Can Tonerite Harm a Guitar?

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I missed this the first time I read your response, Paul. After I recommended using strings on the guitar that had already been played for awhile and were about ready to be replaced when putting a ToneRite on a guitar, Paul replied:



I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for doing that, Paul. The tonal quality of the strings when you start a ToneRite session is irrelevant when it comes to what a ToneRite does: the strings serve simply as a conduit to transfer the vibrational energy generated by the ToneRite through the bridge saddle to the top. In this application, they're not much more than a structural support, a way of suspending the ToneRite along a path to where its energy is directed most effectively.

Once you've completed a ToneRite session, the strings are going to sound dead, whether you started with fresh strings or those due to be replaced soon.

So I really don't see what point there is to using new strings for this. It's not as though new strings are going to make the ToneRite work more effectively.


Wade Hampton Miller

Maybe it's just me, but if I'm going to do a before and after I would want the conditions to be the same.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Stevien

It doesn't have to be either one, fact or heresay. If someone tried to get you to buy a fluorescent yellow guitar that glowed in the dark, & you didn't buy it, is your decision based on fact or heresay? Probably neither. You just simply have no need for it. I have no need for a tonerite.
Steve

You seem to have change your story. First, you would hesitate to buy a guitar that has had tonerite, and felt that it damaged a guitar. Now it's because you don't need it. I said heresay because you used Bruce's comment for your justifcation. I already said it's your right to feel anyway you want.

[zoopeda]

Some people are going to believe whatever they want, regardless of any input here. The skeptic is right that only a few anecdotal reports do not constitute proof. But it’s also worth listening to minority reports to inform further investigation. A handful of vape product users just died of freak lung disease. Does that mean vape is deadly for most of that most healthcare providers have seen cases of this? No. But it’s a weird phenomenon that needs to be looked at. And what you certainly can say is that while it may be infrequent, it has been observed by some and therefore may have a basis in reality. But when debate and discussion threaten worldview and preconceptions, some people just cling. Hopefully what the rest of us get out of this is “jeez, interesting points I hadn’t considered. Let’s keep investigating before we dig ourselves into strong preliminary conclusions.”

[Kerbie]

Let's stop the personal back-and-forth now. Courtesy is required.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Some people are going to believe whatever they want, regardless of any input here. The skeptic is right that only a few anecdotal reports do not constitute proof. But it’s also worth listening to minority reports to inform further investigation. A handful of vape product users just died of freak lung disease. Does that mean vape is deadly for most of that most healthcare providers have seen cases of this? No. But it’s a weird phenomenon that needs to be looked at. And what you certainly can say is that while it may be infrequent, it has been observed by some and therefore may have a basis in reality. But when debate and discussion threaten worldview and preconceptions, some people just cling. Hopefully what the rest of us get out of this is “jeez, interesting points I hadn’t considered. Let’s keep investigating before we dig ourselves into strong preliminary conclusions.”

Very valid comment. What I'm concerned it that what might be a very good product could be tarred by a one or two comments. You may be right that it can harm a guitar (though nobody said it was permanent). Or maybe those guitars were already defective. I would have liked to see more than one luthier say it adversely affected their guitar. I provided a link to a respected luthier who uses it on all his guitars.

I believe the product has been around for at least nine years and I have seen dozens of threads in this forum concerning tonerite and this is the first one that even brought up the possibility of it harming a guitar.

I respect everyone's right to feel anyway they want to and if they don't need it or are skeptical, that is certainly their right.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

Very valid comment. What I'm concerned it that what might be a very good product could be tarred by a one or two comments. You may be right that it can harm a guitar (though nobody said it was permanent). Or maybe those guitars were already defective. I would have liked to see more than one luthier say it adversely affected their guitar. I provided a link to a respected luthier who uses it on all his guitars.

I believe the product has been around for at least nine years and I have seen dozens of threads in this forum concerning tonerite and this is the first one that even brought up the possibility of it harming a guitar.

I respect everyone's right to feel anyway they want to and if they don't need it or are skeptical, that is certainly their right.

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest the product does not harm most guitars. The interesting thing about Bruce’s comment is that he is known for building exceptionally light guitars. Could it be that certain guitars benefit from tonerite more than others or that there are certain types of build that could potentially suffer under a Tonerite—That maybe a sexhaur is more sensitive to the tonerite than the more heavily built guitars most people on this forum play? Or was Bruce’s experience a total red herring outlier? It’s an interesting question.

[Orfeas]

Several people in the forum used it including other friends of mine. I can tell you that nobody so far expressed any concerns about damaging their instruments.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest the product does not harm most guitars. The interesting thing about Bruce’s comment is that he is known for building exceptionally light guitars. Could it be that certain guitars benefit from tonerite more than others or that there are certain types of build that could potentially suffer under a Tonerite—That maybe a sexhaur is more sensitive to the tonerite than the more heavily built guitars most people on this forum play? Or was Bruce’s experience a total red herring outlier? It’s an interesting question.

Very interesting point. What's ironic, is when I did a search on Google there were some Gibson owners who said tonerite worked better on lightly built guitars! Go figure.

Another possibility may be what setting is used. I think there is a high and a low setting. How long was it used? Wade does not recommend repeated use. So many factors to figure it out.

I think we can safely say that it does not harm the vast majority of guitars or the company would be out of business. Could it harm a small percentage due to the type of guitar, or how it was applied? I would have to say that is certainly possible.

[Bruce Sexauer]

From my perspective, almost all guitars are structurally overbuilt. This is necessary for production guitars, and the many hand builds that are based on production standards, because otherwise there would be too much call-back and the business would not survive.

The Tonerite does appear to make a difference, and on many of those guitars the difference may be positive. If, however, an instrument is built to more optimal structural proportions, then the same tonerite treatment runs the risk of loosening the instrument past its optimum balance.

In the case of MOST of my work I have gone the extra mile to place the structure and response of each guitar as close to the abyss as possible. Moving it closer to the “edge” has hazards. It’s not as if the Tonerite influence is a good/bad thing, it is a physical influence and not a cure-all for every ill.

The guitar that made this clear to me was not one of my most responsive instruments which is why I tried the procedure on it. Even then, it was certainly lighter and more responsive by far than you average production instrument. I try to build guitars that do not require improvement, and that means that alterations are more likely to degrade than enhance.

On many other guitars results may be more positive.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

From my perspective, almost all guitars are structurally overbuilt. This is necessary for production guitars, and the many hand builds that are based on production standards, because otherwise there would be too much call-back and the business would not survive.

The Tonerite does appear to make a difference, and on many of those guitars the difference may be positive. If, however, an instrument is built to more optimal structural proportions, then the same tonerite treatment runs the risk of loosening the instrument past its optimum balance.

In the case of MOST of my work I have gone the extra mile to place the structure and response of each guitar as close to the abyss as possible. Moving it closer to the “edge” has hazards. It’s not as if the Tonerite influence is a good/bad thing, it is a physical influence and not a cure-all for every ill.

The guitar that made this clear to me was not one of my most responsive instruments which is why I tried the procedure on it. Even then, it was certainly lighter and more responsive by far than you average production instrument. I try to build guitars that do not require improvement, and that means that alterations are more likely to degrade than enhance.

On many other guitars results may be more positive.

Would it be fair to say that your guitars don't get better with additional playing because you have them built to their optimum from the git go? If so, that would make sense to me that the tonerite would not be necessary. I would also think the type of top wood would affect whether there would be any benefit. For example, doesn't Koa open up over time? Perhaps tonerite could help with koa topped guitars more than other wood?

[djeffcoat]

I have had positive results with a ToneRite on strictly acoustic guitars. But, I used it on an acoustic-electric with an under-saddle pickup and afterwards the guitar developed a loud, constant hum. Possibly, the ToneRite vibrated the connection loose but I have no actual proof that was the cause of the hum. I had no recourse but to remove the UST and replace it with a K&K pickup attached to the bridgeplate. I am hesitant to use the ToneRite on guitars with transducers installed.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

What exactly are you supposed to be checking? I'm at about 50 (hoping to get to 144) hours into my homemade tonerite experiment. From what I remember of the actual tonerite I once saw, mine is about the same as a low setting.

I'm using it on my new Martin Onvangkol topped guitar that I'm hoping to get a bit more projection out of. Once I'm done I don't plan on any follow up.

I did a lot of research and until this post, never heard of it harming a guitar. The most common results were no change, some improvement or a lot of improvement.

The point Bruce was trying to make, and one of the issues brought forth in the massive Tonerite thread/group test on the Collings Forum about 6 years ago was that on some guitars, using the Tonerite actually made the guitar sound worse.

But...as was also pointed out in the end on that Collings Forum thread, for the most part, the effects...good or bad...that the Tonerite created on any given guitar were mostly temporary, and that over time, if you did not keep using the Tonerite regularly, whatever effect it did have on the guitar went away.

Also, it seemed to help new stiff/tight guitars much much more than well broken in/played in new or used guitars, where the effects were minimal at best...except maybe to "wake up" a guitar that had been unplayed for a long time and had "gone to sleep".


The biggest takeaway from the big Collings Forum thread was that whatever the effect on any given guitar...the results were temporary...good or bad...and went away without continued regular periods of use.

Oh..and yeah...the Tonerite was string killing beast...


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[AllThumbsBruce]

A Tonerite vibrates the top of a guitar about 100 times less than a gentle strum (as measured by both sound output of the guitar and using an accelerometer mounted to the top). So it will not hurt your guitar.

[frankmcr]

I hate when somebody posts a silly response to a topic and excuses it by saying "I just couldn't resist . . . "

But



I just couldn't resist . . .

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

I hate when somebody posts a silly response to a topic and excuses it by saying "I just couldn't resist . . . "

But



I just couldn't resist . . .

But you should have.