Allan Speers Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 I'm a real nitrocellulose freak. I have long agreed with the commonly-held opinion that nitro adds a certain quality to the sound of a guitar. There are a number of top builders today who are using some new kind of finish, definitely not nitro but also not poly. Tom Anderson, PRS, etc. I have played of few of those guitars and have not been very impressed. They all sound a little dead to my ears. Maybe I just didn't like the pickups, or those particular body woods. Maybe those guitars needed a few years of playing to open-up. But maybe that new finish just doesn't have the same sound. Another factor is breathability. Anderson says this is a problem with nitro, but I have read that this isone of nitro's strengths: it allows the moisture to escape and the wood to age over time. I'd really like to get a guitar with the Feinten tuning system, but that pretty much limits my choice to Anderson or Hamer. (Hamer uses poly, forget it....) So, any opinions on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 You used to be able to get pure nitro on the Fender Custom Shop Relics but now it is some type of blend. I think the more the body is allowed to vibrate, the better the tone. This is the appeal of nitro. Besides, it was on all the 50's and 60's Fenders. But I have also heard that poly is okay if it is sanded down after numerous thin coats. Production-line guitars aren't made this way. Try this experiment: take your electric guitar (unpluged) and strum a chord. While it is ringing, put your other hand on the body behind the bridge. Do you feel the body vibrating? Check out John Suhr at suhrguitars.com. John was originally Pensa-Suhr in New York and moved to the Fender Custom Shop. He now makes about 30 guitars a month in Lake Elsinore, CA. He will make any type of paint job you want. He also uses the Buzz Feitnen tuning system. I really like his pickups and have them on all my Fenders, including my Relic. This message has been edited by Sir Bob on 02-07-2001 at 03:24 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Speers Posted February 7, 2001 Author Share Posted February 7, 2001 Bumping. Someone must know something about this.... I've just heard of another finish called "NPG." Supposed to be water-based but shellac. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Speers Posted February 13, 2001 Author Share Posted February 13, 2001 bumping again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave251 Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 NO...particularly when referring to solid body electric guitars. There may be a tonal difference on a finely built acoustic, but I doubt it. I would bet, generations ago, that this same argument was made with french polish vs. nitrocellulose. Any differences in tonal qualities will have more to do with quality of construction and woods than with a couple of ounces of finish. I've been doing an informal survey of late, with luthiers from around the country...more often than not, they are beginning to move to the more modern finishes. Water based lacquers, polyurethanes, etc. While I personally have experience with the polys, I understand the modern water base lacquers are very good. I do know that the polyurethane that I use can be applied thin, and is more flexible than nitro. It finishes out just fine, and won't check like nitro does. How about an expensive experiment? Build 50 identical guitars, half finished with modern stuff and the other half with nitro. Blindfold(modern finishes do "look different, that is not to say better) and plug the noses of the players(nitro does have a certain odor to it)...let them play the guitars and listen to the differences...it would be the RARE ear that got them all right. Nitrocellulose lacquer does have an advantage in its "repairability"...but it also damages easier, too. It's just not as tough. There are still growing pains learning to use the more modern finishes,ie, a learning curve in the processes; nitro has the obvious advantage of being a 70 year old technology, with all of the associated advantages. When I was at Peavey, the switch was made to UV cured poly...talk about an expensive learning curve!! Those companies that are still insistent on using nitro will use all of the "snob" appeal and "hype" they can muster to avoid the inevitable costly and long learning period to become adept at the new finishes. One final thought...nitro is EXTREMELY hazardous, not only in flammability, but for health concerns. This is the MAIN reason I'm using a waterborne finish...there's no doubt in my mind I'll live longer because of it. The aromatic solvents used with traditional finishes will eventually go the way of lead and mercury in manufacturing processes. This message has been edited by dave@electrocoustic.com on 02-13-2001 at 10:51 AM Dave Wendler Instruments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Speers Posted February 28, 2001 Author Share Posted February 28, 2001 Dave, I appreciate your passionate reply, but Ii dunno about this. You wrote "NO...particularly when referring to solid body electric guitars.There may be a tonal difference on a finely built acoustic, but I doubt it. ." Hmm. I didn't ask if there was ANY difference, only if nitro is better. I didn't ask because there HAS to be a difference. It is absurd to think that two different materials covering the entire instrument would not have SOME efffect on the tone. Different picks, frets, cable, tuners, etc etc etc all have a well-documented effect. Therefore, I think your entire answer is suspect. However you do make some good points about health, optimizing new technologies, etc. Also, you are the only one to even attempt an answer, so kudos for that. Still hoping for more opinions. This message has been edited by Allan Speers on 03-05-2001 at 04:36 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Dave, The health issues you speak of are for the people spraying the nitro guitars, not the people playing the nitro guitars, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave251 Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Sirbob-Right...unless you decide to set it on fire and breathe the smoke, in which case the nitro would bring death a few breaths later.... I guess I'm "passionate" about this stuff because I see too many old wives tales surrounding the egos involved in instrument ownership. My guitar is better than yours because of a nitro finish?(and I know you didn't say that)...but my point is the reasons manufacturers use this material or that material usually comes down to economics and the philosphy of doing business...not for some esoteric holy grail of "tone", although that will obviously have a share of the final product. A good example of the manufacturers relying on ego is the Les Paul series from Gibson. A basic Les Paul can be had, at list, for about $2k. There MIGHT be $30 in lumber in that guitar. Now, the cost of a highly figured maple top might add as much as $75 to the cost of manufacture. And this $75 difference adds another $3K in retail price to the guitar? Come on.... Same goes for a nitro finish. The latest technology ALWAYS costs more. All of the American guitar manufacturers were using nitro finishes by the 1930's....the sheer volume of information and technological expertise has 70 years behind it. We know how to paint the stuff. Gibson and Martin are using a recycling water bath to keep the toxics out of the atmosphere...BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY SPRAYED AS IT HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST 70 YEARS. The modern finishes take relearning some techniques in order to benefit the consumer...in addition to a lot of expensive equipment AND chemicals(one component in Peavey's UV-cured poly is more than $300 a gallon!). No, nitro is MUCH less expensive than some of the modern finishes, and the equipment investment is less, excepting the air filtration and water baths. There is a lot more involved here than if one finish better than another...it really boils down to what degree the manufacturers can involve our egos in the process.... Dave Wendler Instruments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Speers Posted March 5, 2001 Author Share Posted March 5, 2001 Dave, didn't mean for this to become an argument between the two of us. However, the cost of materials is not as much a factor as the ease of application. Nitro is pretty labor intensive to do it right. Poly cures much more easily, and doesn't run as quickly if you spray it wrong. I'm sure there could be something better, hence my original post, but I have yet to hear a PRS or Anderson that really sounds "right." I'm sure you know that Paul Reed Smith himself has said that he could make better sounding guitars if he didn't have to make them look like "museum pieces." Anyone have experience with the newer water-based shellacs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.