Guitars Improving with Age?

[islander53]

Originally Posted by Sir_YubYub

I would like to apologize in advance if this has been done before. I read a lot about guitars sounding "better" as we play them over the years but I'm wondering if it's the player that improves more than the guitar itself. For example if someone has a prewar martin how do we know that it sounds better today than it when it was new without having heard that exact guitar being played when it was first made. You might answer that you have an old recording of that guitar from all those years ago but even then I'm sure that the way we record acoustics has changed to reflect the new technologies ofthe times. I'm not trying to start anything I just wanted to complain a little because it's annoying that after I have spent so much time practicing that when some of my friends hear me now they say, " WOW! That guitar sure has improved in tone since you bought it!"

I bought an Ariana in 1983. It sounded great! I played it on stage and street corners right through the 80's, retiring it from professional life in the early 90's, picking on it occasionally for leisure.

In early 2003 I put it away and never touched it again until the past couple weeks. And I swear it sounds better than it did in the 80's. My playing is actually quite rusty as I've focused on piano the past number of years, so I doubt it sounds better due to my playing.

[kydave]

The finish is part of the guitar and part of its sound.

A well made, well finished guitar will improve with age, generally speaking.

The finish will be less of a changing factor if it is poly.

[Von Beerhofen]

Obviously the only true test would be to play the same instrument in either state within seconds after one another, which is physically impossible as timetravel hasn't been invented yet.
However it's a known physical fact that wood alters it's structure over time, partly because of it's natural behaviour but also caused by external influences like humidity and temperatures. Alterations throughout an instrument's lifespan cause wood fibers to loosen up, which could perhaps be compared to switching from an adirondack top to spruce.
The effect will allow the top to vibrate more freely and generate a 'warmer' sound with less or different overtones.
This is even more clear when you play a hardwood top, like Koa. Initially it may sound very tight but it can be expected that under the same influences such an instrument will end up still having enough stiffness to retain most of the overtones and be warmer sounding as when you bought it new. Still it's easy to theorise about this but it will not tell you how the instrument will sound in 10 or 20 years, as there are more factors involved.
The general tendency related to physical alteration and external influences should cause changes to happen within certain boundaries and in this respect I don't believe the instrument can actually gain extra overtones or become brighter. It will loose some of both but it's impossible to predict how much, as this depends on the type of woods and the described factors.
To me this means that some instrument will come out a winner where others may have suffered too much and didn't have enough to begin with, i.e. the more you start out with, the more will usually be present as compared to the loosers, but the loosers then can be the best sounding ones now, as starting out with annoying brightness and overtones now isn't considered to be the nicest by most people. I guess that's why they have to buy a new guitar every 5 years or so.
A well aged instrument which still has the 'wow' factor must have started out with too much brightness and overtones and probably didn't sound great at first, but now it's vintage it's not likely to change it's voice very much anytime in the future, which is what makes them so expensive.

Ludwig

[FrankS]

Here is some related info being discussed over at the Collings forum that might be of interest. FYI, I do have a horse in that race but there is some worthwhile considerations of what happens to wood on its own as time passes.

http://collingsforum.com/eve/forums/...5/m/2880043266

Frank Sanns

[Red_Label]

Originally Posted by roadbiker

I watched a YouTube video of James Taylor going through is guitar room where he showed and talked about a few of his guitars. In this video he claimed that, unlike violins, etc., guitars do not get "better" with age, they just wear out. I completely disagree, although he probably knows far more about guitars than I do.


Jim

I'm with you on that. I think that Taylor is full of it. Well-made, solid-wood acoustic instruments generally DO improve with age... from guitars, to mandos, to ukes, to violins, to cellos. How MUCH they improve in resonance, perceived tone, etc depends on each unique instrument, piece of wood, finish job, etc. Certainly the first few years of an instrument aging and being played after being created the difference is more noticeable. The wood continues to dry, pours open-up, etc. Most builders believe this to be true and I agree based on my experience.

It does seem that some types of acoustic instruments seem to change more than others for sure. A friend who has run a Martin, Gibson, Taylor, Weber shop for many years says that he notices a BIG difference in how much mandolins open-up and have increased resonance over the first year or two -- bigger than with guitars. But he does agree that there is still some difference in guitars as they age. I've got Breedlove American C25/SReH that I bought a year ago and though it impressed me enough to pick it over the other high-end Breedloves on the wall at the time... it seems to be substantially more resonant and lively than when it was new. It's as loud and full-sounding as my dreads, and it's a concert size body.

[HHP]

Guitars improving with age is widely believed and you won't have much luck dissuading someone who thinks their instrument is refining with age. It was not always so.

The reverence for pre-war Martins ( and others) is a pretty recent phenomena. Seems to really get underway in the early 70's when demand versus rarity drove the costs way up. Prior to that, they were mostly just used guitars. Roland White described the visit to the dealer when Clarence acquired his now famous 30's D-28 currently owned by Tony Rice. The topics of Adirondack, Brazilian, scalloping, forward shifting, etc didn't come up. It was cheap and they could afford it. Until the vintage demand really got going, a lot of these would typically sell for less than a new example of the model.

That guitar would have been about 30 years old when the Brothers White acquired it, not much older when Clarence would make his groundbreaking recordings with it.

From today's perspective, buying a used guitar from the late 60's / early 70's would have the same amount of aging as Clarence's D-28 had when he bought it but those instruments are not revered in the same way.

The simplest answer is that most older guitars were built differently with different materials and the construction proved ideal for playing styles that would only evolve decades later. Our playing and tastes changed a lot more than the wood could have.

[FrankS]

Wood ages, finishes age, the wood/finish interface changes, the instrument itself is cycled and changes. Each element has an effect. Some have more of an effect than others.

It is impossible to say how an adirondack top with a nitro finish will age. The wood itself, the drying of the wood, the thickness of the wood, the bracing of the wood, the adhesives to assemble the guitar, the preparation of the surface of the wood, the depth of the first coat of the finish, the thickness of the coating, the chemistry of the coating, the environmental exposure of the coating and the wood, the temperature and humidity at the time of playing, and a few more can affect how a guitar changes with age.

Frank Sanns

[Landru]

Originally Posted by Red_Label

I'm with you on that. I think that Taylor is full of it.

A mighty bold statement - - -

[otis66]

This guitar made by Antonio Stradiveri was made in 1700. The "Rawlins" guitar does not look worn out.
http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/PluckedStrin...radGuitar.html

[gitnoob]

My unfinished cedar fence has definitely aged, but I don't think it has improved.

[rmyAddison]

Give me the choice of two identical models, one brand new and one five years old, and let me A/B them, odds are I'll choose the older guitar.

Actually this has happened to me a few times over the years, and whether just dumb luck that the older guitar was better to begin with, I've gone with the "aged guitar".

I believe guitars do age and improve................

[Red_Label]

Originally Posted by Landru

A mighty bold statement - - -

James Taylor has his opinion, I have mine. Mine happens to align with a lot of other players and builders. Despite the fact that Taylor is a great player and songwriter, that doesn't make his opinion regarding acoustic guitar properties beyond question.


If the poster's impression of Taylor's statement was indeed fully accurate in terms of his thoughts... then Taylor is saying that guitars only wear-out with age, whereas violins magically improve with age. Seems an awful SILLY sentiment to make regarding stringed musical instruments, both of which are made of wood. Doesn't mean that I believe that a guitar nearly as old as a Strad will be as playable and have held-up as well as the violin. But to imply that one instrument's tone improves while the others' only goes downhill doesn't make any sense to me.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Red_Label

James Taylor has his opinion, I have mine. Mine happens to align with a lot of other players and builders. Despite the fact that Taylor is a great player and songwriter, that doesn't make his opinion regarding acoustic guitar properties beyond question.

I could not agree more. Just because someone is a famous musician or celebrity does not mean they know what they are talking about when it comes to certain topics. Case in point is Clapton referring to his 000 from the infamous "unplugged" recordings as an OM in numerous interviews. I give more credence to what people around here with actual experience have to say over what a celebrity has to say.

[upsidedown]

I just found and watched the JT video, which was pretty cool. For the sake of accuracy, what Taylor said was violins and "celli" sound better after 200 years, whereas guitars wear out. Don't know how many of you own or play 200 year old guitars.

And as someone from the youtube peanut gallery commented, "for the nitpickers, listen to what JT is saying - he's talking about guitars wearing out after the use (abuse) that they are put through on the road....5 years of a guitars life on the road with JT is like 50 in the average guitar owner's home."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNnuUZ_lSg4

[fazool]

I am simply speculating.

It is widely accepted that the more a guitar is played, the more it "opens up" in tone. The (semi) theory is that the vibrations fracture stiff areas of the wood sub-microscopically, allowing the wood to vibrate more freely. Essentially it reduces the stiffness of the wood's intrnal makeup, allowing the whole structure to move more freely.

Take a piece of notebook paper. Its relatively "stiff" and can sort of hold a shape. Now, crumple it up into a ball and uncrumple it. Do that about 20 times, now you have a paper that is soft like a tissue, but still all intact.

The theory is that the same thing happens to the guitar's wood (Taylor compares new paper money to old paper money).

So, the question about *age* is whether it has the same effect. If the guitar is unplayed does age alone have a similar effect? If the guitar is played, is it age or the playng or a combination of both? Does age plus playing magnify the phenomenon?

If the guitar is unplayed, the only two things that would cause the guitar to change would be the natural aging (drying out) process of dead wood. The plant cells are no longeralive and so they don't thrive and the dry out. The cell walls stiffen and get brittle, etcetera. But without playing, they may just sit there, very brittle (microscopically) and then when played, certain stress areas fracture and others might never fracture.

The other is cyclical environmental changes - temperature and humidity going up and down. This could caus the wood to change.

I would speculate that the best way to "age" a guitar is to play it occassionally during its aging. If it just sits, I think it may be worse, because you wont get an even distribution of the aging changes. Sort of like the mechanical parts on your car - its better to use them (brakes, etc) and wear them a little evenly, rather than let them sit unused, lest they corrode beyond control.

Not the same mechanhical effect but a similar strategy, I think.

The finish on a guita may just slow the drying out process or, perhaps dampen some of the vibratory stress that leads to "opening up", slowing ts aging. But, I think that's going to be negligible, given the uncoated inside (excepting Yamaha's).

So, the moral is that your guitar, like you classic car, is better off driven occassionally, rather than sitting getting brittle.

disclaimer: my opinion only, IMO, IMHO, YMMV, blah blah blah I made it all up