Effect of open pore finish on tone.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Since I haven't played a DSS17, it would be totally unfair to discredit what people are saying about this "tone monster". I'm a little skeptical though.
I would like to think it has a lot to do with the finish and the bracing pattern combined. I would also love to hear it for myself.
I hope the owners of some who are on here chime in and go into more detail.

I played it. People are calling it a tone monster because it’s bold, loud, and awesome sounding. Way louder than the standard D-18 with more depth and dry raw tone, to my ear.

Some folks don’t realize this DSS17 has a wider lower bout than a standard dreadnought and its body is longer too. It’s a bigger body than the D-18, so it makes sense it’s going to sound, well, bigger!

The other difference: it’s light as a feather compared to the standard line. I have no idea why that is, since pore filler doesn’t weigh close to the 6oz difference between this and the D18–not to mention, it’s a bigger body. I don’t know where the lightness comes from, but that seems like the key to this model more than pore filler would be.

[redir]

I once weighed a guitar I built before and after pore filling and my scale was not accurate enough to tell the difference. The weight of material that is left over in the pores is negligible so it's probably safe to assume that it has no measurable influence on tone.

Having said that IMHO a thin finish absolutely does have an impact on tone. So it's possible that guitars taht are not pore filled are sprayed with minimal coats too. The irony here is that this is a cheap alternative to finishing a guitar to high gloss and may actually produce a better sounding guitar. Most factories, to produce a high gloss, spray way more Nitro or PolyX finishes then needed so that they can be sanded and buffed out.

There are many ways to pore fill. I like the method that the OP alluded to and that is to fill the pores then sand back to wood leaving only the pores with the fill material left. I don't like the idea of slathering epoxy all over a guitar and finishing on top of that. This is a huge can of worms in builders forums because there certainly are many a fine guitar built that way but.... Just think about it

The UV cured finishes are pretty cool. They are super thin and also very tough.

But nothing beats a thin French Polish finish or a thin oil varnish finish IMHO.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by lowrider

In trying to understand the wide open, rip the paint off the walls tone of the DSS-17, I have to wonder how much of that tone comes from the lack of pore filler and really thin finish.

Where did you find "lack of pore filler" on the Martin website?

The use of pore filler yes or no would apply to the mahogany back and sides only,
not the spruce top. Satin finish has nothing to do with whether the back and sides
were pore filled.

[virob]

Spruce and cedar are closed pore woods that don’t require pore filers. The sides of the guitar contribute little to the sound of the guitar, that leaves the back. Of all the variables that go into the construction of the back and overall finish of the guitar, the small amount of pore filler would be relatively minor.I would think that a good luthier could factor that in the build. Not to say that it wouldn’t have an effect, but....

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I played it. People are calling it a tone monster because it’s bold, loud, and awesome sounding. Way louder than the standard D-18 with more depth and dry raw tone, to my ear.

Some folks don’t realize this DSS17 has a wider lower bout than a standard dreadnought and its body is longer too. It’s a bigger body than the D-18, so it makes sense it’s going to sound, well, bigger!

The other difference: it’s light as a feather compared to the standard line. I have no idea why that is, since pore filler doesn’t weigh close to the 6oz difference between this and the D18–not to mention, it’s a bigger body. I don’t know where the lightness comes from, but that seems like the key to this model more than pore filler would be.

Yep...great description of these new slopes. Mirrors my experience exactly.

[nellatrab]

There really is something to open pore finishes....but remember there are a dozen ways builders use it. Classical guitars have been doing it for 150 years. Below is one example of one way it's done. Asian factories certainly don't do it this way....but all open pore finishes have and effect on not only tone, but how the wood ages.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_es...id:NGs7KuIRDs0

[printer2]

Originally Posted by virob

Spruce and cedar are closed pore woods that don’t require pore filers. The sides of the guitar contribute little to the sound of the guitar, that leaves the back. Of all the variables that go into the construction of the back and overall finish of the guitar, the small amount of pore filler would be relatively minor.I would think that a good luthier could factor that in the build. Not to say that it wouldn’t have an effect, but....

Darn, what I was going to say. On the thicker the finish, yes it would inhibit the vibrations some.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I played it. People are calling it a tone monster because it’s bold, loud, and awesome sounding. Way louder than the standard D-18 with more depth and dry raw tone, to my ear.

Some folks don’t realize this DSS17 has a wider lower bout than a standard dreadnought and its body is longer too. It’s a bigger body than the D-18, so it makes sense it’s going to sound, well, bigger!

The other difference: it’s light as a feather compared to the standard line. I have no idea why that is, since pore filler doesn’t weigh close to the 6oz difference between this and the D18–not to mention, it’s a bigger body. I don’t know where the lightness comes from, but that seems like the key to this model more than pore filler would be.

It’s lighter because it has more air inside.

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by printer2

Darn, what I was going to say. On the thicker the finish, yes it would inhibit the vibrations some.

Hmmm. One could also make a claim that the presence of pores keeps the wood from vibrating freely as a whole. Think of a sponge versus something quite solid.

Fact is, I don't know and do not have enough of a trained ear to even tell were we able to control all the variables. From listening to people whom I trust whose ears are more sensitive, I believe that in general the thinner the finish, the better the sound. Which brings us to the question, if there was NO finish, would it sound better yet?

(No, I am not proposing this - finish protects and beautifies and those are important attributes to me, second to tone, but still important.)

[printer2]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Hmmm. One could also make a claim that the presence of pores keeps the wood from vibrating freely as a whole. Think of a sponge versus something quite solid.

Fact is, I don't know and do not have enough of a trained ear to even tell were we able to control all the variables. From listening to people whom I trust whose ears are more sensitive, I believe that in general the thinner the finish, the better the sound. Which brings us to the question, if there was NO finish, would it sound better yet?

(No, I am not proposing this - finish protects and beautifies and those are important attributes to me, second to tone, but still important.)

A sponge is not stiff. Pick up a piece of Wenge, do the old tap tone test on it, rings out pretty good with all the deep pores. On the thickness of the finish, a sacrificial test subject could be used, put on a nice thick glossy finish, play it and then have someone take it to the next room and do a quick sand with a sander on the top and back. Then play it again. Not instant but a few minutes since the previous playing, Mind you, someone might say the guitar "opened up" due to the serious shaking of an orbital sander. Would have to use a belt sander and a scraper. Might put some heat into the wood but it is easy enough to cool down quickly.

[Mr. Jelly]

I believe there is a positive tone enhancement when a guitar is made with less rather than more finish. I have moved to lighter finished guitars not so much for the finish but because they a very responsive and I like what they sound like. The fact that they are open pore and/or lightly finished wasn't why I acquired them though they are. So, yes, I think less is more when it comes to finish.

FYI - I have a Waterloo WL-S Deluxe and a WL-S. They are made exactly the same (almost) and there is a tonal difference between them. The only difference is that the Deluxe is a varnish finish and the WL-S is a nitro finish. This is my second WL-S and they both sounded the same.