The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 07-25-2017, 07:15 AM
invguy921's Avatar
invguy921 invguy921 is offline
Lovin' nice guitars...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. Central Missouri
Posts: 2,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Carruth View Post
The scratches in the back of the guitar in Tokyo mattered a great deal to the buyer, due to the culture he is in. No doubt one of his buddies has a guitar where there are no scratches in the finish that show up even under magnification, and he 'loses face' if there are scratches on his. At the same time, he can gain face over the maker if he can find a flaw the maker missed. This is certainly a relentless pressure on makers to improve their chops, but one has to wonder if it's a real improvement in the essential quality of the guitar. Would a highly polished plywood box that sounded poor be a better one?
Oh my goodness...I can say that I have returned two of six or so custom guitars I've had built from a couple of notable builders for additional finish work. I did so because it didn't take a magnifying glass or even a real good set of eyes to see the scratches and swirls on the guitar top and on the headstock. In both cases, the guitars came back to me much improved, but swirls were still evident, and the finish far from "production guitar" standards. I guess I've just come to "expect it" from "non-production" builds, although I believe I should expect a bit more given the premium paid for such instruments.

Frankly, there's almost nothing worse to me than getting a brand new custom guitar that I have invested a fair amount of money in that isn't shiny and smooth and looks finished...call me anal retentive lol. BUT, to look at it under a magnifying glass...THAT is beyond reason. If that were the "expected standard", I'm guessing I would own only Taylors. But the fact is, I haven't had a Taylor under a microscope either so possibly they wouldn't be able to pass such scrutiny
__________________
"A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold."

Woody (aka: Mike)


FOR SALE: Kinnaird Brazilian!!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-25-2017, 09:16 AM
JoeCharter JoeCharter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terken View Post
That is exactly what happened when I took a couple of my early ones to Jim Olson for a critique back in 2004.

He focused mainly on fit and finish and some structural features. When I asked him about tone he said "It sounds good, they all sound good---to someone."
Jim O is always right.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-25-2017, 09:26 AM
JoeCharter JoeCharter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
It is probably correct to assume that as tone is more a subjective thing (read Kant's epistemology), the only concrete element for customers/people to apply their mind to is the fit n finish....which is a shame.
Let's face it, a guitar gains a reputation for sounding "good" when it is played by a bunch of competent and well known players over a certain period of time.

Everything else is just blah blah blah.

I don't think it's a shame that fit and finish be the only non-subjective aspects of a guitar. It just shows that there's ears for all kinds of sounds.

Even though it is a taboo topic among purists, people still buy with their eyes. Ugly guitars don't sell. They never will.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-25-2017, 10:19 AM
Beau Hannam Beau Hannam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 50
Lightbulb

Howard & Redir-
To my understanding, Kant's theory of Perception relates to our understanding of the external world. He recognised that people see things differently (eg the sky) according to their experiences and "a priori" knowledge.

Our minds perceive everything through the filters of understanding and recognition according to what has been previously seen, heard, smelt and thought on etc through our lives.

We all see the colour blue when we look at the sky, but we can't all agree (as easily) on exactly which colour blue we see. Each person perceives a slightly different tone of blue (or not blue) according to their understanding of colour (in this example).

Further, the more information we assimilate on a single and a variety of topics, the more clarified assessment we can make of a thing, be it a colour, an object, or a metaphysical topic such as the mind.
But we can never all perfectly know a thing the same, due to our different experiences throughout life. (Originally, this was all developed for the argument of perfectly 'knowing' God.)

Lastly, and from this, we can never all talk about the same quality of tone of an instrument in the same way as everything we perceive (e.g. the quality of tone) is recieved to our minds through the millions of subjective experiences of our different lives.
This also applies to finish and fit, playability, action, set up, neck shape and so on, however Kant would say that objects are more easily agreed upon then a metaphysical thing, such as tone and the quality of it.

(Although tone is actually a physical thing, being sound waves, which are vibrating energy but splitting hairs like that for this argument is as helpful to saying that as a ghost is but vibrating energy- do we all play music or ghosts....?)

also,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanu..._of_perception

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
Great to see a reference to Kant here. But can you be a bit more specific about the place in Kant's Critiques to which you are referring? I don't recall him categorizing perceptions in terms of degrees of subjectivity. But I confess to never having read the Second and Third Critiques.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redir View Post
There is also playability. Action, set up, neck shape and so on that has a huge first impression factor.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-25-2017, 10:43 AM
Beau Hannam Beau Hannam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 50
Default

Yes, but our understanding of what is 'good tone' fluctuates over time, as does and instruments quality of tone. What a Stradivarius sounds like now, was different to how it sounded when it was created. Did it change first, then us, or vise versa?

In the end, it doesn't or shouldn't matter- If it is pleasing to your ears and eyes, then it is good.
The general problem (with everything) is that
(1) People listen with their eyes, and
(2) People perceive something as being good (of quality) if their peers agree with them.

We all see this on this (and all other) forums where customers will take a poll to see which set of tonewood they should use for their up coming build....People agree that it is of quality if other people agree that it is quality.

Innovation begins with realising that quality is quality, like 2 + 2 equals 4. Fashion says this 2 + 2 = 4.25 this season.
However, money can be made by saying 2+2=4.25 and and you are ugly (or lack quality) if you don't agree.
We must all have the courage to see quality where it is, disregarding peers who listen with eyes and tell us to follow.

I say this as a maker who builds good looking instruments and with every instrument i make i think (as im polishing the mirror finish like a brain dead monkey) that the old makers had it right- ie- All about tone, less on perfect miters/bling and none on mirror finish perfection (im thinking old classical/flamenco guitars and old violins all who didn't mindlessly polish their finish to mirrors to sell. Violins are alot about finish quality these days, but its a different sort of quality they look for, not a mirror finish.)

I agree that ugly guitars don't sell and never will and I agree they shouldn't as the world is too full of ugly things. As luthiers we should make things as beautiful as possible- this doesn't mean blingy, just not ugly....and I don't define ugly as a few micro scratches in a finish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeCharter View Post
Let's face it, a guitar gains a reputation for sounding "good" when it is played by a bunch of competent and well known players over a certain period of time.

Everything else is just blah blah blah.

I don't think it's a shame that fit and finish be the only non-subjective aspects of a guitar. It just shows that there's ears for all kinds of sounds.

Even though it is a taboo topic among purists, people still buy with their eyes. Ugly guitars don't sell. They never will.

Last edited by Beau Hannam; 07-25-2017 at 10:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:03 PM
Alan Carruth Alan Carruth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,180
Default

Ovation has found the secret of a perfect level finish on the top: a full millimeter thickness of epoxy, sprayed on in a single coat. It's level and stays that way until it crazes. What all that mass and stiffness do to the sound is not wonderful, however. I've replaced tops on Ovations, and they always sound much better.

This is one place where tone certainly conflicts with the 'flawless' esthetic. Finish adds mass and stiffness, and very often, damping to the system, all of which reduce some aspects of tone. You need a finish to protect the wood against dirt and moisture, but for that anything that forms a reasonably hard water and chemical resistant film will do. The 'perfect' finish in that respect might be a one molecule thick layer of diamond. That would not provide much mechanical protection against dings and scratches, so you do have to build up some thickness. In terms of tone, though, less is generally better.

Finish also contributes to the esthetic by providing a smooth surface and by bringing out the 'light' of the wood. Part of the look of the surface comes from having a finish with the relatively high refractive index, so that light reflects off it. On the other hand, a finish that has the same refractive index as cellulose will give a greater 'depth' and bring out the color and grain of the wood. The higher index finishes have a more of a 'surface' look. It's probably impossible to have both.

As far as I know, all finishes do tend to shrink a bit after they're applied. Normally they do most of that fairly quickly, but how quick 'quick' is varies. Epoxy, and possibly UV cure poly (with which I have scant experience), shrink very little. A solvent release finish, such as shellac or nitrocellulose lacquer, will take some time to 'outgas', and shrink as it does. Shellac takes longer to shrink back because alcohol is less volatile than lacquer thinner. A reactive finish like oil-resin varnish, can take quite a while to fully shrink back, since it first has to release all of it's 'vehicle', and then cure, often by oxidation. This can take months.

So, if a level coating with a bright surface is your goal, epoxy or UV polyester with a high index would fill the bill. You'd apply it fairly thickly, to minimize the effects of future wood movement. If tone is the objective, you'd do what many Classical guitar makers still do and French polish with shellac. It's possible to produce a fairly level surface that way even with a thin coating, but id doesn't provide much protection to the wood and can break down rapidly when exposed to sweat. Since it takes months to really stop shrinking you will see the structure of the wood, and things like glue lines, through the finish unless the maker holds it for long enough to work those out. In terms of bringing out the beauty and 'light' of wood it's hard to beat an oil-resin varnish, but those shrink even more and for longer than shellac. A good varnish will be tougher (more scratch resistant) than either nitro or shellac at a given thickness, but also more flexible, and thus prone to denting. And so on.

The point of all this is that all of the finishes have advantages and drawbacks. Many of the esthetic issues can be overcome by the simple expenditure of time and effort. It's entirely possible to spend more time on the finish than on actually making the guitar.

There is an old saying: "Everybody wants things that are good, fast, and cheap. You can have any two."
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:49 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeCharter View Post
Let's face it, a guitar gains a reputation for sounding "good" when it is played by a bunch of competent and well known players over a certain period of time.

Everything else is just blah blah blah.

I don't think it's a shame that fit and finish be the only non-subjective aspects of a guitar. It just shows that there's ears for all kinds of sounds.

Even though it is a taboo topic among purists, people still buy with their eyes. Ugly guitars don't sell. They never will.
As I've said to you before, Mau, you assume that beauty and ugliness are objective qualities and that people agree about which guitars have them. I see ample evidence that this is not the case.

For one thing, many of us consider some of the guitars that sell well to be ugly. But let's put that aside, because those guitars mostly have well-regulated fit and finish (I like David Pye's use of the term 'regulation' to mean uniformity since it is so much more objective than 'good' or 'bad'). What people may dislike about these guitars is an aesthetic concept rather than its execution.

Instead I'll remind you of my "Wabi-Sabi" guitar, with which I set out to pursue an aesthetic that rejects highly regulated visual aspects. You and Juston criticized me for suggesting an alternative to the standard of high regulation, and when you said that people just want a beautiful guitar, my reply was that there is more than one standard of beauty. Juston said that I would never be able to sell the guitar.

It sold within a week of being completed, the first day I brought it to a small guitar show. It's owner does not just like the way it sounds; he thinks it is beautiful.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-25-2017, 01:33 PM
Beau Hannam Beau Hannam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 50
Default

Alan-
You may find this book interesting.
http://www.violinvarnishbook.net/

It's chapter on light refraction through finish films was illuminating and led me to understand that the best nitro finish (in regard to the least amount of refraction, thus the most transparent finish) would be to spray on all the coats and sand back only once at the very end. This being because each cut back of finish introduces thousands of sanding scratches all which refract light and dilute the potential of a fully transparent film. Also, a wood surface that is scraped further helps in the lush look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Carruth View Post

Finish also contributes to the esthetic by providing a smooth surface and by bringing out the 'light' of the wood. Part of the look of the surface comes from having a finish with the relatively high refractive index, so that light reflects off it. On the other hand, a finish that has the same refractive index as cellulose will give a greater 'depth' and bring out the color and grain of the wood. The higher index finishes have a more of a 'surface' look. It's probably impossible to have both.
."
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-25-2017, 01:51 PM
Jobe Jobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
As I've said to you before, Mau, you assume that beauty and ugliness are objective qualities and that people agree about which guitars have them. I see ample evidence that this is not the case.

For one thing, many of us consider some of the guitars that sell well to be ugly. But let's put that aside, because those guitars mostly have well-regulated fit and finish (I like David Pye's use of the term 'regulation' to mean uniformity since it is so much more objective than 'good' or 'bad'). What people may dislike about these guitars is an aesthetic concept rather than its execution.

Instead I'll remind you of my "Wabi-Sabi" guitar, with which I set out to pursue an aesthetic that rejects highly regulated visual aspects. You and Juston criticized me for suggesting an alternative to the standard of high regulation, and when you said that people just want a beautiful guitar, my reply was that there is more than one standard of beauty. Juston said that I would never be able to sell the guitar.

It sold within a week of being completed, the first day I brought it to a small guitar show. It's owner does not just like the way it sounds; he thinks it is beautiful.
Interesting and telling. If we could approach a guitar blind and only consider touch (feel) and sound we would be better judges of pleasure as it relates to each player. It seems natural that if the touch and sound are present your eyes will see beauty. Beauty from a proper perspective and perhaps unexpected. The superficial fades into the mist. "Your" guitar speaks to you on a very curious level for all the right reasons. And to each their own. Guitars are so organic. It takes more than eyes to see.

Last edited by Jobe; 07-25-2017 at 01:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:39 PM
Beau Hannam Beau Hannam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 50
Default

Nice sentences Jobe.
Indeed, perhaps the only thing is to judge an instrument in the dark so as not to be mislead by senses other than hearing and touch... it may lead to perfumed guitars though, but i'm not opposed to sandalwood transverse bars

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobe View Post
Interesting and telling. If we could approach a guitar blind and only consider touch (feel) and sound we would be better judges of pleasure as it relates to each player. It seems natural that if the touch and sound are present your eyes will see beauty. Beauty from a proper perspective and perhaps unexpected. The superficial fades into the mist. "Your" guitar speaks to you on a very curious level for all the right reasons. And to each their own. Guitars are so organic. It takes more than eyes to see.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-25-2017, 06:36 PM
Hasbro Hasbro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 614
Default

I'm honestly surprised there is this much of a focus on fit and finish , perhaps I am unique in that the things that have caught "my ear" have always been what I could not get out of my head....vs some great looming guitar ive never heard. of course it's great if the guitar is gorgeous to look at but I spend more time listening as I play than staring at it, also I can appreciate that lutgier built guitars do not look like they come perfectly out of a factory.

For example a lot of very well-built guitars suck up the bracing and the top has all kinds of waves in it under the light ...that is something you will never find in a perfectly set up Taylor because the layperson will look at that and think what's wrong with that guitar? .... where someone who knows better might say wow that may have a very thin top and could have some seriously good tone. We are talking about instruments here, not inanimate furniture for crying out loud. The sound I am after in my head has about a 10 to one importance over fit and finish , and a five to one over aesthetics. That is why getting back to the original question of this thread I strongly believe a highly unique and charactered tone is what would set a luthier apart. All these things are in the eye of the beholder and we all let good hard-earned earned money go for different reasons, but I am someone who has bought my fair share of guitars for the aforementioned reasons
__________________
really likes guitars
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-25-2017, 08:18 PM
redir redir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mountains of Virginia
Posts: 7,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
Nice sentences Jobe.
Indeed, perhaps the only thing is to judge an instrument in the dark so as not to be mislead by senses other than hearing and touch... it may lead to perfumed guitars though, but i'm not opposed to sandalwood transverse bars
It's funny though, lots of people find the smell of a guitar to be an aesthetic too. I know I do
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:42 PM
JoeCharter JoeCharter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
Yes, but our understanding of what is 'good tone' fluctuates over time, as does and instruments quality of tone. What a Stradivarius sounds like now, was different to how it sounded when it was created. Did it change first, then us, or vise versa?
I think people's preferences tend to fluctuate with the "dominant" musicians of their era. When a certain tone or spec is closely associated with a popular musician, suddenly it becomes more desirable.

FWIW, in performance situations, I think people vastly overestimate their ability to recognize the brand/builder of an instrument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
In the end, it doesn't or shouldn't matter- If it is pleasing to your ears and eyes, then it is good.
The general problem (with everything) is that
(1) People listen with their eyes, and
(2) People perceive something as being good (of quality) if their peers agree with them.

We all see this on this (and all other) forums where customers will take a poll to see which set of tonewood they should use for their up coming build....People agree that it is of quality if other people agree that it is quality.
I think the two issues that you've outlined apply to mostly everything in life, whether on forums or elsewhere.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with #1... If only function mattered and looks were not important, a lot of people would be driving Ford Tempos and wear brown shirts. Now that would be rather sad.

As for #2, when about half of the audience says A and the other half says B, I call BS. But if there's a strong consensus, I think there's usually a reason for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
Innovation begins with realising that quality is quality, like 2 + 2 equals 4. Fashion says this 2 + 2 = 4.25 this season.
However, money can be made by saying 2+2=4.25 and and you are ugly (or lack quality) if you don't agree.
We must all have the courage to see quality where it is, disregarding peers who listen with eyes and tell us to follow.
You've probably noticed how much heat that I get in the Custom Shop for saying things like looks matter in musical instruments... I'm not here to blindly agree with others nor am I trying to impose my opinion -- but rather I'm describing behaviour as I see it.

I also think that tradition plays an important role for musicians. When it comes to investing a significant amount of money, most people want a classic that will survive the test of time rather than the flavour of the month.

This goes hand in hand with branding and reputation. When quality isn't that obvious to the naked eye, people find reassurance in familiarity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
I say this as a maker who builds good looking instruments and with every instrument i make i think (as im polishing the mirror finish like a brain dead monkey) that the old makers had it right- ie- All about tone, less on perfect miters/bling and none on mirror finish perfection (im thinking old classical/flamenco guitars and old violins all who didn't mindlessly polish their finish to mirrors to sell. Violins are alot about finish quality these days, but its a different sort of quality they look for, not a mirror finish.)
The art has evolved, the goal post has been pushed further. I think it's a good thing. Even if you're an overzealous polisher, I'm sure that you worry about the tone of your instruments just as much.

Nowadays the best luthiers are able to deliver great sounding instruments that play great and look great. It's all part of the final package.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Hannam View Post
I agree that ugly guitars don't sell and never will and I agree they shouldn't as the world is too full of ugly things. As luthiers we should make things as beautiful as possible- this doesn't mean blingy, just not ugly....and I don't define ugly as a few micro scratches in a finish.
I think we can all agree that the Asian case was a bit extreme. I was raised in an Asian family. We used to cover our remote controls in plastic bags. I know the feeling...

That being said, there are a lot of sloppy builders out there. I think those guys have no business charging big bucks for their work -- and usually the market takes care of them.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:56 PM
JoeCharter JoeCharter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
As I've said to you before, Mau, you assume that beauty and ugliness are objective qualities and that people agree about which guitars have them. I see ample evidence that this is not the case.

For one thing, many of us consider some of the guitars that sell well to be ugly. But let's put that aside, because those guitars mostly have well-regulated fit and finish (I like David Pye's use of the term 'regulation' to mean uniformity since it is so much more objective than 'good' or 'bad'). What people may dislike about these guitars is an aesthetic concept rather than its execution.

Instead I'll remind you of my "Wabi-Sabi" guitar, with which I set out to pursue an aesthetic that rejects highly regulated visual aspects. You and Juston criticized me for suggesting an alternative to the standard of high regulation, and when you said that people just want a beautiful guitar, my reply was that there is more than one standard of beauty. Juston said that I would never be able to sell the guitar.

It sold within a week of being completed, the first day I brought it to a small guitar show. It's owner does not just like the way it sounds; he thinks it is beautiful.
Howard, I think your memory is playing tricks on you on this very topic as you keep putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

I have never said that your Wabi-Sabi guitar was "ugly" or that it would not sell. Quite frankly I thought the discussion was awful but the guitar was pretty and I'm not surprised that it was a success.

What I did take offense with were some of your harsh and judgmental comments about people who obsessed about certain visual aspects. I mentioned it to you offline and you edited your comment, presumably because you agreed with me. We're cool here, no need to revisit.

I actually like a lot of the Wabi-Sabi art and would welcome it in my home anytime. But like I've said before, some imperfections are prettier than others. If anyone here thinks that Wabi-Sabi is NOT regulated, I'd suggest that they think again.

This is not to say that there's only one standard of beauty -- but some artists are simply more talented than others, regardless of the style that they're going for.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-26-2017, 12:52 AM
gitarro gitarro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,510
Default

Call it wabi sabi or regulation or whatever you want - if you can sell it to people that what you make is beautiful and desirable and make them want it enough to put down the Benjamins for it, then you will get the sale and at the end of the day, somebody thinks it's pretty and sounds good so the luthier has achieved his purpose and put food on the table.

But for the mainstream guitar buyer who buys a custom guitar from a lutthier, most want the highest quality of fit and fitness AND tone an responsiveness exceeding factory guitars. The luthier who can meet and exceed these requirements will never lack for customers.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=