OLD WOOD vs NEW WOOD ????

[siroliver]

Originally Posted by LoKi

Less density absorbs more sound, I believe, whereas very dense wood vibrates and lets the sound go freely.

I know that dense wood sustains better, but as to how it vibrates exactly, I'm not sure.

Tone wood all have differing resonant frequencies, which may or may not be directly related to their density. Hmm....

Speaking of resonant frequency, the other day I was listening to music with my acoustic lying on my bed, and one chord in the song made the whole thing almost ring out loud...cool stuff.

A change in density would equal a change in mass, which as you stated does change the resonant frequency, but that mainly affects the instrument in terms of overtone frequency(I think...). In theory dense wood should sustain and vibrate more efficiently, which is desired, right?

I really do agree that if the guitar is put together in a sub par manner, then it will just be a big turd, since all the components would need a tighter fit to better transfer sound, and then what the wood is like won't even be an issue.

You are certainly on to some interesting stuff Loki

[niksi]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dread

........
So this guy (and an hour of his expertise cost a small fortune) says: age is important, older instruments sound better, but OLNY IF THEY WERE PLAYED. He speaks of fiddles and cellos, but the same goes for guitars.

It may be incorrect to make a conclusion like that. Violins and guitars are quite different instruments.
My friend, who is exelent classical and flamenco guitar builder, said to me that classical guitar's sound quality start to decline after age of 30. He said that he does not know any major classical guitar player who use 100 year old guitar in concert.
I never read anything like that, but I guess that he knows a lot about classical guitars since some important musicians use his guitars.

[Doctor Dread]

Might be. Players apply different forces to guitars than to violines. And the construction is different... OK, makes sense.

But I was only making the point of playing vibrations causing the cells to age differently.

An older blues guy I know claims that his 69 Strat, all along with him, sounds so fabulous now because no other note than the blues was ever played on her. And I like that. Great mojo story

[BOBBO]

[dwagar]

Originally Posted by Roman Rist

One thing some folks do not realize is this; There is a magic that gets built into the instrument, a bit of the life force of the maker gets instilled into each instrument.

As perfect as machines can copy things, they have no magic.

Roman

I believe this, as well as some mojo a guitar gets by being played over the years.

I am conflicted over the old wood theory though. I've often though of liquidating some of my guitars and jumping into a conversion, but, I'd have to buy off the net. My fear of course is I'd sell a couple of really good guitars, and end up with one that does not sound as good as what I'd sold.

OTOH, my '60 Melody Maker, even with its thin body, is extremely resonant and amazingly loud acoustically. Incredible when you consider it was, I think, the cheapest model Gibson sold in 1960.

And, even though we get pretty close with boutique pickups, for the guys that can afford real PAFs, in a good Historic I'd bet they are 99% there.

[Mark H]

Not wantin to bust in here but some say, and it sounds right, that that after time a guitar (wood) dries out? So maybe the first 20? yrs or so she warms up? Then its all down hill after that? Humidifiers are what luther's say should be in the guitar room, mostly in the winter, during heavy use of the furnace. And some are better than others, aka don't buy a car built on Friday? Or just the way she went togeather, nice and tite or ...well this one will pass. there were slack craftmen back then too.
Is not all wood aged to some extent, even for a deck? I thought that you can not cut down an old tree anymore, anyhow.

The guys that own a '59 LP don't want to hear that! Making JP's '59 great from '69 to '79 and then after that more a piece of history than magic sounding guitar? Same goes for Jimmy too?
But wood and pups seem to be the main sounds, the rest may help a little frets, tuners, pots ect.?
Oh and the guy playing too?

[klohiq]

Originally Posted by niksi

It may be incorrect to make a conclusion like that. Violins and guitars are quite different instruments.
My friend, who is exelent classical and flamenco guitar builder, said to me that classical guitar's sound quality start to decline after age of 30. He said that he does not know any major classical guitar player who use 100 year old guitar in concert.
I never read anything like that, but I guess that he knows a lot about classical guitars since some important musicians use his guitars.

one should also point out that a single violin can fill a concert hall with sound...guitars, even of the acoustic variety, don't have that much volume. in an electric, im very skeptical that old wood actually sounds all that different. electric guitars don't make enough volume acoustically to really benefit if there is any difference at all...

[tonebone]

I haven't read all the LP books yet, so can someone cite here, quote something to the effect, ...how do we know the vintage LP's were built with "old growth?"

[tonebone]

....I'm not going to be banned, am I?

[Texas07R8]

at my age any wood is good wood and should never, ever be wasted..

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by Texas07R8

at my age any wood is good wood and should never, ever be wasted..

I hears ya...

[gmacdonnell]

If you ever get a chance, tap a board of old-growth tonewood. Compared to kiln-dried modern stuff, there's just no comparison.

When you play an acoustic guitar built from old-growth wood, you just get surrounded by the sound. It's a 3-D experience, you feel the notes as much as hear them.

Kiln-Dried wood just doesn't resonate the same way. In 50 years, mdoern day acoustics, (the good ones at least) will no doubt sound incredible, better than ever, as the wood gets a chance to dry and harden.


Even on a solidbody, I find it impossible to believe that very dry, hardened wood won't resonate better than heavier, kiln-dried woods.

I built a Tele body from an old Ash table once, and it was one of the sweetest Tele's I've ever heard, and it's the owners favorite guitar.


There are still plenty of builders who use fine woods nowaways, but aside from very small quantities, it's impossible to use wood that's been drying out for 50, 75, 100 years or more, like they were doing even 50 years ago.


The whole wood issue is one reason why I'm such a fan of Jean Larrivee and his guitars. He has probably the biggest selection of fine tonewoods for guitars of anyone on earth, and he's picked each piece out himself, by hand, at the country of origin.

I've heard rumors that Gibson buys some of their nicest wood from him time to time, but don't know if that's true, (He does sell to a lot of companies...)
It's like how you can play 3 or 4 great Historics, and then play one that just blows you, and the other guitars away. Wood= mojo

Pickup and electronics obviously play a key role in the production of tone, and the final sound of the guitar. But they can only pickup what what the strings are doing, and the way the instrument resonates.

I've done this with two 50's Teles, but never have had the chance to with original 50's Les Pauls, but if you swap the modern pickups in the old guitar, and the old pickups in the modern guitar, they'll sound closer to the other, but there will still be huge differences that aren't just down to pickups. The character of the sound won't change, and often, with identical setups and pickup heights, the vintage guitar will be louder, with or without the original pickups.

[jimmypage14]

Originally Posted by ReverendJWblues

I have Old Wood

[decoy205]

I haven't read through all this yet, all I know is that yesterday at BCR Greg was fixing a '55 Junior, and once he was done he played it through a new marshall. I couldn't believe my ears. It fucking killed!

After Greg intalled my new pups as great as they are, my '07 LP custom didn't even come close to the tone of that 50's P90 guitar. That old guitar destroyed my new custom hands down. (more on this in the pup section to come)

I'm sure there are newer guitars that can play and sound as well as those but as Roman said I dont know if factories can reproduce that. A skilled builder will get much closer to the tone of old.

[klohiq]

Originally Posted by tonebone

I haven't read all the LP books yet, so can someone cite here, quote something to the effect, ...how do we know the vintage LP's were built with "old growth?"

By the 60s I'm wondering whether the wood was actually old growth and/or dried for 50+ years. I'm sure many guitars made near the turn of the last century were, but with the population explosion I have doubts that much of the wood used wasn't relatively young when the 60s and 70s guitars were produced. As mentioned before, all those amazing old recordings were made when the guitars were young, so you can't claim them as proof that old wood is better than new wood.

Does string gauge have any effect on how the wood molecules align over time?? If so, the newer guitars, on top of being produced a great deal differently, will never attain the same tone...People are using little thin strings mostly. 9s and 10s rather than 12s and 13s from the 60s. Wouldn't the heavier gauge strings create more wood resonance and over time compound to affect the wood molecules exponentially over a given span of time?

You can postulate all you want...guitars have changed massively since the 60s in many ways and at the same time they are still more or less the same. I've heard people with cheap chinese guitars crank out buttery smooth vintage tones from a solid state amp and I've heard people sound like absolute crap with expensive vintage or pseudo-vintage corking sniffing gear. It's all in the fingers and mind of the guitarist...old wood or new wood...

[SKATTERBRANE]

It is not old wood vs new wood, it is wood from old growth forests vs newly grown (relatively) trees planted expressly for harvest, or from "managed" forests.

No matter how long a "new growth" piece of wood sits there, it will never be "old growth" wood.

[icsm]

Originally Posted by Norbe

It is not old wood vs new wood, it is wood from old growth forests vs newly grown (relatively) trees planted expressly for harvest, or from "managed" forests.

No matter how long a "new growth" piece of wood sits there, it will never be "old growth" wood.

itd be interesting to find out when they stopped using old growth,

[HARDWEAR]

Here ya go........


Do String Instruments Get Better as They Get Older?

When Violinists Play, Their Violins Improve
Researcher in England say that laboratory tests conducted on wood commonly used to make violins support age-old claims by musicians that the regular playing of a stringed instrument improves its tone.

By Warren E. Leary (Excerpted from the New York Times)

Dr. David G. Hunt of the School of Engineering Systems and Design at South Bank University in London sways his studies with pieces of spruce show that continuous forced vibrations similar to those experienced with regular use of a musical instrument changes the nature of the wood.

In a letter published in the current issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Hunt and a graduate student, Emmanuel Balsan, said that wood vibrated in condition of high humidity increased in stiffness and saw a decrease in dampening coefficient, a measure of cycles of vibrations emanating from the material. Both factors are know to help provide more pleasant tones in spruce, mature pine and other woods used in instrument sounding boards, experts say.

Dr. Hunt, who studies the structure of wood for the construction industry, said the results concerning musical instruments were a byproduct of research in the effect of moisture in wood. A music lover and avid concertgoer, he said he built a guitar several years ago but was not a violin expert.

"People don't understand entirely the structure of wood, even after using it and studying it for centuries," he said in a telephone interview, "Part of the strength of wood is based on the amount of water in it and the way it bonds."

The researchers vibrated beams of spruce at 10 cycles per second for 48 hours and the damping coefficient went down by 5 percent. The changes persisted when the vibrations stopped, they said. Lower damping coefficients mean that a single note is heard longer, which is considered a beneficial attribute.

When the wood was vibrated in a chamber where the humidity was taken up to 80 to 90 percent, the damping coefficient went up fast before drifting downward, they reported. This resulted in a decrease in damping and increase in stiffness during vibrations that persisted when the vibrations were turned off, they said.

Dr. Hunt attributed the changes in the wood to a redistribution of moisture in the wood caused by the vibration that remained stable for several days after the test. Over time perhaps months, he speculated, the wood was expected to go back to its initial state of equilibrium unless the vibrations were applied periodically.

"Musicians have said that the sound of an instrument gets better the more you play it, and we have found a basis for that," he said.

"Although for the best care of a musical instrument, both high and low humidities should be avoided," the researchers wrote, "the results suggest that at intermediate or high humidities, the sound quality may be improved by regular playing."

Carleen Maley Hutchins of Montclair, NJ, considered one of the world's best violin makers and researchers, said she found the British work interesting and consistent with much of her research. Among other things, she has vibrated violins for 1,600 hours using frequencies from radio broadcasts and found that this changes wood resonance.

"This would appear to complement work I have been doing," Mrs. Hutchins said in a telephone interview, "but I would question their conclusion that moisture bonding is the reason. There is research to indicate that the molecular bonds of wood actually break because of vibration and that this what affects the tonal qualities. So I think there may be more to it than moisture bonding."

[gmacdonnell]

What Norbe said is true: but there's also some irony because any talented acoustic guitar luthier will tell you that super tight grain often equals a very tight sound.

Depending on the species of wood, there's an idea width between the growth rings.


To my mind, after talking about it with many luthiers I highly respect, I think it's two separate but related problem.

One is the way the wood dries, and how long it was drying out (rather than just being baked.)

The other is how old the tree was allowed to get before being felled.


I don't believe most 60's American guitars are using old-growth wood: the acoustics from that era already have noticably different grain patterns.

But I do believe that as far as tone is concern, the way the wood was dried, its inherent quality, and the way it is matched with other tonewoods, (tap tones, not just looks,) has much more importance to the sound that whether or not the wood used it in us simply "old."


There are plenty of old-growth tonewoods available nowadays, but not in the species we are used to. (Will guitarists who love classic Gibsons ever accept Sapele as much as S. American mahogany?) So it remains to be seen what the future of tonewoods will be...

[decoy205]

There's an awesome pic of a '55 junior:
LP Custom Before and After Gregwind Install!! Clips and Pics

[So Relax]

I visited my local luthier yesterday to pick up a couple of guitars I had some work done on and got onto the topic of a custom build and woods to use, rumours, thruths and what he had experienced.

Any interesting experiment was he made a carved top SC type guitar (refuses to do replicas) with a specific piece of mahogany amd maple. He cut the mahogany & maple to make this guitar and numbered the leftover so he knew what to come back to. 18 months later he made the second guitar with the remaining wood. On completion he added an extra layer of lacquer (which usually has a negative impace on tone). He went on to say that the second guitar he felt was superior to the first guitar, despite the only difference being the drying time of the wood and the extra lacquer layer.

He also informed me that, as I'm sure you all know, the original woods were grown in forests and because of the competition with other plant for water, nutrients and sunlight, the trees grew slower. Current supplies are grown to maximise growth, thankfully not taken from native areas, however the side effect of this is a different wood structure and an impact on tone (whether is an improvement or not is up to the listener). Given this info some musical instrument makers (particularly viiolin etc) are going as far as to search for woods that grown on the side of the mountain that gets the least light, ie the trees that have to compete for their growth.

Take this for what you will but in my discussions it certainly make sense. I work in the environmental industry and see the situations he described and impacting the wood growth on a daily basis.

P.S. He claims Brazilian mahogany/Honduras Mahogany/Sweetenia Macrophylla/ whatever else you want to call it is now on the CITES list and can no longer be imported to Australia. If this is the case, how long do you think it is until the Les Paul as we know it becomes extinct?

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by So Relax

I visited my local luthier yesterday to pick up a couple of guitars I had some work done on and got onto the topic of a custom build and woods to use, rumours, thruths and what he had experienced.

Any interesting experiment was he made a carved top SC type guitar (refuses to do replicas) with a specific piece of mahogany amd maple. He cut the mahogany & maple to make this guitar and numbered the leftover so he knew what to come back to. 18 months later he made the second guitar with the remaining wood. On completion he added an extra layer of lacquer (which usually has a negative impace on tone). He went on to say that the second guitar he felt was superior to the first guitar, despite the only difference being the drying time of the wood and the extra lacquer layer.

He also informed me that, as I'm sure you all know, the original woods were grown in forests and because of the competition with other plant for water, nutrients and sunlight, the trees grew slower. Current supplies are grown to maximise growth, thankfully not taken from native areas, however the side effect of this is a different wood structure and an impact on tone (whether is an improvement or not is up to the listener). Given this info some musical instrument makers (particularly viiolin etc) are going as far as to search for woods that grown on the side of the mountain that gets the least light, ie the trees that have to compete for their growth.

Take this for what you will but in my discussions it certainly make sense. I work in the environmental industry and see the situations he described and impacting the wood growth on a daily basis.

P.S. He claims Brazilian mahogany/Honduras Mahogany/Sweetenia Macrophylla/ whatever else you want to call it is now on the CITES list and can no longer be imported to Australia. If this is the case, how long do you think it is until the Les Paul as we know it becomes extinct?

Thank you, that's an answer I can live with.

Originally Posted by tonebone

I haven't read all the LP books yet, so can someone cite here, quote something to the effect, ...how do we know the vintage LP's were built with "old growth?"

Looks like they were Old Growth.

Does anyone know about that project of pulling old logs outa the water in Central America? Old leftovers from the old logging days down there?

[Mr Insane]

YouTube - Guitar World reveiws the new DiMarzio PAF 36th Anniversary

[vladmaximus]

for me...
Old Wood is more better...
i love it...
i dont know why...

thanks...

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by Mr Insane

YouTube - Guitar World reveiws the new DiMarzio PAF 36th Anniversary

Oh man. That 59 really is indescribable, ain't it? Mere words don't do it justice.

[klohiq]

Originally Posted by tonebone

Looks like they were Old Growth.

Originally Posted by gmacdonnell

I don't believe most 60's American guitars are using old-growth wood: the acoustics from that era already have noticably different grain patterns.

I think this is the biggest issue with old wood vs. new wood debate. Was old wood even old growth wood?

Another problem persists and that's that most of the evidence is just various ears...your interpretation of sound is often influenced by your interpretation of what should be the truth.

Devices that measure the wood's resonance also need to be scrutinized. If you compared two Les Pauls for instance, was one weight relieved and the other not? Did they both use similar alloy and string gauges since new? How much were they played? How old is each...if one is brand new compared to a five-year old example - would they sound different?

[So Relax]

"Looks like they were Old Growth.

Does anyone know about that project of pulling old logs outa the water in Central America? Old leftovers from the old logging days down there?"

Yes I also discussed this with my local luthier. He explained that logs used to be transported to shipping ports by floating them in a river. Some of the logs were heavier and thus sunk on the way. Given the volume of logs there was no need to recover them. Now due to the rarity of woods they are going back to retrieve them.

Over the time they have been submerged they have for the most part been preserved. A bonus is that any saps in the wood have dissolved out thus making the wood lighter and a little more porous. So upon drying you have a light, porous wood with very little sap or anything else that can hold moisture... you be the judge.

We also spoke of the impact of guitar weight on tone. He explained that a denser piece of wood is more difficult to vibrate (a skinny little string has to make it vibrate), however the density is a benefit to tone (he explained it but I can't remember why). The lighter wood on the other hand is much easier for a string to vibrate... once again you be the judge.

He is experimenting making flying V shaped (using brazilian mahogany) guitars using the different weight woods to see what becomes of them. I will ask him next time how it goes. He is using one heavy and one light wing, 2 light etc etc.

[Nigel Tufnel's tech]

You may find this very interesting. This is an interview by Dave Berrluck from Guitarist magazine with John Suhr of Suhr guitars.

G: You’re applying for your first patent, a way to induce resonance by vibrating the body, yes? Tell us about that.

JS: The patent is, I think, mainly to make sure nobody else can stop us from doing it more than something I think is going to be the next big thing. It’s really so I have the space to explore and someone can’t come along and say, “that’s my idea!” The idea itself is nothing new —it’s been done in the acoustic guitar world and in the violin world and I’m sure in the electric guitar world but the fun part for me is the analysis of the vibration of the wood. So, no ifs or buts.

For example, if I take Mike Landau’s favourite Strat and remove everything off the body and I analyse that body’s vibrations and I compare it to one I’ve cut and painted as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter how you got there, if they have the same response they have the same response. I don’t see any fault with analysing the vibrations of the wood because to me that’s it. Anything you do to that body is going to change it but with this process we can see what’s changed and by how much.

G: Will this process also allow you to vibrate the wood to change its response?

JS: Yes, but that’s not what my patent is because many people have proven that it is a reality. My patent is on how I’m doing it which is totally non-destructive; it doesn’t require any permanent mounting or anything to the guitar. And I am able to vibrate it with extreme amounts of energy.

G: Would this be something you could offer as a retro service, to alter and improve the response of an instrument?

JS: Yes, a customer will be able to ship the Suhr guitar back to us and have it treated. And also it kind of throws a bit of a wrench into the works. I’m not going to say that this is it, it works wonderful because I honestly don’t know yet. I just need to have the patent to allow me to explore it further but I know now that I can analyse the vibrations and to me that is the most important thing. So I can say this neck doesn’t belong on this body because they’re too close to this interval or whatever the problem is, they’re causing a dead spot or they’re causing a spot on the guitar that’s too loud, or certain frequencies are not being produced. I can even compare the output of the pickups to the resonance of the body and see what happens at different frequencies and why.

I’m convinced we’re gonna learn some things that we never knew about. I don’t know of anyone who has gone into it in this depth. People have done a lot with acoustics, looking at patterns and how dust settles on the top. Archtop makers like Bob Benedetto will sit there and tap on a guitar but I asked him once, when he taps on an archtop top what is he looking for? He said, “I’m looking to make some sense out of it before the day I die.” About the only thing he can really tell when he taps on a guitar is how thick the top is. That’s primarily what he’s looking for, the thickness of the top — is it strong enough, can he get away with removing some more wood? But as far as is this going to be a great sounding top, he’s like… someday I’ll find out.

It might be a situation that we’ll say to an artist — who has a wonderful guitar —bring in that guitar and we’ll plot it out and we’ll figure out how to make a body that vibrates the same. But I’m not going to blow smoke up anyone’s arse. If I don’t know, I’ll tell you I don’t know. However, if you think about measuring repeatable measurements compared to people just trying to listen in different environments with different pickups and bridges, there’s just no comparison. We’re talking about getting down to the root level of how this piece of wood is vibrating. It doesn’t matter if it was cut down 20 years ago or 400 years ago. If those two pieces of wood vibrate the same then they’re going to sound the same.

My hunch is that we are going to be able to selectively bombard it with frequencies to make certain frequencies come out. For example, if I find a dip at a certain frequency where its not resonating or sustaining I am pretty convinced that I can bombard it with that frequency and make it have a better response, if not correct it. It kinda throws a funny offset into it because if this is true and it really works this way then you’re basically saying that if someone has been playing the guitar badly, or one way, for twenty years, would this influence the way that piece of wood vibrates and there’s a good chance it might. If there’s molecular reasons why, in a cellular level of the wood, this might be the case it really just has to do with it loosening up at certain frequencies. It’s kind of like breaking in a speaker. We all know that you break in a speaker and it will sound very different.

There’s still a lot more to it [the electric guitar] than most people think. I’ve seen guitars, not necessarily my own, that customers would want to put pickups into and they don’t like the way something sounds and I can try everything in the world but if that guitar just doesn’t ring properly its never going to sound good.

[bonanza2252003]

As stated in another post. Give me the best guitar in the world along with the finest boutique amp and I can make them both sound like caca . I don't even have to shake it .

[icsm]

If that resonance treatment is true, if you use a new guitar for years, it will learn the notes you play most frequently and those notes wil improve which can only be a good thing
Old guitars that has been used over decades do have that mojo.
Different type woods clearly makes a huge difference in tone. even the same type of wood will have individual variances. Add some placebo effect and the diference will be even bigger. Id love to compare old growth vs new growth.