Do Acoustic Guitars Really Sound Better Over Time?

[Anderton]

This was being discussed a bit in another thread, and I thought it deserved its own. I asked Robi Johns, who's the Product Development Manager for Gibson Acoustic Guitars and a certified nice guy, for his comments...so here they are. I love his term "plausible mythology"

 

Yes it is a general sense that age and time sweetens the sound of an acoustic. Let"s then talk of the science and /or, what I call at times, the "plausible mythology.'

 

Jose Ramirez III sensed (through his life"s work) that it was the crystallization in the greasy finish varnishes over time (the few first years of curing actually) that made the tone sweeter and magical .He also believed that the crystallization of the grain sap enhanced tone. Based on his work,,,I have a strong inclination to believe him.

 

Gibon's finish is nitro cellulous lacquer, and after initial gassing off periods, it continually becomes less stable as a coating or finish. Thus, lightening up the finish as the guitar ages leads one to the common-sense impulse to say 'hand me that old axe,' because it vibrates so sweet and free.

 

Now let"s 'mind -experiment' about an old spruce top sitting in a shop for 60 years. The cells long lost their moisture â the wood is now denser, and the sap and cells have metaphorically, if not by definition, crystallized. Mr. luthier is charging me royally for this brilliant sounding sound-board, and it rings clear as a church-bell!

 

Some people swear by the 'Guitar Hummer' guitar stand that vibrates a guitar to increase its resonance and tone quality...and finally, why do I hear that our Gibsons with thermally aged wood (torrified process) sound very magical, and with the bell-like tone of Buddy Miller"s old 1953 J45 used in the movie 'Crazy Heart' (Jeff Bridges begged him for that guitar, to no avail, after the movie was shot)?

 

Yes, I"m a believer and a perceiver of this artistic-science of old vintage guitars, even if it"s a partially 'plausible- mythology. But yet I still wonder - 'did that red wine taste finer when I was in love in Paris or when I was sitting on my deck after work?'

 

In reality , it only really matters that it tasted so fine!"

[RABid]

I really hope so. Why? For years I bought and played synths. Every few years a new model with more voices, more ROM, and faster processors would come out and I would upgrade. Did this for 40 years. A few years ago I bought a Taylor 814ce. After having it a few weeks I gave away some of my cheaper acoustics and sold my Martin. I don't plan on EVER buying another acoustic. If it sounds better over time, GREAT! I don't care if it is because the wood ages, the finish absorbs moisture, or the magnets in the pickup mellow. I'm just happy to have a good instrument that does not have to be upgraded every few years.

[KuruPrionz]

I've heard many times from customers how their guitars "opened up" over time. That was in Fresno, a hot, dry place which could accelerate the process. Here is it more humid, dry wood will absorb moisture given the opportunity. Most finishes will prevent that from occurring if they are intact. Not all finishes are intact, we've all seen much loved and vigorously strummed guitars with the finish work through in places. Al\most all guitars have "naked innards", no finish on the bottom side of the top, no finish on the braces, etc.

 

Wille Nelson's Trigger comes to mind as the poster child for a well beaten acoustic guitar. I saw him live years ago, the guitar sounded fabulous and he had Grady Martin up there with him so it held up very well under a difficult comparison.

 

And here I am with 2 favorite acoustic guitars that are 100% graphite - both Rainsongs. I don't think they will open up over time but my OM 1000 truly changed for the better when I took the nasty sounding LR Baggs Element pickup out from under the saddle, installed a one piece saddle with good contact on the saddle slot and installed a K&K Pro Mini pickup. I couldn't be happier with an acoustic guitar, I still love to play a good wooden guitar but I will keep these "plastic' guitars until I can't play anymore (or go deaf).

[The Real MC]

The resonant body of an acoustic guitar is very sensitive to humidity. I remember one really dry winter where mine actually buzzed out on the frets. After that I used humidifiers during winter seasons.

[Anderton]

And here I am with 2 favorite acoustic guitars that are 100% graphite - both Rainsongs. I don't think they will open up over time but my OM 1000 truly changed for the better when I took the nasty sounding LR Baggs Element pickup out from under the saddle, installed a one piece saddle with good contact on the saddle slot and installed a K&K Pro Mini pickup. I couldn't be happier with an acoustic guitar, I still love to play a good wooden guitar but I will keep these "plastic' guitars until I can't play anymore (or go deaf).

 

I agree that there's nothing sacred about using a particular material. Just think about the outrage when the first Ovations came out, but they hit a sweet spot for cost, sound, and reliability. Rainsong guitars are great.

 

It reminds me of the The Great Richlite Controversy. Guitarists would go on forums and spout about the heresy of a "paper fingerboard," but then professional luthiers would go in there and explain why from a practical and sonic standpoint, it was such a better choice for a fingerboard than ebony. Just the fact that you can re-fret without tearing the neck apart is pretty cool, but so is the uniformity of sound. I understand that ebony is magic to some people, and yes it used to be a living thing...but imagine if only Richlite existed, and then someone said "Hey, I have this great idea of using ebony for a fingerboard." I'm not sure it would fly.

[Nowarezman]

I first heard that acoustic guitars improve with age in the early 70s. Heard it so many times that I took it for granted as true. Now I hear a lot of skepticism about the old adage. I don't think a retreat into the subjective is the best response, ie, if it sounds better to me then that's all that matters. (Cue the guy who posts right after this post, "if it sounds better to me then that's all that matters." Ah, you funny guy.)

 

I generally prefer science as a go-to source for things I believe. Is there any science on the subject? Or a part-way-there substitute, such as recordings of the same guitar over decades?

 

The only thing I think I know about all this is that I bond with guitars very slowly, over years, through playing them countless times. Then and only then do I hear the subtleties and the unique voice in detail. So I think that, even if guitars do resonate differently over time, there is an opening up side of the equation in my ability to hear and recognize and memorize a uniquely voiced instrument. I hesitate to call that a totally subjective experience, as I would hesitate to call learning to identify intervals and chord progressions a totally subjective experience.

 

nat

[Mike Rivers]

I'm wondering if the "do" or "don't" controversy is a matter of the age of the guitar. A guitar built in 1920, played, and taken care of probably sounded better in 1950 than it did when it was new, because of the materials it was built from and how they age together. But then, how would you know that? Our auditory memory is only about 5 seconds, and there probably wasn't a very good recording of that guitar in 1920. On the other hand, a guitar built in 1995 probably would sound about the same as new today because it's put together with different glue, finished with different lacquer, and the wood was aged in a different way than they did it in 1920.

 

And if you recorded the guitar when you first got it, and 25 years later used the same microphone to record it and even if you record it in the same room with the same setup, it'll sound different - because you'll be playing it differently, for better or worse.

 

Questions -

 

Does the guitar sound good now? If so, it's a keeper

Does it sound so-so now? If so, play it until you find one that sounds better (and can afford it)

[Greg Mein]

I've always considered myself more of an electric player and have a few nice ones. I bought the budget model acoustic I mentioned in the other thread (1980 Fender Dreadnought style) just to have one. Over the years it's had some rough treatment, there's a break in the sound hole and some of the bracing on the inside was broken away. Interestingly the action is excellent and it plays real nice these days with electric guitar strings (I mostly use 11's) and I think it sounds better than when I bought it but also my playing improved a great deal in the ensuing years.

 

Other than that I have a Takamine EF341SC acoustic/electric that I bought in 2003. It's a model I've seen many times in the hands of Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Toby Keith, etc. and I believe was a popular model for touring because of great sound while allowing more expensive instruments to stay home. It sounds very good unplugged but excels at being plugged into an amp. I have had it out on many occasions but haven't used it for an actual gigging guitar very often. It certainly sounds great as an acoustic but I haven't noticed any change in tone over the 18 years I've had it.

[Anderton]

I generally prefer science as a go-to source for things I believe. Is there any science on the subject? Or a part-way-there substitute, such as recordings of the same guitar over decades?

 

I think Robi says it in the first post: Jose Ramirez III sensed (through his life"s work) that it was the crystallization in the greasy finish varnishes over time (the few first years of curing actually) that made the tone sweeter and magical .He also believed that the crystallization of the grain sap enhanced tone. Based on his work...I have a strong inclination to believe him.

 

Gibson's finish is nitro cellulous lacquer, and after initial gassing off periods, it continually becomes less stable as a coating or finish. Thus, lightening up the finish as the guitar ages leads one to the common-sense impulse to say 'hand me that old axe,' because it vibrates so sweet and free.

 

So it's accepted as fact that varnish and lacquer change over time. Then the question becomes do these changes lead to a sweeter sound. I don't know of any way to measure that, but if the finish places less restrictions over time on the wood being able to vibrate, I can only assume it wouldn't sound worse.

[Chip McDonald]

Yes. Dry wood is stiffer and in turn doesn't damp vibration as well.

 

I've got a Montana division Gibson Gospel I bought at a store at worked at back in the 90's - that people looked over because it doesn't play well, but I liked how it sounded. It sounds better now, and the finish is tightening up on the grain, very nice looking. The lacquer on my Suhr is tightening up as well the same way; there could be something to the tension across the top of an acoustic with aged lacquer that creates a pre-loaded spring effect.

 

Without a doubt, having been able to compare identical Warmoth necks, roasted/torrified wood is the "vintage guitar sound" difference. The roasted neck sustains longer, has a flatter overtone series through 500-2k acoustically, fundamental is louder. If you hold both by the headstock and rap a knuckle against them, the roasted neck rings like a marimba, the regular one goes "bonk".

 

My now-vintage '83 Squier strat is maybe my best sounding guitar. I'd love to have another one just like it; I'm afraid to refret it and ruin the voodoo. So at this point I'm quite sold on, if I ever have money to spend on a guitar again, roasted basswood and maple.