Why does a solid wood guitar "open up"?

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

Your not entitled to disregard the scientific research referred to in musicman1951's post above.
It's quite clear from the findings that the effect of age on wood is real and that the changes described are fundamental to how guitars convert vibrations to soundwaves.
You have been shown to be the one believing in myths.

You're confused as to what the science actually proves. I'm not disregarding the notion that wood changes over time. I'm saying that it's impossible (at least it hasn't been done so far) to determine that any change in sound is attributable to wood change rather than any of the other factors I listed, all of which result in changes in sound. There has been no scientific study that has isolated a change in tone and has been able to tie that change to aging alone, nor has there been any study that has been able to isolate a change in tone and even attribute an accurate percentage of the change to aging wood.

Here's an analogy for the science we have so far...
Water makes things wet. No argument there. Water does, in fact, make things wet. However, from that fact we would be wrong to conclude that everything that is wet was made wet by water. There are other liquids that can make things wet. Water may or may not be a contributing factor but unless we can rule out the presence of other liquids, we cannot conclude that the wetness was caused in whole or even in part because of the water.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

I once stumbled upon an article by Bob Taylor on this.
He believes that guitars get better with age but don't need playing to sound better over time.
His belief rested on his familly's experience of one of the first presentation guitars built by his company, it looked pretty so for years it sat in a display case, once in a while someone would take it out play it and put it back in it's glass case because his house was full of guitars that sounded better.
Then after some years he noticed his kids were playing this guitar more and more and it sounded just great. So not scientific, but that was why Bob Taylor thinks guitars get better as they get older but don't necessarily need playing to sound good.

Given how Taylors sound out of the box, Bob Taylor has no choice but to believe that guitars sound better with age.

(Just kidding—I have three Taylors, but couldn’t resist. I also have found that guitars sound better with age—some more so than others—but don’t care to debate it.)

[warfrat73]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

Your not entitled to disregard the scientific research referred to in musicman1951's post above.
It's quite clear from the findings that the effect of age on wood is real and that the changes described are fundamental to how guitars convert vibrations to soundwaves.
You have been shown to be the one believing in myths.

For the record, Musicman1951 quoted my previous post without giving me credit for it. I'm the one that posted that Noguchi study, I'm the one that re-read the study to find that quote.

In my initial post, to contextualize the study that I cited, I also mentioned immediately after that quote that there have also been a number of studies (though I didn't cite any) that have suggested that under experimental conditions, subjects can't generally or consistently distinguish between "opened up" tops.

[Alan Carruth]

So why would the guitar be the only machine that doesn't wear in (and out) with use?

I don't know of any guitar maker who doesn't believe that guitars change with age and playing. As a maker, I'm convinced that they do, as somebody who trusts science (as far as I understand it) I know how hard it will be to 'prove' that. Since it's not really in anybody's economic interest to do that work, it's unlikely to happen any time soon, so there will be plenty to talk about on these lists for years to come...

[Russ C]

Originally Posted by jim1960

You're confused as to what the science actually proves. I'm not disregarding the notion that wood changes over time. I'm saying that it's impossible (at least it hasn't been done so far) to determine that any change in sound is attributable to wood change rather than any of the other factors I listed, all of which result in changes in sound. There has been no scientific study that has isolated a change in tone and has been able to tie that change to aging alone, nor has there been any study that has been able to isolate a change in tone and even attribute an accurate percentage of the change to aging wood.

Here's an analogy for the science we have so far...
Water makes things wet. No argument there. Water does, in fact, make things wet. However, from that fact we would be wrong to conclude that everything that is wet was made wet by water. There are other liquids that can make things wet. Water may or may not be a contributing factor but unless we can rule out the presence of other liquids, we cannot conclude that the wetness was caused in whole or even in part because of the water.

Why would anyone think that it’s one or the other?
All factors have an effect. Why leave out one factor because others are also involved?
The old question: Is it nature or nurture? The question is wrong. The answer is: both.
If a wooden guitar changes mass, stiffness and shape as it ages (which are facts not up for debate) my question is: “how could they NOT have an effect on its responsiveness to a string vibrating it?”

[Rockysdad]

It is, therefore it does,
or is it,
it does, therefore it is,
or is it.....

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Russ C

Why would anyone think that it’s one or the other?
All factors have an effect. Why leave out one factor because others are also involved?
The old question: Is it nature or nurture? The question is wrong. The answer is: both.
If a wooden guitar changes mass, stiffness and shape as it ages (which are facts not up for debate) my question is: “how could they NOT have an effect on its responsiveness to a string vibrating it?”

I didn't leave it out. I'm saying that without the ability to isolate wood change as a single variable, apart from the other variables, you cannot determine to what degree changes in wood alters the tone. It could be a lot or it could be imperceptible. We have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty, especially in light of the other variables, some of which can change tone quite dramatically.

[Mycroft]

Does anyone know if anything ever came of the Sonic Sitka project?

[Russ C]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I didn't leave it out. I'm saying that without the ability to isolate wood change as a single variable, apart from the other variables, you cannot determine to what degree changes in wood alters the tone. It could be a lot or it could be imperceptible. We have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty, especially in light of the other variables, some of which can change tone quite dramatically.

I agree with that Jim.
Certainly people who claim a new guitar has opened up after a month (IF they’re not imagining it) are talking about different reasons than a guitar that has decades under its belt because the factors I speak of have not had a chance to do anything worth mentioning. Those things are a long continuum.

[tsmith28]

Originally Posted by davidd

My theory is our ears change, our memory changes, the humidity changes and the room acoustics change so we don't really have a clue what it sounded like years ago.

This is 100% the truth. It's impossible to accurately measure how a guitar's tone changes over a span of years because it fluctuates from day to day (as temperature & humidity change), room to room, etc. E.g. I often take the same guitar and play it in different spots within the same room...and it sounds radically different due to the room acoustics. So how can we hope to observe, in any objective way, the changes in tone over a span of years?

[Russ C]

Originally Posted by tsmith28

This is 100% the truth. It's impossible to accurately measure how a guitar's tone changes over a span of years because it fluctuates from day to day (as temperature & humidity change), room to room, etc. E.g. I often take the same guitar and play it in different spots within the same room...and it sounds radically different due to the room acoustics. So how can we hope to observe, in any objective way, the changes in tone over a span of years?

Your comments are right on imo.
One of the first things someone might say is “record it” but I’ve tried dropping in on recordings too often to have much faith in that too.

My belief in opening up is based on a collective sound that I believe I hear in most decades old guitars .. they sound drier/crisper, more responsive, perhaps less uniform (words that work for my memory in my mind) which of course is not all that objective.
If I combine that with thinking lighter, stiffer and somewhat deformed which are objective, it supports what I believe I hear.
But yeh - prove it? No hope.

[RussellHawaii]

It is obvious to me that wooden new guitars can ‘open up’ over the first few months, and maybe even after years. Taking into account psychological factors, it is still unmistakeably clear that I’ve heard dramatic improvements over the first year or so of a new guitar. The first few months have a change, then a slower change over the first few years. Possibly even more improvements over a couple decades.
To me it’s not a ‘tonal’ difference alone so much as a volume and tone difference.

[Alan Carruth]

Some experiments that have been done with 'artificial playing' of violin family instruments have shown changes. This sort of thing could be well enough controlled to allow us to sort things out. It would take time and effort, and since nobody would profit from it, nobody is willing to invest in the experiment.

Most of the things we have found out along these lines have been byproducts. Engineering students need to learn how to use vibration modeling and analysis hardware and software, and when the department head or thesis advisor is interested in guitars they can talk a student into using that, instead of a race car or airplane, for the subject. Various aspects of tone have been subjects for these sorts of projects, as was done by Wright at UWales/ Cardiff, in 1996, but tone change over time is not as useful to look at, and more time consuming. One of the few studies like that I know of looked into the 'ToneRite', and decided that it doesn't work (in the online 'Savart Journal').

Until we can show that playing does change tone we're not in any position to ask 'why'. There are lots of ideas about it, but lacking data we can't decide between them.

[eternaltinkerer]

Originally Posted by RussellHawaii

It is obvious to me that wooden new guitars can ‘open up’ over the first few months, and maybe even after years. Taking into account psychological factors, it is still unmistakeably clear that I’ve heard dramatic improvements over the first year or so of a new guitar. The first few months have a change, then a slower change over the first few years. Possibly even more improvements over a couple decades.
To me it’s not a ‘tonal’ difference alone so much as a volume and tone difference.

Having experienced this with ukuleles, my (albeit) subjective experience is why I tell myself that I will hold onto any new instrument for a minimum of 6 months before I decide to sell it to try another one. The only exception is if the instrument is obviously wrong for me from the beginning.

Much agreed am I that changes happen. Less sure am I that they are necessarily due only to woods maturing and becoming stiffer and lighter. For example, can the short term changes (weeks to months) be due to parts settling in and fitting more precisely with each other? Maybe the components are just acclimating with the new owner's environment?? Lots of variables at work, I would imagine.

[rbr49x]

Just another tidbit of anecdotal info on this topic...

While considering purchase of a guitar with walnut back and sides I found this comment in the "Walnut as a Body Wood" page of the Taylor website:

"The bass tones initially produce a woody character that will grow richer with time and extended play."

I get that this is advertising talk, but they probably really think there's something to "play-in" to some degree or other to say that.