does Hot Hide Glue make a difference in the Tone/Voice

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by HFox

Well, I seem to have caused a bit of a wrinkle in The Force with my Bling post.
So.... Does the use of Hot Hide Glue add to the tone/voice of an instrument versus other adhesives ?

A bolt-on neck combined with V-Class bracing is going to give you the best results according to the highest volume acoustic guitar builder in the US... Take that's for whatever it's worth but also note Taylor isn't the only one disputing the benefits of hide glue dovetail neck joints.

[1Charlie]

The theory is that hot hide glue continues to harden, and crystalizes with age.

Perhaps HHG is one of several dozen reasons why 1930's-'50's Martins and Gibsons sound so good. Perhaps not. Who knows?

[jrb715]

I've heard so many genuinely brilliant guitars without hide glue that I'm at least pretty skeptical. Unless one has two truly identical guitars (good luck having that happen)--one with, one without, hide glue--I don't know how to come to a determination. Here's Huss & Dalton's Mark Dalton on hide glue:

"Hide glue. I know this is heresy, but I don’t hear it. To me, saying that hide-glued braces transmit vibration better is, in essence, saying that braces glued with Titebond are loose. The truth is that if braces are not glued well enough (with whatever glue) to pull fibers from the top if removed, then the guitar won’t hold up to string tension and will come apart. That being said, we will use hide glue for the top braces if a customer asks. I don’t see hide glue as being inferior in any way—otherwise we wouldn’t do it. But having personally strung up identical guitars side-by-side that were glued both ways, I honestly don’t hear any difference."

2012, Of Tree Elves and Hide Glue (from Premier Guitar)

[Guitar Forest]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

There's actually far more evidence backing up that claim than there is with abalone trim "improving" the tone of the guitars its on.


whm

Care to share any of that evidence? Not doubting that there isn't any, but your post seemed kind of hit and run, like those people who say there's far more evidence for the existence of [insert belief] than not, and then doesn't proceed to share any of that evidence to back up their assertion as if their statement was self-conclusive.

[catdaddy]

The best sounding guitar I've ever owned was built using hide glue. As a result I can state unequivocally that I have no idea whether it has any impact on the tone of that guitar, but I wouldn't change a thing.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by MrDB

My custom Esteban has hide glue, and I hear a difference in the tone.

Just sayin.

Different from what?

[BrunoBlack]

I have guitars made with and without hide glue. My best guitar is not made using hide and I have no idea on the influence of hide compared to other adhesives as it influences tone. My decision is left up to the builder if I’m ordering a custom guitar. If I’m buying off the shelf, I purchase the guitar I like. The adhesive used is not a determining factor.

[drplayer]

Even among the finest Luthiers in the world there is no consensus, so we sure aren't going to solve it here. But for every bolt-on neck builder, there is one like Richard Hoover who believes a dovetail joint is "better". And for every builder using strictly synthetic glues, there is a builder using hide glue (and many more that use it for an upcharge), because they believe in the benefits of it.

Unlike many other things that are left to mere opinion, there have been studies done on the effects on hide glue vs. modern glues, and they were posted here some years ago by an Engineer of some discipline. In brief, the study showed that hide glue DID in fact transfer energy more efficiently, which would just seem to make sense because it's pretty universally known to set harder than modern glues. I believe most would also say that it's better when repairs are needed, because it can be more easily be "melted/softened" (for lack of better terms) and re-set.

So to answer the question of whether hide glue will "...make a difference in the tone/voice", I think the answer is most certainly yes. Now, whether or not that difference is discernible to everyone, or whether or not that difference is viewed as adding to or improving the tone, are entirely different things...things that only each individual can answer for themselves.

[musicman1951]

I think it's entirely possible, maybe even easy, to say that hide glue does not crystallize with age, or that if it does it certainly does not contribute to the sound of older guitars that we all love.

And indeed, there is no way to prove what part of the improvement is contributed by the glue. You could also insist that the vast majority of builders using hide glue for their best guitars are simply making more money in a most unscrupulous manner.

But so far I am unconvinced. And while there is a real need for your skepticism, there is also a real need for some skepticism in your certainty - also without proof.

[redir]

From my experience using both Titebond and HHG there is no difference in tone. Not that I can tell anyway. I think people generally don't understand how glue works. When you glue two pieces of wood together there is no 'gasket' of glue between the two parts. That's what usually starts this argument off, that Titebond is rubbery and HHG is glass hard. If you drop a blob of Titebond on your work bench it will be quite hard the next day anyway.

In any given guitar I use pretty much all the glues. Epoxy to join the back, CA for inlays, Fish glue to glue back on and HHG for just about everything else.

About a decade ago I made a guitar using almost entirely CA for every joint. The guitar has held up quite well even thought it's been treated badly.

And BTW I don't find using HHG any more difficult then Titebond. The only difference is that I have to pour some hot tap water in the pot and let the glue heat up for 15 minutes before I use it. In fact in most cases I'd say it makes things a lot easier to glue up. The bridge being a good example. WIth Titebond the bridge wants to swim all over the top, with HHG it grabs and holds right in place as you clamp it. You do, or should, have to heat up parts too so that is one additional step. And in some cases where there are time constraints it could be difficult to work fast enough but then that's where I personally would just use Titebond or Fish. But point being I don't understand an upcharge for HHG.

And one more quick note, I don't really buy the HHG argument that it's the best for repairs because it's reversible. I mean yes, it is true, but I don't find removing bridges glued with Titebond to be much more if at all more difficult then HHG. What is nice is that you can glue HHG back to HHG. You can do that with Titebond too but you will lose some strength.

[Zigeuner]

Originally Posted by Rmz76

A bolt-on neck combined with V-Class bracing is going to give you the best results according to the highest volume acoustic guitar builder in the US... Take that's for whatever it's worth but also note Taylor isn't the only one disputing the benefits of hide glue dovetail neck joints.

That's interesting. I wonder which bolt thread is considered to give the best tone? Coarse, fine, metric, Whitworth, BSF?

[drplayer]

Originally Posted by drplayer

...there have been studies done on the effects on hide glue vs. modern glues, and they were posted here some years ago by an Engineer of some discipline.

Found it...refer to page 2 and comments by FrankS. Per Frank, the difference is small, but the science is there.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...de+glue&page=2

[musicman1951]

I did a study for Dana Bourgeois back a while ago to answer this very question. I approached it from a laboratory viewpoint and not that of a builder.

What I did was to take a batch of wooden products and measured the penetration depth, fiber wetting ability, adhesive force, and modulus and elongation of the specimens. What I found was reasonably similar macroscopic physical properties amongst the adhesives that I studied included 3 of the Titebonds, cyanoacrylates, hide and fish glues along with a couple of my own choices.

What I did find to be different was that there was variation in the fiber wetting and depth of penetration of the adhesives. Hide glue shows an advantage here as do some other synthetic adhesives.

Next was to look at sound propagation across the glued joint. Both the velocity, the loss, and the phase change across the joint. Again, the hide was just a pinch, and almost not even detectable better at keeping loss down. This makes sense because the transition between wood to adhesive to wood again is ever so slightly wider than the joints with the Titebond or other similar products.

Frank Sanns

And this was done with fresh joints. It would be interesting to come back in 10 and 20 years for the same test.

[redir]

Originally Posted by musicman1951

I did a study for Dana Bourgeois back a while ago to answer this very question. I approached it from a laboratory viewpoint and not that of a builder.

What I did was to take a batch of wooden products and measured the penetration depth, fiber wetting ability, adhesive force, and modulus and elongation of the specimens. What I found was reasonably similar macroscopic physical properties amongst the adhesives that I studied included 3 of the Titebonds, cyanoacrylates, hide and fish glues along with a couple of my own choices.

What I did find to be different was that there was variation in the fiber wetting and depth of penetration of the adhesives. Hide glue shows an advantage here as do some other synthetic adhesives.

Next was to look at sound propagation across the glued joint. Both the velocity, the loss, and the phase change across the joint. Again, the hide was just a pinch, and almost not even detectable better at keeping loss down. This makes sense because the transition between wood to adhesive to wood again is ever so slightly wider than the joints with the Titebond or other similar products.

Frank Sanns

And this was done with fresh joints. It would be interesting to come back in 10 and 20 years for the same test.

Is that published anywhere? I'd love to see it.

EDIT: Oh nevermind I see it's from the other thread and other user.

[Bruce Sexauer]

I wonder if my opinion carries more weight that some others in this matter? There seem to be people who are close to willing to die for their certainly that HHG is a marketing hoax perpetrated by greedy Guitar building entrepreneurs.

When I started using HHG 25 years into my 51 years and counting career as a luthier, I saw a serious bump up in the sound of my Guitars. There have been many bumps, however, and I have never really been sure it was the HHG. But I do love using it, and never went back to the PVC I had used previously. It just feels right.

Last year I decided to test the situation, and I built two guitars w/o HHG, using Titebond type I in its place. Both guitars are very good, and not in any way embarrassing. One was a gift to my daughter, the other was given away at last years SBAIC as a door prize. I wouldn't really have wanted to sell them as they both are missing something very important to me, and up till making them I hadn’t even realized it existed. They lack a sound quality which, for lack of the right words, I call “transparency”. It is a sort of clarity, something in the tone that brings it all together, not unlike when you have just washed the windows which have been dirty a long time and you look out into a beautiful sunny day. The view is the exact same one, but oh what joy.

Personally, I Value my time to much to squander it making Guitars with dirty windows.