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

[rdeane]

Thank you! Your explanation is just what I hoped for.

[donlyn]

Originally Posted by cdkrugjr

You can’t defend it. Full stop.

* *

And most important, does this mean it’s “Better?” No idea. What’s that even mean?

Since there are no 'standards' or standard meanings in guitar manufacturing anyway, simply use the implied meaning of "sounds 'better' to me" (me = the listener). It's all made up based on personal judgments anyway.

Be well and play well,

Don
.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rdeane

Please translate post #118 into something us non-scientists scan understand.

OK ---I'll try = science says that wood changes over time

The science infers that because of the change in elasticity that the tone may change over time as well as the color (The change in color can easily be empirically measured and proven ) measuring a change in tone can't be done easily, and as yet is still theory.


People subjectively infer that the theoretical change in tone will be an improvement, and use totally subjective terms like warmer, richer, mellower etc.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by J Patrick

The moral of the story….every guitar is different…AND….every guitar player is different…

They just say all the same stuff.

[rdeane]

Originally Posted by KevWind

OK ---I'll try = science says that wood changes over time

The science infers that because of the change in elasticity that the tone may change over time as well as the color (The change in color can easily be empirically measured and proven ) measuring a change in tone can't be done easily, and as yet is still theory.


People subjectively infer that the theoretical change in tone will be an improvement, and use totally subjective terms like warmer, richer, mellower etc.

Thank you. I agree that because there is a change in tone, it doesn't mean it's always better. It's all in the ear of the listener.

[12FanMan]

You went into knowledgeable and logical detail regarding your views on the matter. I notice he did not.

The guy who first resorts to personal insult, as he did, likely has the weakest argument.

[Nama Ensou]

Originally Posted by 12FanMan

The guy who first resorts to personal insult, as he did, likely has the weakest argument.

Not sure which one you're referring to, so you may be absolutely right in this case, but the insult=weakest argument is actually a weak argument in itself. Other reasons for the insults can also be 1) naturally rude person, even when they're right, 2) bad at arguing with idiots, 3) tired of arguing with tropes or recurring themes that get new threads on a regular basis.

These aren't the only possibilities but they've all got multiple, and sometimes daily examples here on these forum pages.

Anyway, my vote is that regardless of right or wrong, the first insult usually (means not always) comes from rude people and know-it-alls.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by Organic Sounds Select Guitars

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!

Larry, you did great, and I'll add that one of my touch points for how a guitar opens up was part of the recordings you made with Richard Hoover in your very own shop ;-).

IMO,.the comment you were responding to was flamebait / troll worthy, probably didn't warrant response.

As for scientific, here's how science.works: control variables as repeatably as possible, take measurements, report observations. That's all there is ** drawing conclusions ** is optional, and often/usually fraught.

People who attack an idea with "it's not scientific!" Seem to think the method is bias free and conclusive, and that the instruments are exact. In fact, science is always wrong, and always working towards the state of being less wrong. Also, genuine breakthrough work is always viewed with huge suspicion by the scientific establishment. There are good reasons for that, there's also vested (conflict
of) interest.

To why I'm replying today to this new thread: I initially finished an acoustic build (my first) 23 days ago. After first stringing her up, I've finished tuning the top (removed about 10% of the soundboard near the edge, a bit more on the bass side of the lower bout), from that point, between finishing up the neck dimension and bringing it nearly to the final carved shape, cutting a new and better nut, and adjusting intonation, she's practically less than a week of playing old, and only two weeks from the final tweaks to the tone relevant design & construction.

In that small number of days, she's changed her character quite a lot, I'm not going to try to describe it, it's not confirmation or survivor bias, it's what I hear. I could put a piezo and oscilloscope on to measure the changes .. don't have time, or care. I can hear it, people who build far better instruments than I can ever hope to say the same.

That's enough for me, and I have playing to do, and the next build to think about and begin.