Why do guitars sound better when they age

[jdd707]

http://www.acousticguitar.com/article/default.aspx?articleid=24089

[jedzep]

Easy answer...they dry out and tonewoods reach the ideal vibratory conditions. Take that all you humidifier kooks!

[BluesKing777]

Good article - I read it some time back.

 

At the time I was a bit dubious about the section with 2 guitars - 1 played, 1 not played: both sound good etc. But recently I had a broken classical guitar repaired that my sister gave me - she probably played it 2 or 3 times before breaking it/giving the game away when realising her nails also had to go! It has been sitting in various closets waiting for repairs for approximately 35 years, but now when I play it there are some old tones in there! It has mellowed without playing, I guess I am trying to say - when it was new it sounded pretty brassy and unpleasant if I remember correctly.

 

 

BluesKing777.

[j45nick]

That's one of the better articles I've read on the topic. To some extent it debunks the "vintage is always better " myth that we persist in believing. It also reinforces the idea that modern re-issues built to vintage standards--the TV and Legend series, for example--may over time prove to be musical instruments every bit the equal of the typical vintage example, without decades of wear and tear which may necessitate significant repairs.

 

I have vintage guitars, and modern guitars that replciate vintage characteristics (L-OO Legend, Nashville '59 Historic ES 335). Although I might have preferred pristine vintage examples of the same guitars, I could never afford them in any condition even remotely comparable to that of my "new" guitars.

 

Sure, there are vintage examples that will blow away most modern re-issues, but they aren't necessarily as common as you might think. When I was looking for a vintage L-00, I was continually disappointed in the vintage examples when it came to both tone and value.

 

These guitars all need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, whether they are vintage or modern. I do applaud Gibson's efforts in replicating some of the great instruments of the past, without the vintage "wear and tear". I'll never understand "relic'ing" a new instrument, and can just barely get my head around the VOS finish.

[jedzep]

Well, the Gallagher's, who built flat tops for Doc Watson, didn't need time immemorial to create a primo tone, so there is a formula for great sound, contemporary or vintage. They, and many other small scale builders can roll a guitar out of their shop equipped with that sweet, near perfect tone...brand spankin' new. Many paradigms here.

[onewilyfool]

Not all guitars sound better with age.....take the Marin County Vintage guitar show......I would say that most of the guitars are just .....well.......OLD......they weren't good sounding when they came out of the factory, most likely, and age hasn't helped them. VERY FEW of the "collectable" category, where collectors really like pristine, closet kept examples. Most were old, needed a lot of repair work, didn't sound that good (from what you can hear at these things!) and were priced in the stratosphere..........all in all, pretty mediocre and disappointing......that's why I'll advise anyone who will listen, NEVER buy a guitar with the hope that in the future it will sound better???!!!! If it sounds like crap now, it will probably sound like opened up crap when the wood opens up, and lighter drier wood crap when it is considered a "vintage" guitar. Guys my age, will understand, we don't have that much time left to wait for guitars to "open up".....I am finished, personally buying guitars that need much work, because it can change the sound, and value, and is just too expensive for unknown results.......

[merseybeat1963]

A good question to ask old timer luthiers.

Thats a worthwhile chapter.

One luthier of very nice sounding guitars said that Adirondack Spruce has more of a tendency to.."go to sleep"..compared to some of the other top woods when it is not played.

(But that all woods do it as well)

A good thing to keep in mind before selling off a guitar you have it in for.

Best to put a new set of strings on it and wack away for a week or so just in case the newcomer ends up being not much better than that new set of strings on it.

[E-minor7]

The article is a good read – looks like the author is out to shake the conventional ideas a little, and it's welcome. Guess it's hard to write anything relevant or 'sensational' if one doesn't launch as lightly different angle on the subject.

 

I agree with some of it, , , and listen with ears wide open to the rest. But what makes me a bit skeptical is that he doesn't seem to be sensitive enough to the phenomenon of the indefinable vintage voice – which comes in different qualities yes, but always is present in guitars from 15 years old and up.

 

There is a togetherness in the sound of older guitars - high as low - that just doesn't live in newer models, and it can be addictive. Bacchus knows I'm no wine-expert, but I'm certain it's possible to compare it to red/white, cognac or port or what have you. Once your senses tune in on that extra dimension, you are easily hooked – with the downside that even your best contemporary instruments can sound a bit profane in comparison. Which of course often is kinda balanced out by the immaculate shape and reliability of the strong 'newbies'.

 

All in all I think we need the violin/bratsch/viola/cello society to bow in here. Let's hear and learn from the violin-builders, doctors and refurbishers. They definitely must have something important to say about woods, age and vibrations. And how about some statistics from the symphony-orchestras : How many of the members play vintage and why. I know nothing for a fact, but intuition tells me the majority of these highly skilled (often severely weird*) musicians prefer old.

 

 

 

*Only jokin' as you folks all know. . . . .

[Markini]

I have 1976 Avarez 5083 purchased in pristine condition in 1977. The guitar has been well taken care of. Brief description: Sitka top,Brazillion Rosewood sides and 3 piece back maple center between Braz RW. Adjustable bridge. very well made.

 

The top is starting to checker a bit and it has lived in a high humidity climate the last 6 years. Before that it lived all its lif in a low humidity environment , think high desert.

 

Then and now. The tone seems to be the same after 36 years, but the playability has dramatically improved. The action is much better, about as low as I have ever seen on an acoustic with no buzzing. before it was always just a wee bit more difficult to play, even set up. The neck feels and plays much better than when new.

 

So in my case the sound is not any better but the playability has improved as the guitar aged. very easy guitar to play. takes little effort now.

Disclaimer: She is a laminate.

 

I have 2003 Hummingbird that has been played, jammed with and gigged all its life. I have 2010 Hummingbird also, with play time of about 100 hours. Both guitars sound just about the same. The 2003 is physically easier to play than the 2010, but the difference is very small. 2010 has a wee bit higher action and more volume and projection than the 2003.

 

Its not scientific data, but from my experience well kept older guitars seem to acquire better playability as they age. My theory is the wood has aged and settled in. Also the older Bird deosn't seem to be effected by temperature and humidity changes as the 2010 Bird.

 

My 2 cents.

[onewilyfool]

Well....most of the guitars I see from the 70's need neck resets, refretting (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions), and need to have the fretboard leveled to get rid of fingernail gouges in the fretboard (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions) Saddles are usually filed down to the bridge, bridge pins loose, top bellied and in need of new tuners. Neck is usually worn on the back (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions) and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole....but I hear you, some have that sweet "soft" neck from years of play, that just has a ton of stories to tell.....

[Markini]

Well....most of the guitars I see from the 70's need neck resets, refretting (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions), and need to have the fretboard leveled to get rid of fingernail gouges in the fretboard (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions) Saddles are usually filed down to the bridge, bridge pins loose, top bellied and in need of new tuners. Neck is usually worn on the back (at least in the "cowboy chord" positions) and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole....but I hear you, some have that sweet "soft" neck from years of play, that just has a ton of stories to tell.....

 

 

Just had the 76' Alvarez in for a set up 2 months ago. No neck reset required, no bridge or saddle or bridge pin problems, everything still original except strings. Tuners are fine too, no problems staying in tune. The luthier tightened the neck a bit, and adjusted the bridge.

Something i could have done myself. Frets still good. Very easy playing guitar, though the sound is a bit bright.

 

Maybe I am the exception but I take really good care of all my guitars. And yep I play alot of cowboy chords.

[E-minor7]

My year 2000 Martin HD-28 was a dream when I bought it....deep, rich and blalnced...but after 12 years of careful play, and perfect humidity conditions of 48%, it slowly became a nightmare of mumbled sound. The bases so over rode the mids and highs that it was simply awful to play. It began about 5 years into owning it, and as the years progressed it became boomier and boomier to the point where playing any melody or song just left you feeling in darkness. This year I got rid it of it. Age destroyed it. Gibsons seem to have much more balance between lows, mids, and highs. Wish I had know that in the year 2000 when I thought I was buying the best guitar on the planet.

What a sombre and seldom story - hope you'll be back in the saddle. This time with the right Gibson. Let's hear what happens.

Hello Guitar - welcome to a world of web-guitars.

 

 

[jedzep]

My year 2000 Martin HD-28 was a dream when I bought it....deep, rich and blalnced...but after 12 years of careful play, and perfect humidity conditions of 48%, it slowly became a nightmare of mumbled sound. The bases so over rode the mids and highs that it was simply awful to play. It began about 5 years into owning it, and as the years progressed it became boomier and boomier to the point where playing any melody or song just left you feeling in darkness. This year I got rid it of it. Age destroyed it. Gibsons seem to have much more balance between lows, mids, and highs. Wish I had know that in the year 2000 when I thought I was buying the best guitar on the planet.

 

 

Hate to be banging my drum over and over, but that wouldn't have happened if your D28 was a '65. Buy vintage...be happy.

[E-minor7]

Hate to be banging my drum over and over, but that wouldn't have happened if your D28 was a '65. Buy vintage...be happy.

Just take it easy jedzep, re-banging ones drums is a part of life - not least here on the Board.

I take your point to some degree, but believe some guitars can over-mature. James Taylor says acoustic guitars can play themselves out, but that must be a psychological thing. Still I somewhat recognize his statement (they might stop vibrating for you in the metaphorical sense).

 

If I look at my beloved 1963 Southern Jumbo - which I just played before reading your post - it is as if it may have over-opened. The woods now too dry and voice thus hollow and fragile. In fact I can only listen to it one step down where the thick strings show almost double-bass-qualities and the guitar begins to speak low velvet. Then what must be considered, is that there is a chance it had plastic bridge before this new one - also with adjustable saddle - was installed. An enigmatic factor that spooks in and makes it impossible to evaluate even theorize on any straight basis. Whaw, would I like to hear this beauty as it sounded in, , , let's say 1969 or '79. It's kinda of mindblowing to imagine all the phases it has been through – Beatle-mania, Newport 1968, Olympics in Mexico, Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins walking the moon, fusion-jazz, reggae, 70's turning into punk, Tjernobyl, fall of the Berlin Wall, computer-age emerging, Pixar and Paul McCartney's mad divorce. It was just there all the time being nothing but a sunburst Kalamazoo SJ. Hurrah !

 

 

 

Yes, I know Collins stayed in the ship -

[jedzep]

Thanks for the 'redirect' and your tale of woe and intrigue. The SJ saga made me sad. Entropy's a *****. A while back I unbolted the saddle from the adj bridge of my '67 B25 and cut out a bridge slot from a rosewood replacement bridge shaped to form fit into the adj saddle slot. I rested it just inside the top's bolt sleeves on two ebony dots which I think I cut out of spacers bought from Bob Colosi, and put in a thin bone saddle. Great results.

[E-minor7]

Thanks for the 'redirect' and your tale of woe and intrigue. The SJ saga made me sad.

Don't be sad jedzep – I love the guitar and we share a splendid relationship. There's just some paths not go. Ordinary saddle is one of them, normal tuning is another. It's obvious that if you want to keep a guitar like that real and not just sense it as a marvelous object in the house, it has to provide superb sounds – also in order to live up to the other Gibsons around. It cannot live on as a precious museum-piece and therefor must be met halfway. In this case I had the 1/3 rose 2/3 bone saddle made (to bang that drum again) and need to tune down. There the oldie becomes something special and live up to its long saga and reputation on this planet. Not many members here own one, but I recall 2. One of them, ksdaddy, has a beautifully worn and brownish ex. and I remember him saying something a'la : I'll give this guitar a lot for playability and lesser for sound – but it would be the last of my collection to go.

When I told him about my deep quest for an almost mythological acoustic Gibson sound I had heard in my youth, he answered : This may very well be it.

And in many ways he was right. This SJ covers some basic G-ground and is very satisfying on that level. What I found is that a handful of other Gibsons do the same, , , in other ways. The square shouldered Southern Jumbo could never stand alone.

 

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

Btw. changed to DR Sunbeam since yesterday and tuned half a step up. It had DR Rares in late August 2011 and responds better that good with these new ones - both lights.

The pin combination serves to dampen the hollow by-flavor and emphasize the wonderful bass.

[EuroAussie]

I agree with Em7's earlier comment that I'm not sure if vintage guitars automatically sound better, but they do get a vintage voicing. Its normally dryer, woodier, mellower but without losing projection.

 

Is it better ... Depends on each guitar.

 

When I played two 50's J-45's recently in London and compared them directly to a J-45TV I preferref the TV. It had a very similar tone to the vintage cousins but was more alive and lush.

 

It all is a case by case thing I believe.

[E-minor7]

I agree with Em7's earlier comment that I'm not sure if vintage guitars automatically sound better, but they do get a vintage voicing. Its normally dryer, woodier, mellower but without losing projection.

 

Is it better ... Depends on each guitar.

 

When I played two 50's J-45's recently in London and compared them directly to a J-45TV I preferref the TV. It had a very similar tone to the vintage cousins but was more alive and lush.

 

It all is a case by case thing I believe.

Agree with the first 2 lines.

 

If you talk about Denmark Street, I'd have to say that the majority og vintage guitars I played there were sleepers that had to be brought home and nursed to come to live. In fact only 1 of the rather big collection of oldies I tried in the different shops impressed. A 1968 narrow width yellow J-200.

But as said, take those things back to the parlour and give them some looove, , , things will happen for many, not all of them.

Have to add I ran into a 1953 J-45 on a shop-wall the other day. It was refurbished some, but had what I think is the quintessential 45 voice – warm, direct, un-vain and raw. Very good, but by the way not what I'm after.

[jt]

I just happen to like old guitars. Some folks like new guitars. The preferences operate to keep us from competing against one another for guitars!

 

I can say that I've never encountered a 1930s or 1940s Gibson flattop in good condition (no structural issues, all braces glued properly with hide glue, original bridgeplate in good condition) that was not a really, really good guitar.

 

Folks have referenced 1950s and 1960s Gibson acoustics. IMHO, these are not the high point of Gibson's acoustic production. Some can be good, but many ...

 

As many of you know, I just completed a recording project with 1940s, "Banner" Gibsons. At one point, courtesy of generous collectors from around the globe, I had 14 of these instruments in my home. All sounded good and all were different. The recordings, even just the rough mix, are, to my ears, stunning. just simple recordings, no effects, in a great room. I you hear this thing (give me a month or two), I think that you'll agree.

 

Here's is my mock-up poster of the dozen guitars that I actually used in the recording sessions: