins weaknesses, where the total lack of midrange made the guitar sound really muddy and uneven, at least to my ears. I find the same with my J-40, it really excels in hybrid strumming and is superb in single notes, especially on the bass. It is although suprrisingly a goos strummer capoed beyond the 4th) Martins are great, but they are just not as versatile as Gibsons, but at certain jobs they are brilliant. And to answer your question about the Furch, only the top had the treatment, and yes, you should expect the guitar to continue developing and I would suggest at a faster rate, of course a lot depends how much you play it. I thought exactly the same. But couldn't have typed it out any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Here is another Martin tested by Mat at Eddies Guitars - I looked all over the internet yesterday for this video but couldn't get there! And there it is in front of me, so here goes... It is a Custom Shop Martin 000-28 and the top is toasted but a lot lighter looking than the D-35E Anniversary I posted earlier... It also sounds superb..... I will be interested to try the toasted tops from all the makers, but I haven't seen one 'live' yet....... BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I will be interested to try the toasted tops from all the makers, but I haven't seen one 'live' yet....... Played the torrefied 35 today - It was terrific. So new in the shop that it still had a question mark hanging in the air just above the headstock, it screamed for a serious test-player. I happily volunteered. After finding a remote corner deep inside the store-maze, we jumped straight into it. The guitar sounded like a lion. Obviously not broken in and with strings crisper than cornflakes, it was hard to tell what was HD-power and what was torrefaction, but this acoustic rocks, , , , , and more. I'm sure it'll answer any task you'll give it, even the soft and tender. Will be much easier to handle - and fall a bit down to earth - when the action is lowered. That would be step 2. Step 1 would be to change strings and hear the monster with faded steel. To really feel the soul and detect the torrefied dimension under looking glass. I could live with the S-shaped back wedge, but have doubts about it being repeated on the classic purist head - with a white version of the M-logo. The slightly flamed maple bindings add to the extra aura around this 50 anniversary release and the seriously burned top is raw-cool. I can only recommend reaching out if you're lucky to meet one. But be careful, , , you might get burned too. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.