From my experience using both Titebond and HHG there is no difference in tone. Not that I can tell anyway. I think people generally don't understand how glue works. When you glue two pieces of wood together there is no 'gasket' of glue between the two parts. That's what usually starts this argument off, that Titebond is rubbery and HHG is glass hard. If you drop a blob of Titebond on your work bench it will be quite hard the next day anyway.
In any given guitar I use pretty much all the glues. Epoxy to join the back, CA for inlays, Fish glue to glue back on and HHG for just about everything else.
About a decade ago I made a guitar using almost entirely CA for every joint. The guitar has held up quite well even thought it's been treated badly.
And BTW I don't find using HHG any more difficult then Titebond. The only difference is that I have to pour some hot tap water in the pot and let the glue heat up for 15 minutes before I use it. In fact in most cases I'd say it makes things a lot easier to glue up. The bridge being a good example. WIth Titebond the bridge wants to swim all over the top, with HHG it grabs and holds right in place as you clamp it. You do, or should, have to heat up parts too so that is one additional step. And in some cases where there are time constraints it could be difficult to work fast enough but then that's where I personally would just use Titebond or Fish. But point being I don't understand an upcharge for HHG.
And one more quick note, I don't really buy the HHG argument that it's the best for repairs because it's reversible. I mean yes, it is true, but I don't find removing bridges glued with Titebond to be much more if at all more difficult then HHG. What is nice is that you can glue HHG back to HHG. You can do that with Titebond too but you will lose some strength.
|