Quote:
Originally Posted by martingitdave
The general consensus is "yes." However, there is no consensus on "how much." I've played amazing guitars made with hide glue and titebond. I played duds made with hide glue and titebond. Generally, however, the hide glue process is labor intensive and reserved for more expensive instruments, which might have an advantage to begin with. Look for articles by the various guitar builders on the topic. Opinions from guitar aficionados, like me, are significantly less relevant.
|
Whose general consensus? IMO, this is another non-issue similar to the abalone/pearl trim topic started by the same poster. Lots of builders use hide glue, some for it's physical properties (quick tack, ease of disassembly, regenerative properties, etc.) and some for it's marketing properties. Count me in the former. I've built lots of guitars both ways and I can't discern any tonal difference whatsoever, nor can my clients. In fact pretty much any guitar I build regardless of deviations in materials or methodology sounds like one of my guitars. Once you reach a point in your building career (say 20-30 guitars) you'd be hard pressed to build anything that didn't sound like one of your guitars.
I use it exclusively for all critical joints and have for about ten years, but not for tonal reasons. Just my .02.