Is Hide Glue usually worth the upcharge?

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

That is not how science works. No good study hangs on the basis of two samples, which is what your prior posts suggests is necessary for a valid conclusion. Either or both of the samples could be outliers and not representative of the whole. Repeatability and trends are far more telling than any two samples.

Whether your argument is for or against hide glue, basing your conclusion on two samples is no better than a coin toss.

Science also requires that we are making repeated MEASUREMENTS of the samples. So merely listening to many guitars with hide glue (and developing a subjective impression) doesn't really cut the mustard either, scientifically speaking.

To further complicate the "science" part of this discussion: we know that there are no studies that demonstrate any reliable memory for tone. AND, we also know that eye witness reports are not so reliable (even though there are many studies that demonstrate that memory for visually presented material is reliable).

Thus, Toby's suggestion is just as scientific as your suggested approach. The only way to really advance a scientific argument on this issue is to identify or develop a way to measure tonal differences, or to locate an extraordinary individual who has proven superiority for recall of tone, and ask his or her opinion (and for the record, there are no scientific data to suggest that such individuals exist...though the fact that some people seem to have perfect recall for certain information - Marilu Henner is one that some people are familiar, and there are a small percentage of people who have "photographic memory" for visually presented input - I am allowing that there might be something analogous in the realm of auditory memory for tone).

Best to just make your own guess, or to rely on a builder whom you have decided to trust, IMO.

[JoeCharter]

+1 on what Rich says above.

I agree that trends could potentially be more telling than a sample size of two -- but how can we rely on trends to interpret the impact of one parameter when there are multiple parameters that are inconsistent/variable? How can we conclude that there is causal effect behind correlation unless we can control the various factors?

When it comes to issues like this (and many others), some people are believers and others are agnostic. I've chosen my camp a long time ago. IMHO drawing firm conclusions out of soft evidence is not the most reasonable thing to do and can make for very frustrating conversations.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

When it comes to issues like this (and many others), some people are believers and others are agnostic. I've chosen my camp a long time ago. IMHO drawing firm conclusions out of soft evidence is not the most reasonable thing to do and can make for very frustrating conversations.

Well put.


whm

[MWB5007]

I don't think the question, "what sounds better?" is one science even addresses - like which is the best tasting ice cream? - you know, from a scientific perspective

[loco gringo]

Originally Posted by Rip VanWinke

and Mike pointed out that he managed the three people in the Custom Shop that work with hide glue and his people would be making my guitar.

Originally Posted by Tadol

Of course, all that is kinda thrown out the window with factory builds - there, the greatest advantage of specifying the glue might be that there may only be a few very experienced craftspeople who successfully use it there, and hopefully that skill applies to the other aspects of the construction also under their control -

Might be the most meaningful posts on this thread.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

That is not how science works. No good study hangs on the basis of two samples, which is what your prior posts suggests is necessary for a valid conclusion. Either or both of the samples could be outliers and not representative of the whole. Repeatability and trends are far more telling than any two samples.

Whether your argument is for or against hide glue, basing your conclusion on two samples is no better than a coin toss.

Which is precisely my point. There is no way to realistically determine the proof. Trends are probably the least way to measure the outcome, as one would be relying on the sound memory and/or the biases of an individual or a group. To my knowledge, there have been no conclusive, blind studies using multiple samples. Until then, it's anybody's guess.

The only folks that seem to think that hide glue makes a difference in the characteristics of a guitar's sound are the marketers, the fans of those same marketers, the ones who don't mind the upcharge, the believers, and the ones who believe it will make a difference in the resale. In all fairness, there are equal numbers of those that don't believe it.

Now I'm a huge fan of those Authentics, as my OM-18 and any other Authentic I ever played sounds incredible. Does the hide glue make a difference? Got me. Once I played the instrument, it wouldn't have made a difference if it were built with hide glue or something else. I will say this... my Huss and Dalton's are also built with hide glue. If I were a betting man, I'd say that PERHAPS there's something to it. Perhaps.

[Gmountain]

Easy choice for me. I don't want hide glue.

I'm a vegetarian.

[zhunter]

It is down in the noise for me. A good guitar is a good guitar. We shouldn't need to know what glue was used to be able to figure out it is a good one.

I guess everything has it's price though and maybe for a $50 upcharge I'd bite. No more than that I think.

hunter

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by min7b5

This can be a hot topic here, so get ready. But I will say I'm very close with guy that has done the final string-up on every single Santa Cruz guitar for yeas and he's said many times that would be the one upgrade he'd recommend. He said they just always have a little something more than the same model without. My Santa Cruz 00 has hide glue.

Hi Eric...

I think the one caveat on your point should be that...yes...it COULD possibly make a difference...IF...one could play with your level of ability...your level of touch and control of both the right and left hand.

If...on the other hand, the potential player is just a basic couch picker...a "hacker" as tennis analyst Bud Collins...RIP Miss You Bud...used to call all of us...well...hackers...then I do not think it would/will matter in the least.

All of those type of subtle performance upgrades are ONLY going to shine through with a player who has some real mastery of the instrument...guys like you Eric...or Larry Pattis, or Doug Young, or Pierre Bensusan, or Ed Gerhard, or Tony Rice, or Julian Lage, or Tommy E, or Michael Chapdelaine, or...well...you get it.

If you are a 1-4 level player, playing on a 6/10 level instrument...you just do not have the chops to play that guitar anywhere near it's performance capability where you could hear that sort of thing.

It's like golf equipment. A $500 driver is not going do anything significant with a $5 swing.

Spend the money on the woods...or even lessons.

duff

[Jimmy Caldwell]

Originally Posted by terken

As a builder I always use hide for acoustically active joints. Bridge, plate joining, braces, bridge plate.

Not so much because I am sure it makes a big difference in the sound but because it tacks up quickly so stuff like braces and bridge plates don't skate around with clamping and clean up is easy.

I close the box with Tightbond Extend which dries hard like the old LMI white. (H Klepper pointed this out on the now defunct professional luthiers forum a while back - thanks Howard, it's true.)

Repairability is a huge reason as well as mentioned in other posts.

I am convinced that filling fret slots with hide which dries like glass does have a positive effect on tone.

I don't upcharge, it's standard an so why not? It is not that hard to use after you get the hang of it and it's fun.

Lastly, the demographic that buys high end guitars usually have high frequency hearing loss anyway. If you really want to find out if it makes a difference ask a six year old.

My experience parallels Terkens. I began using HHG about 10 years ago, not for it's influence on tone, but for it's many advantages for me as a builder. It's actually quite forgiving once you've figured out how to use it and it has huge advantages if you ever find yourself having to fix a mistake. I don't know if it offers any tonal advantages or not, but it does have some physical properties that other adhesives lack.

It's much like the this wood vs. that wood debate (insert your favorites). I continue to believe the most important decision you make is the builder.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by Gmountain

Easy choice for me. I don't want hide glue.

I'm a vegetarian.

So when you EAT your guitar, to get all that great fiber, you don't want have to spit out any of the parts that hide glue might have touched. Good idea...

No, seriously, that's as valid an objection as any. Living in Alaska as I do, and having seen the horrifying effects that poaching walrus herds for their ivory has had on the walrus population numbers, I avoid ivory in any form on my musical instruments. Your objection to hide glue seems equally principled, and perfectly reasonable to me.


Wade Hampton Miller

[00-28]

So, I guess to summarize, those who hear "something" more with guitars that are constructed with hide glue, hear a little more "something", but we really don't know what that "something" is, and if it is truly the hide glue that is responsible for this added "something". For those who don't think there is that added "something" they don't need to pay the extra charge, which in some cases cost more than many great guitars. I hope this makes it all a little clearer.

.......Mike

[Orfeas]

I don't think that I can tell the difference.

[Steel and wood]

The short answer from me is "No".

[Wyllys]

Ask the cow...