Modern or vintage sound

[curbucci]

From a string marketing perspective just put on monel for vintage sound, phosphor bronze for modern sound.
That way you can have a modern or vintage sounding guitar.
My sarcastic opinion.

[SpruceTop]

I have a problem: Every decent guitar I've ever played sounds like a guitar ...

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

That quote was originally about pornography and was from a Supreme Court justice. It has been paraphrased often.

Yes, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[Br1ck]

Vintage, a marketing term used to convince you that you're going to pay more money.

Another marketing favorite is Pro, certain to be applied to a product that isn't. QSC will never have a Pro K 12 speaker.

[pjroberts]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

.....

So much of a guitar's tone has to do with playing style and how much of the potential within a guitar that the musician can access. .

Robin has a good perspective here, which I concur with. I agree with many of the comments about the age, Martin tone and Gibson tone. I have a couple vintage reissues that seem close. But, a lot of “vintage” sound is what we associate from vintage and classic music (pick your genre) and the players’ style and expertise. “I want Neil Young’s vintage sound.” And off we are chasing vintage or reissue D28s that come close but never hit the bulls eye exactly no matter how much practice. Meanwhile somewhere in Colorado Neil is posting a YT video with some random guitar that somehow sounds like vintage NY playing his 75yo Martin. It’s in his hands, 90%.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by pjroberts

Robin has a good perspective here, which I concur with. I agree with many of the comments about the age, Martin tone and Gibson tone. I have a couple vintage reissues that seem close. But, a lot of “vintage” sound is what we associate from vintage and classic music (pick your genre) and the players’ style and expertise. “I want Neil Young’s vintage sound.” And off we are chasing vintage or reissue D28s that come close but never hit the bulls eye exactly no matter how much practice. Meanwhile somewhere in Colorado Neil is posting a YT video with some random guitar that somehow sounds like vintage NY playing his 75yo Martin. It’s in his hands, 90%.

+1! Individual playing style affects tone a lot!

[turfguy]

Originally Posted by blindboyjimi

The vintage sound is not the Martin sound at all. Vintage guitars have a commonality of a very hollow tone which comes from the sustain being quite fundamental. This applies to ladder braced Stellas, X-braced Gibsons, Larsons or Martins. Vintage guitars, even the Brazilian rosewood ones are more fundamental in nature than modern guitars.

Modern guitars are much more overtone rich and can be quite complex. It is quite rare to hear a complex vintage guitar. There are many current builders that build in the vintage style. Julis Borges is the best in my opinion, though he just retired this year.

This is all different from the Martin tone which is bass heavy and treble heavy, meaning a scooped mid-range or Gibson which are mid-ranged heavier guitars (in general of course). Collings and Taylor’s are treble heavy, etc, etc.

These are big generalizations of course. There are modern vintage re-creations like the Martin Authentics but if you listen to a Martin OM-18A vs a Goodall grand concert I don’t think anyone would confuse the two as to which is the modern voiced guitar.

This^^^. If you ever get the opportunity to play an old (pre-70 but the older the better), you “should” hear it. Not everyone is enamored with it, but some of us certainly prefer it.

[brencat]

Vintage voiced to Modern, as I hear them:

Martin/Gibson
Santa Cruz
Bourgeois
Goodall TR (Traditional)
Huss & Dalton
Collings
Goodall (non TRs)
Webber
Taylor

[ataylor]

Originally Posted by curbucci

From a string marketing perspective just put on monel for vintage sound, phosphor bronze for modern sound.
That way you can have a modern or vintage sounding guitar.
My sarcastic opinion.

You kid, but I’ve found D’Addario nickel bronze strings and Elixir phosphor bronze strings to have that effect on my Taylor and Martin guitars, respectively. The nickel bronze strings definitely push my typically balanced and bright Taylor a little bit towards a more dry and fundamental tone, whereas Elixir phosphor bronze strings give my D-18 a bit more sparkle, dimension, and articulation, particularly in the higher mids and trebles.

Just for fun, I tried the nickel bronze on the D-18 recently and the guitar sounds dead by comparison. A little too much vintage for my liking, I guess! It’s been a few days and I’m already debating taking them off. I expected I wouldn’t like them as much on the D-18 as I do on the Taylor, but I was surprised to just not care for them at all.

Moving to the main topic at hand...

As for guitars having vintage or modern tone, I think there are definitely vintage-leaning or modern-voiced tonal characteristics that various brands and builders strive for and “own” to a degree as a hallmark of their sound, but I also think sometimes we overstate and overemphasize these differences. I have to shake my head sometimes when I hear claims of guitar X sounding “nothing like” guitar Y or that guitar A is “completely different” than guitar B when the guitars being compared are in reality quite similar — sometimes incredibly similar. Fundamentally, most steel string guitars are going to sound more similar than different anyway, right? To be sure there are differences and subtleties that matter, I’m just wondering aloud if sometimes we focus too much on them. I know I’m guilty of that at times, probably more often than I realize.

Another factor worth considering — is it possible that a guitar player’s technique, talent, and taste in terms of musical style dictate “modern” and “vintage” as much as a guitar’s inherent characteristics? Certainly there are types of guitars and attributes of those guitars that typically lend themselves better to certain types of playing, but I think most guitars are also more versatile than we often give them credit for, particularly in the hands of an accomplished player. For instance, I’ve seen Chris Thile use a smaller-body Olson in an arrangement where he could have just as easily been playing a vintage Martin or Gibson. Perhaps it’s the historical preferences of some of these players that have shaped our idea of what constitutes a vintage or modern sound?

I’ll stop my rambling right there because even I’m starting to wonder if I’m making any sense.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by richie1959

Hello all,

I would like to know how i can recognize a modern from a vintage sound of an acoustic guitar.
I often read about it here, but i haven't got any idea what the difference is between these two voicings.

Recently i ordered a furch vintage 3 OM guitar does that mean it comes with vintage sound? Anyone?

thanks for your reply's........

Richie..

I'm pretty sure many "vintage" guitars back in the day would sound "modern" and viceversa.

[Brucebubs]

Vintage guitar recordings are all scratchy, boxy, shrill and thin - if that's the Vintage sound then I don't want it.

[1Charlie]

Vintage Gibsons and Martins share a warmth, dryness of tone and great individual note definition that is hard to describe but easy to hear.

I sold all but one of my modern guitars, once I started chasing that vintage tone.

[Robin, Wales]

When I think about "vintage" tone, personally I'm more drawn to the sound of birch ply back and sides with a spruce top than South American mahogany or rosewood back and sides. There were plenty of birch ply guitars around 30s-70s but it seems that only Beard have dared to go there with a modern build.

I think that's why I have gravitated towards the Godin brands of guitars. The cherry plywood they make is very similar to birch plywood. I have a dread and 000 both with cherry plywood back and sides and spruce tops. I love them for their dry, woody and dare I say "vintage" tone.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by richie1959

Well, actually i was just curious. I thought perhaps it had something to do with the bracing of the top of the guitar.
i really read it a lot here: a modern sounding acoustic guitar?
I am still very happy with my super vintage Larrivee SD50

thanks all, for the replies..

Yeah, I wonder if I am missing something, too.

If you swap out, say, Traditional, instead of Vintage, then yeah, I think there is a commonly-understand distinction. Traditional typically means Martin, Gibson and guitars built like them. A Traditional-voiced guitar is often described as dark or with more energy in the Lows vs. a Modern.

Modern is generally associated with Taylor - tended to shift the tone more towards brighter highs, a bit more scoopiness in the mids and tight Lows. They sound much brighter vs. Traditional. Fans love them; detractors assert they sound too bright and clashy.

So yeah, Traditional vs. Modern voiced guitars, to me, is an common generalized distinction that can work.

[llew]

Originally Posted by thepassivevoice

These two James Taylor video clips provide a good example:

Traditional (aka "vintage"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1nKGVDhQ60

Modern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSqT_PeiV0U

Of those two clips (and I'm a long time JT fan) I'd have to go with the first on that old J-50(?) he used to play way back then.