Guitars "opening up" - How to defend the claim?

[Organic Sounds Select Guitars]

Hi friends,

An early guitar video that I made about three years ago, before I opened my shop, was of an all mahogany boutique brand guitar that was about 11 or 12 years old at the time. In the course of the video, I mentioned that the guitar has had "several years to open up", and went on to explain what I liked about its tone.

A couple of days ago, I received the following comment on that video:

"Another idiotic statement about guitars "opening up". THAT IS BEE ESS. Such claims are NEVER reinforced with science."

I typically ignore this kind of comment, but I was in more of a mood to respond this time (maybe the "idiotic" word triggered me a bit!).

Here's what I wrote, and I'm posting it here because I'd love to be corrected or to be advised on a better way to talk about this topic since it does come up periodically. Here was my response:

"The problem with looking for scientific proof here is this: try designing a study. We're talking about changes over years. How do you control all variables? If you're going to measure sound characteristics (not just volume and sustain, but also harmonic complexity, dynamic range, timbre, etc), then you have to control for how the notes are played - the force and duration of the string plucking or strum, the room temperature and humidity, the exact placement of the microphone, etc. Even if you could somehow control all of those variables, the guitar will have different strings on it. If you want to talk science, take a look at wood on its structural level, specifically the hemicellulose and lignins, and how they change as the wood ages and dries. Now add repeated vibration to those wood fibers over the course of years, and see what happens. Last thought: ask any experienced luthier if they think that solid wood guitars change over time - you'll have a difficult time finding any who will say no."

How did I do? I tried to keep it short, since this is a YouTube comment. Is there a better way to explain this succinctly? Is there a great article to reference? Am I totally misguided in my explanation? I'd love to hear from Alan Carruth or another of our wonderful AGF experts on this.

Thanks folks!

[davidd]

Why do you need to defend the assumption? People in this world believe whatever they want to believe and can find a corroborating viewpoint no matter what the idea or subject matter is.

[Organic Sounds Select Guitars]

Originally Posted by davidd

Why do you need to defend the assumption? People in this world believe whatever they want to believe and can find a corroborating viewpoint no matter what the idea or subject matter is.

Thanks David and I do agree with you. But I sell guitars for a living, so I'd like to make sure that I can succinctly and accurately defend what I say about them.

[naluguy]

Hi Larry,
You did a great job in your explanation. No need to be a luthier as I surely am not, but one thing is certain, organic materials such as wood will change over time. Even certain metals can also change albeit not as much. Does metal rust and become more fragile over the years? Of course it can. Will it change the structural molecules over time? Of course it will over time in certain environmental conditions. Some more harsh than others. Nevertheless, wood will expand and contract over time in different humidity environments and therefore change its flexibility and stiffness (for better or for worse). Does your home made of wood stay the same after 20 years? Those who think a guitar stays the same from day are BEE ESS, no need science for common sense.

[bfm612]

I don't have a succinct response (I never do), but the way someone might indicate an "opening up" is through a longitudinal assessment of how key structural properties of the topwood has changed over the years. If topwood is supposed to disproportionately define the sound of a guitar, then being able to show a change in the physical traits or vibration of the topwood over the years would hint at "opening up".

I'd say beyond that, it's all subjective and probably can't be proven scientifically. What I wrote above also might only show a difference, not necessarily an improvement. I think taste for guitars is like taste for wines. Talk of woodiness and articulation of a guitar is probably not far off from talk of angularity and fleshiness in wine. Some of it's real and some of it is subjective or imagined.

[tommieboy]

I guess it's part of the deal on social media. I would just send them to the following link and tell them to have a nice day.

https://www.disney.com/

Tommy

[Brent Hutto]

Reminds me of the Paul Simon lyric, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

[Monty Christo]

Originally Posted by Organic Sounds Select Guitars

I sell guitars for a living, so I'd like to make sure that I can succinctly and accurately defend what I say about them.

I think the whole "opening up" debate is irrelevant, so I'll just critique your three arguments:

By explaining how impossible it would be to scientifically measure the change, you essentially concede that there's no objective/empirical way to know if guitars open up or not.

Claiming that "any experienced luthier" would support you without actually naming or quoting one isn't especially persuasive.

The "structural" argument is probably your best, but it really only posits that wood physically changes over time -- it doesn't address how or whether those changes produce an audible difference, or to what degree.


I would have just replied, "Thanks for watching" and let it go.

[zmf]

It's a difficult problem, Larry, and you point out the major issues. Contributors to AGF who have tried to conduct controlled studies, like Alan, have pointed out how difficult it is to document the most basic questions, such as whether guitars open up over the years. Or whether guitars need to "wake up" when you pick them up to play.

There are also informal experiments to answer these questions, such as two Martins with sequential serial numbers being subjected to frequent playing or stored away for years, and the two guitars sounding the same after all that time. And other attempts showing the opposite.

So you've done a good job at pointing out the problems. I doubt if any of us can suggest better ways to test these sorts of diverging opinions in a controlled manner. Or anyone who wants to spend the time and money to do so.

[Guitars44me]

I believe you put it quite well, Larry. Hats off to you.


Here's what I wrote, and I'm posting it here because I'd love to be corrected or to be advised on a better way to talk about this topic since it does come up periodically. Here was my response:

"The problem with looking for scientific proof here is this: try designing a study. We're talking about changes over years. How do you control all variables? If you're going to measure sound characteristics (not just volume and sustain, but also harmonic complexity, dynamic range, timbre, etc), then you have to control for how the notes are played - the force and duration of the string plucking or strum, the room temperature and humidity, the exact placement of the microphone, etc. Even if you could somehow control all of those variables, the guitar will have different strings on it. If you want to talk science, take a look at wood on its structural level, specifically the hemicellulose and lignins, and how they change as the wood ages and dries. Now add repeated vibration to those wood fibers over the course of years, and see what happens. Last thought: ask any experienced luthier if they think that solid wood guitars change over time - you'll have a difficult time finding any who will say no."

It is obvious to me that guitars do change over time. I believe you are correct that most builders will agree!

“Illegitimi Nun Carborundum”. Hahah

Paul

[Glennwillow]

People experience what they experience. We are not always right, but we're not always wrong, either. Some people are inherently more perceptive than others, some people more self-deluding.

I think you did, fine, Larry. I look at my 1967 Martin D-35 that I have owned since it was new. There is no question that it has changed its sonic signature over the 56 years of its life.

Frankly, I don't like it quite as well as I did in its younger years. It has lost bass and picked up more response in the higher frequencies. (This is not the way most people describe aging of guitars, but the real experts have described aging very much the way my D-35 has aged.) To combat this aging effect, I use somewhat mellower strings to help bring out bass and de-emphasize the high frequencies. To me, there is no question that my D-35 sounds different and old recordings I have remind me of what it used to sound like. It's still a terrific guitar, but it's not the same guitar today that it was back in 1969 or 1970.

My 2006 Martin 000-28VS was rather bass-heavy when it was new. Now, it has lost a lot of that bass and sounds much more balanced. In fact, there is actually some treble sparkle in this guitar now. So the 000-28VS is a guitar I like a lot better now that it has aged. My 1995 Olson has changed in a similar way: lost bass and shows more of the resulting trebles, which in this guitar, I like because it was a little bass heavy before. My handmade Sheppard GA has also changed in a similar way, and I like that guitar better now, too.

I wonder if too few people own guitars long enough to really experience how aging of guitars actually affects the sound.

So I do think solid wood guitars change with time based on my experience of all my guitars (about a dozen). I'm also in agreement that just about every guitar builder believes that the sound of a guitar does change over time. Otherwise, why all this effort with torrifying woods to make them sound older? I'm sure the cynics think this is just a ruse to fool people into buying modern, torrified guitars. But my experience with torrified guitars is similar to the natural aging I have observed. Guitars tend to lose bass and pick up or at least expose the trebles more. Torrified new guitars tend to sound less bassy than the same models with non-torrified woods.

There are always cynics around who think they are smarter than everyone else. I ignore them. But then, I am not selling guitars for a living. I can certainly understand your situation, Larry.

I hope your business is doing well, Larry. And I hope you are well, also.

- Glenn

[jjbigfly]

I think there are two things going on, but I am no scientist, so…..
(Most) Things change over time and not much to argue about that….I DO believe that wood guitars “break in” over time if played much.
The other (overlooked) thing is that many of us are thinking a guitar breaks in right away, when it’s really our ears that are changing. Playing a very nice guitar that sounds quite good right away is going to sound different in say 30 days. What is going on is that the instrument has a lot of “tones” coming out of it, and the more you play it the more your ears become accustomed to the sounds. Yes, your hearing (sort of improves) as the instrument is making lots of sounds and your ears will begin to tune themselves to these tones.

A QUALITY stereo for listening to music (does anyone do that anymore?) will sound good right out of the box, but the more you listen to it the more your hearing will begin to hear little subtle noises that you never heard before. It’s your ears that are changing. It is not a great deal of change, but it is there and most can hear it if we pay attention. It is the little things that we are hearing now.
Over time the instrument starts making different subtle tones and this is when the guitar breaks in, and our ears are fully tuned to the instrument, and THEN you begin to fully appreciate the guitar……….

Not sure if I have expressed this very well, and it is perfectly fine to disagree…..

[rllink]

I just find it somewhat disturbing that someone can get so wound up over it that they feel they have to make that comment.

[J Patrick]

I think you offered a swell response to a naysayer. My feeling is that at some point the experience of the person making the claim has to be given due consideration. No it’s not a scientific study but it’s meaningful. A person that has built, owned or otherwise observed many guitars over a period of time has perhaps the most valid qualification to make a claim. When that claim is corroborated with others with similar experience a “truth” begins to emerge.

Whenever this topic is kicked about here on AGF the consensus view is that guitars do open up. Still, the naysayers will weigh in with demands for scientific proof. Science, however, needs to disprove long held assumptions and beliefs before it can establish a new truth. So far I have not read any study disproving the claim that a guitar opens up.

To complicate the conversation….not all guitars and not all hearing capabilities are the same. If a person calls BS on the premise it is likely because the guitars they’re basing their opinion on don’t change…..or they simply don’t hear a change, both of which are possible…..but do not establish any scientific facts or negate the experiences of others.

[truckgoodbar]

I agree with all the above comments, although I personally believe that guitars or any acoustical instrument or speaker do indeed open up over time. I also agree that the individual's response to your video is disturbing and it would bother me as well. No need to belittle others. I think that dude has some anger issues.