OLD WOOD vs NEW WOOD ????

[Exluthier]

I don't buy it. Years ago Bob Benedetto made one of his archtops out of construction grade pine and maple and (He said himself) it sounded just as good as one of his high end pieces. You want to say it,s the wood, fine. I'll take those PAFs off your hands because they're obviously not worth anything.

[Nick59]

I've mentioned that one before and no doubt will mention it again - that's my touchstone when it comes to this wood fairy story. And that was an acoustic, where EVERY factor in construction has a far greater effect on the sound than a crude, clunking electric. But as "Les Paul" is a religion, with a rigid set of superstitious beliefs that you are expected to adhere to without question once you join this sect, there can be no refuting any of these claims. They are "true" to many people.

I was interested to read that there WAS a kiln at Gibson in the magical 1958-60 period, and, if true (I don't know), that kills the assertion that it was air drying that made the wood so magical. But the goalposts will no doubt move and some other magical factor will be cited instead. Perhaps it really was the mojo that Mr Rist claimed was somehow inserted into each and every burst as it was built.

[indeedido]

Originally Posted by george johnson

I'll be the first to agree that the stronger the playa, the less reliant he'll be on equipment to "sound good"
but after years of research on the subject I've come to the following conclusion...


New Wood = Good


Old Wood = Better





Just my .02

.

I agree. Over time, wood changes its density. As it ages, it dries out. A lot of tone is created as it dries out. The string vibration carries through it more efficiently.

[vladmaximus]

nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!


"OLD WOOD vs NEW WOOD" = "HOLLYWOOD"

err...am i right???




ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[River]

Originally Posted by indeedido

I agree. Over time, wood changes its density. As it ages, it dries out. A lot of tone is created as it dries out. The string vibration carries through it more efficiently.

I just did a little experiment with my R8. I adjusted my guitar and amp controls for maximum crunchy sustain and whacked a nice first position E7 (the one that involves the little finger). While it was decaying (ever so slowly), I put my fingertip on the strings between the bridge and tailpiece, ever so lightly. Effect on decay? Zilcho to my ears. Effect on "tone", likewise. It did nothing. So I guess my ears are shot. That or my tailpiece's connection to the wonderfully light, specially selected, non-weight-relieved mahogany used for my R8's body has nothing do to with that chord's "tone" and sustain.

Wood does not continue to dry out over decades. It adjusts to the ambient humidity. When it's the soundboard, that makes a difference - the tone can change with the weather. When it's a mounting platform for a bridge and pickups, it's just a board. A pretty board, but still just a board.

That's how I see it.

[Nick59]

Another bloody confused newbie with his rational thinking.......;-)

[vladmaximus]

hi hi hiii...

dont confuse...

all u have to do is PLAY & CREATE YOUR MUSIC...

thats all...

ROCK ON...

[dopeboy7]

new

[River]

Originally Posted by dopeboy7

new

[mtlin]

Originally Posted by Exluthier

I don't buy it. Years ago Bob Benedetto made one of his archtops out of construction grade pine and maple and (He said himself) it sounded just as good as one of his high end pieces. You want to say it,s the wood, fine. I'll take those PAFs off your hands because they're obviously not worth anything.

I have a Historic LP Special with vintage 50's P90's and a 1956 LP Special. They are completely different animals. I haven't swapped the pickups between the two, but the difference in their amplified tones correspond to the differences in their acoustic tones.

I'm inclined to believe on the basis of this that it's the wood not the pickups.

[bosrocker51]

I remain totally unconvinced that old wood is better - generally speaking. Yes, vintage guitars are fun to play and often sound better. BUT, with well-wound pups you can supercede old wood. I have a 1990 LP Jr with a 1958 Gibson P90. It sounds every bit as good as my 1960 LP Jr, at a fraction of the cost. I did use 1950 pots and cap. I also have a 1995 LP Special with a 1960 Gibson soapbar P90. The ONLY mod was to add the pickup. Pots & caps are 1995 original. It sounds every bit as good as my vintage original 1959 LP Special. Again, at a fraction of the price. Note: I played a LP Custom with 57 classics that sounded AMAZING. I'm talking classic rock killer! An exact similar model at GC just sounded marginal. the only difference I could figure? Probably the wood! I agree that the wood makes a difference, but it is only one factor.

[siroliver]

I believe the quality of a vintage guitar is very often distorted by the preconceptions of the person playing it. The patina, necks sculpted by thousands of hours of playing, the smell, etc. -- in short, the "mojo" factor-- coupled with the idea that older=better as well as the price tag ( costs more and therefore it must be great ) alter the way one perceives a guitar. Your confidence is elevated by the excitement you feel when playing a vintage guitfiddle that you are convinced MUST be special, and you hear that through the amp-- your playing feels exciting and improved, and automatically you assume its the guitar

I will finish up my thoughts in a while

busy as hell at the moment...

[imsilly]

I think you have to judge the wood in each guitar on an individual basis.

One thing I can say is that some of that the old Brazilian rosewood and mahogany in those 50s Les Pauls looks and sounds spectacular. I doubt you couldn't source new wood just as good, but it seems to be much harder to find a good guitars these days.

This is especially true for Gibsons and I think increased volumes of production and availability of materials creates the illusion old wood was just better. Not because it's a true blanket statement, but because we are confronted with so much junk these days.

The example I cite is with a recent trip to denmark street where I tried to take notice of the weight, grain, colour and resonance of the woods on vintage and new guitars. I saw one Les Paul Junior that was a couple of years old with one of the nicest looking rosewood fingerboards ever and then a about half a dozen Juniors with dusty looking boards that resembled the board on the £50 epiphone Les Paul I once had. The vintage guitars seemed to have a more consistent level of quality (though it must be remember 50 years of playing and oiling helps create a beautiful patina) compared to the more recently made guitars. These superficial observations all add to the persception that old wood is better then new wood.

[ex-nihilo]

For a body and neck, I would rather have light new wood than heavy old wood. Two old growth trees can produce two different densities of wood. I have found that lighter mahogany bodies virtually always sound better. Now if you have an old growth light wood, well that would be the cat's meow.

[1959burst]

i'll take old growth wood anyday over todays.........

[hbucker]

I've got a 35 year old guitar that I got new, a 16 year old guitar that I got new, and an 11 year old guitar that I built. I am very reluctant to buy into much of the "Gibson Religion" as one poster referred to. There is more hype than reality when it comes to the practice of this religion IMO.

But... I seem to notice that my older guitars have changed a little over time. They didn't go from being a POC to the Holy Grail or anything but two are good/great guitars and one (the oldest) is probably better than it should be. But what has happened consistently with these 3 is that they seem to have longer sustain and a more focused tone as time goes on. More of a classic sustained tone I guess. I especially notice it when I play them unplugged but it affects their amplified sustain. Not so much their attack and staccato notes, but their sustained tone is affected.

Could I be imagining things? Maybe, on some level, but I don't think so. Is it the wood? Maybe not, but I can't imagine what else it is. Could be aging pickup magnets but I don't think so.

Just adding my 2¢ without trying to argue about anything.

[treatb]

old wood sounds better and better do to the resins from the tree harden, more and more over time. which is a great result for the transfer of vibration and tone. an thats the reason hyde glue is so much better then aliphatic because the hardness.

[River]

Originally Posted by treatb

old wood sounds better and better do to the resins from the tree harden, more and more over time. which is a great result for the transfer of vibration and tone. an thats the reason hyde glue is so much better then aliphatic because the hardness.

From a physics standpoint, that strikes me as rather contradictory information. Where's it come from?

[LHakim]

An interesting article on the subject:

Guitar Trader's Vintage Guitar Bulletin
January 1986, Vol. 5, No. 1
Copyright 1985

STANDARDS 58 - 60;
Part Two "Soundburst"
by Gaston Gagnon & Timm Kummer



Most guitar players, as well as other collectors, consider the Les Paul "Sunburst" to be the foremost rock and roll axe ever made. Although there is no doubt that those Les Paul Standards which were made in the 1950's are the finest in terms of playing quality, there is a difference in the tone between them. Some have "the sound" and others don't. Why? Read on!

There are quite a few factors that influence the sound and the responsiveness of a solidbody electric guitar. Among them are the setup of the action, the pickups, the density of the wood, and the overall condition of the instrument.

We selected ten original 1958 - 1960 Les Paul Sunburst Standards at random and tested and compared them. We checked the weight and D.C. resistance of each pickup and made a subjective appraisal of the sound and tone quality.

We concluded that the PAF pickups, in which a variation in D.C. resistance can be found (anywhere from 6.5K to 9.2K in our samples), are not the crucial factor which determines the sound of these instruments. Is this possible? Read on!

Of the 1959's we studied, two or more of them had identical pickup readings (such as 7.6K), and yet, their sounds were very different. We found that a higher reading did not necessarily mean a better or hotter sounding instrument.

Most of the great sounding Les Pauls in our study had previously been played. This fact supports the belief that a guitar which has been used sounds better than one which hasn't. However, we did find one exception to this rule - stock #011277 (see list).

We found that the most influential factor in determining sound is the weight of the instrument, i.e., the weight of the wood. The lighter the guitar, the better the sound. This is due to the fact that lighter wood has better resonance. Gibson's woodunter, Wilbur Marker, once said, "Look at a piece of wood when it dries. The saps and juices which were once the life giving material evaporate, dry up, crystallize, and they move out of the vein and artery channels that were part of that tree. What's left is air. As it ages, the wood gets more porous. Looking at it through the electron microscope, you see these air filled tubes. clustered like pipe organs, and you can just feel them vibrate."

And some Sunbursts truly vibrate!

[SadieBlonde]

How much do old growth mahogany backs go for these days?