Is old stuff better?

ICBM

Good stuff is better. Some of it was made a long time ago.

monquixote said:

As far as things getting better with age a chap I know did some research for Cambridge Uni on this subject and determined that instruments where the wood was under tension like a violin, or an archtop would improve with age, but there was no reason he could determine why the same should be true of a solid body guitar. 

Unfortunately that's typical of classical instrument snobbery. What does he think holds the tension of the strings on a solidbody guitar?

Obviously the effect of the wood is going to be slightly less in a solid, but the neck is the same as in an acoustic guitar, and the wood of the body quite definitely contributes to the resonance.

Of course, such people also generally think that the tone of an electric guitar comes purely from the pickups and nothing else makes any difference.

stonevibe

My mate rang me from Stockholm last night where have was about to drop three grand on a '71 Jazz bass in non original condition as one pickup had been changed. 

My advice was keep his money and buy a Custom Shop one for less and get a better instrument.

But I know he wants the 'vintage' / 'mojo' etc of an old instrument.

Will find out Tuesday when he comes back how that went...

monquixote

ICBM said:

monquixote said:

As far as things getting better with age a chap I know did some research for Cambridge Uni on this subject and determined that instruments where the wood was under tension like a violin, or an archtop would improve with age, but there was no reason he could determine why the same should be true of a solid body guitar. 

Unfortunately that's typical of classical instrument snobbery. What does he think holds the tension of the strings on a solidbody guitar?

Obviously the effect of the wood is going to be slightly less in a solid, but the neck is the same as in an acoustic guitar, and the wood of the body quite definitely contributes to the resonance.

Of course, such people also generally think that the tone of an electric guitar comes purely from the pickups and nothing else makes any difference.

Incorrect assumption there, he was an electric guitarist and an engineer. And he was measuring stuff not just making pronouncements based on dogma.

The point is that the thing that can be measured to change with age on something like a violin is the tension in the top and sides from when it's been shaped. The same is not true of an electric which is a slab of wood. That doesn't mean that the resonance of the wood is not important in an electric, just that there was nothing you could measure that showed it changed with age. 

He was doing research into if blasting instruments with high intensity sound (as I think Yamaha do) has the same effect as genuine age. 

Skipped

With amps - probably not.*
But guitars....Yes I think there was a golden era (for Gibson anyway). In the 70's it was really obvious (IMO) that the guitars made in the fifties and sixties were streets ahead of the new ones. And remember - this was simply based on walking into a guitar shop and comparing new guitars to secondhand guitars. I did not need George Gruhn or anybody else to tell me what was blindingly obvious. I just needed to pick the guitars up...

So that was the starting point.

Today, Gibson are making some wonderful guitars. Lots of people think that the 2013 Historics are the best ever. What is so good about them? They are finally getting around to the details that make them a bit closer to the fifties guitars.
So how do you make a really great Les Paul in 2013? Er.....You get as close as possible to the guitars that were made in the Golden Era. 

BTW - I do sometimes see old Gibsons which are disappointing. They are almost always Collectable guitars that are in need of a refret or some re-wiring that the owner feels is not an option. But that is a different problem.


* The amps made today that appeal to me are based on early designs, but even in the 70's Fender were making wonderful sounding amps (Silverface Twin for example).

jd0272

Let's not forget that a lot of the time, logic goes out the window, and we buy what we want/desire/ache for...

koneguitarist

I remember a few years ago there was an American study done on acoustics, and the conclusion in a nutshell was as follows. Arch tops take approximately 200 years to reach their peak and flat tops approximately 60 years. Lots of other things to take into account but that's what the tests diagnosed. For me a good guitar is a good guitar no matter the age, and likewise a bad one. There is a tendency to look back with Rose tinted glasses, but we all have to be realistic, can anyone tell two les Paul's apart? Yes, but can anyone tell which is which blindfolded, ie hear the new one over the old one? No I don't think so. Every guitar sounds slightly different even straight off the production line of a cad machine. The main issue is now that everything is so much more consistent than the old days. Buy with your ears not shop description and price tag.

ToneControl

I'm talking about new, modern manufacturers making better gear than the big names ever did, rather than whether Gibson or Fender started making very poor guitars (which they did) and whether they can now match their old stuff themselves (which I think they can)

There have been many design improvements over the last 50-60 years, and those old guitars can't benefit from those - they can only be well-made renditions of the techniques available back then.

The stuff that Suhr, Tom Anderson, Matchless, Two Rock, Goodall and Bourgeois make now is frankly amazing, and includes lots of advances in design as well as very high quality levels - so given the quality and techniques and technology, my conclusion is that some new guitars and amps are better than anything available 50-60 years ago.

Whether the aging process pleases individuals is down to personal preference, but there are common thoughts on what most people like.

It is interesting to consider that many people think that the designed electric guitar and amp products of the geniuses at work in the 50s/60s sound better after the pickups have been partially degaussed or when amp components or speakers have degraded, whereas I don't think Leo and his competitors would agree - their efforts were intended to make the guitars/amps sound best new - do we now think they were wrong? Either they did not get it 100% correct, and the designs could be improved (my belief), or the aged vintage instruments are not as good as new ones ;-) So which is it: Leo and Les Paul were wrong with their choices, or vintage guitars are not as good as new copies?

ThePrettyDamned

Also, a lot of people nowadays want to sound like someone.

Back in the day, people wanted to sound good. There is a distinction.

I like a lot of different sounds, and that's cool because you can give me pretty much any guitar and any amp and I'll be quite happy with it.

No point chasing a holy grail, why not make your own? The sound of a guitar is enough to define a genre, so how about looking into sounding different?

People don't like that. A lot either do covers (which makes sense to emulate someone's gear!) or they write original stuff but want to copy another player's sound. I'd rather just sound good.

To distinguish, that doesn't mean not being fussy. But I think it's best to play to strengths. If you have a solid state Marshall mg, don't try to get valvey, clean-but-dirty sounds. Get a good clean and a good crunch instead, and you'll sound good.

ICBM

Leo and Les were not wrong, but their goals were totally different. They wanted the purest, clearest - and for amplification, cleanest and loudest - sounds they could achieve. Now, we want rich, characterful and distorted - harmonically distorted even if not actually clipped, or there would be no difference in clean sounds, since technology has easily reached the point of being able to reproduce a signal almost perfectly over the whole audio range.

And I do genuinely think that solidbody guitars change in tone with age. I've played a lot of old guitars, and a lot of new ones. The old ones sound different - not always enough that you could tell when someone else is playing them, but I do think enough that you can usually tell when you're playing them yourself, even blindfolded. If its not measurable then it's either too fine a change for the instruments or you're measuring the wrong thing.

OilCityPickups

ToneControl said:

I'm talking about new, modern manufacturers making better gear than the big names ever did, rather than whether Gibson or Fender started making very poor guitars (which they did) and whether they can now match their old stuff themselves (which I think they can)

There have been many design improvements over the last 50-60 years, and those old guitars can't benefit from those - they can only be well-made renditions of the techniques available back then.

The stuff that Suhr, Tom Anderson, Matchless, Two Rock, Goodall and Bourgeois make now is frankly amazing, and includes lots of advances in design as well as very high quality levels - so given the quality and techniques and technology, my conclusion is that some new guitars and amps are better than anything available 50-60 years ago.

Whether the aging process pleases individuals is down to personal preference, but there are common thoughts on what most people like.

It is interesting to consider that many people think that the designed electric guitar and amp products of the geniuses at work in the 50s/60s sound better after the pickups have been partially degaussed or when amp components or speakers have degraded, whereas I don't think Leo and his competitors would agree - their efforts were intended to make the guitars/amps sound best new - do we now think they were wrong? Either they did not get it 100% correct, and the designs could be improved (my belief), or the aged vintage instruments are not as good as new ones ;-) So which is it: Leo and Les Paul were wrong with their choices, or vintage guitars are not as good as new copies?

I think the sound that say a 54 fender Strat had in 54 is quite different from the sound it had when it left the factory. Both sounds are pleasing therefore both are valid ... and I don't see how has any point  to say the old design was worse or better. Some people like the tart freshness of a new wine ... some people prefer the smokey smoothness of an old one. We have a choice and that's great.
I'm not sure what technical advances Suhr, Tom Anderson et al benefit from that 50s guitars didn't have. I can tell the sound of a Traditional Tele anywhere ... practically any mix ... how does a Suhr sound? How can you tell a Tom Anderson in the mix? They have gadgets and doohickies ... but they are not really more technically advanced ... their pickups are wire and magnets ... their bodies are wood ... to my eyes most of them are just soulless super Strats for people with deep pockets (dons fireproof suit)

ToneControl

ICBM said:

Leo and Les were not wrong, but their goals were totally different. They wanted the purest, clearest - and for amplification, cleanest and loudest - sounds they could achieve. Now, we want rich, characterful and distorted - harmonically distorted even if not actually clipped, or there would be no difference in clean sounds, since technology has easily reached the point of being able to reproduce a signal almost perfectly over the whole audio range.

And I do genuinely think that solidbody guitars change in tone with age. I've played a lot of old guitars, and a lot of new ones. The old ones sound different - not always enough that you could tell when someone else is playing them, but I do think enough that you can usually tell when you're playing them yourself, even blindfolded. If its not measurable then it's either too fine a change for the instruments or you're measuring the wrong thing.

I agree

My point is that if some think that aging has improved the old guitars, then it's clear that they could buy guitars that have been made new to a different spec that was more pleasing to them, therefore the design was not fine tuned to that player's preferences.

Personally I think aging is largely about deterioration in lots of areas (I have joints to prove it), and it's a very personal judgement to look on that as a positive change. To design-in changes you prefer, you can use weaker magnets, round the edges of fretboards, treat wood sonically, etc.

It's a bit hit-and-miss to take the sum total of changes caused by 50-60 years of use, wear and tear and deterioration and declare it as an improvement, which is what often happens.

 

 

ICBM

ToneControl said:

My point is that if some think that aging has improved the old guitars, then it's clear that they could buy guitars that have been made new to a different spec that was more pleasing to them, therefore the design was not fine tuned to that player's preferences.

Personally I think aging is largely about deterioration in lots of areas (I have joints to prove it), and it's a very personal judgement to look on that as a positive change. To design-in changes you prefer, you can use weaker magnets, round the edges of fretboards, treat wood sonically, etc.

It's a bit hit-and-miss to take the sum total of changes caused by 50-60 years of use, wear and tear and deterioration and declare it as an improvement, which is what often happens. 

Exactly! I didn't mean that all old guitars sound good and new ones sound bad - quite the opposite, I've played plenty of great new guitars and plenty of 'vintage' dogs too - but that there is an 'old guitar sound'. It's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, but whatever it is is in the wood or the combination of the wood, glue, finish etc, and not in the pickups. New pickups in an old guitar don't make it sound like a new guitar, nor vice versa.

impmann

I'm not sure everyone wants their guitar tone distorted - that's not true. Yes we can all argue the semantics of what distortion actually is but not everyone wants distortion as such. A harmonically rich sound, perhaps.

Btw I sold my '65 Strat as I found a better sounding and playing USA standard Strat in the shop I worked in. That was an early 90s guitar - supposedly from a less than great period of USA production.

ToneControl

TheGuitarWeasel said:

ToneControl said:

I'm talking about new, modern manufacturers making better gear than the big names ever did, rather than whether Gibson or Fender started making very poor guitars (which they did) and whether they can now match their old stuff themselves (which I think they can)

There have been many design improvements over the last 50-60 years, and those old guitars can't benefit from those - they can only be well-made renditions of the techniques available back then.

The stuff that Suhr, Tom Anderson, Matchless, Two Rock, Goodall and Bourgeois make now is frankly amazing, and includes lots of advances in design as well as very high quality levels - so given the quality and techniques and technology, my conclusion is that some new guitars and amps are better than anything available 50-60 years ago.

Whether the aging process pleases individuals is down to personal preference, but there are common thoughts on what most people like.

It is interesting to consider that many people think that the designed electric guitar and amp products of the geniuses at work in the 50s/60s sound better after the pickups have been partially degaussed or when amp components or speakers have degraded, whereas I don't think Leo and his competitors would agree - their efforts were intended to make the guitars/amps sound best new - do we now think they were wrong? Either they did not get it 100% correct, and the designs could be improved (my belief), or the aged vintage instruments are not as good as new ones ;-) So which is it: Leo and Les Paul were wrong with their choices, or vintage guitars are not as good as new copies?

I think the sound that say a 54 fender Strat had in 54 is quite different from the sound it had when it left the factory. Both sounds are pleasing therefore both are valid ... and I don't see how has any point  to say the old design was worse or better. Some people like the tart freshness of a new wine ... some people prefer the smokey smoothness of an old one. We have a choice and that's great.
I'm not sure what technical advances Suhr, Tom Anderson et al benefit from that 50s guitars didn't have. I can tell the sound of a Traditional Tele anywhere ... practically any mix ... how does a Suhr sound? How can you tell a Tom Anderson in the mix? They have gadgets and doohickies ... but they are not really more technically advanced ... their pickups are wire and magnets ... their bodies are wood ... to my eyes most of them are just soulless super Strats for people with deep pockets (dons fireproof suit)

fair play to people who want new or aged pickups, personal preference.

I am suggesting that the 50s/60s can't be the highpoint of guitar / amp manufacture that can never be repeated or bettered, here's some reasons:

1. People who want the old stuff generally want it old and aged, implying the original spec would not have pleased them as much as aged spec, which you can buy now - ironically, therefore, the original designs weren't fully what even these traditionalists prefer. I am being mischievous on this point of course
2. Technology, science, machinery and luthiery (and electronics) have all improved, I'm very sure this is a fact, not personal preference. Does anyone believe that original and significant improvements in amp and guitar design have not been numerous since 1960? The range of fine-tuned pickups available now is a case in point, today's vintage spec stuff is made to target specific designs with modifiers for aging or whatever, rather than the hit and miss lottery you would have got buying a new guitar back then 
3. Application of these advances to guitars and amps is something tangible - the modern interpretations of classic designs all seem improved to me, and whilst people enjoy a joke about dentists with Suhrs and Andersons, these really are fine-tuned player's guitars - the designs were made for Californian pros, not for collectors. Ironically I would assume wealthy collectors would be buying up all these 50s/60s guitars rather than new professional grade instruments, so the demand for vintage copies may be driven by the dentists! Anyway, don't be fooled by the prettiness, these Suhrs and Andersons (not uniquely, just an example) have improved playability, tuning and flexibility, e.g. Buzz Feiten intonation, better balanced pickups, pot loading changing to match each pickup,  etc, these are noticeable improvements, but, the style and pickups result in sounds that will still fall into the old favourite categories, since any really new designs have been rejected by us conservative guitarists - not the luthiers' fault - we should all be playing stuff like @Octatonic's light weights, and my baritone adventures would be on a more well-worn path
4. The improvement in fine tuning of feel and tone is very noticeable to me, I sold my 1963 and 1990s Voxes when I got my DC30, and I sold my point-to-point Fender twin when I got my Dumble HRM clone. There are many enhancements in their design and execution, in amps, their have been massive improvements since the 80s, and whilst some classics still stand out, none of them can match the best of breed modern designs for flexibility and fine detail in the sounds, as you would expect after 50 years of tinkering - why would anyone not expect improvements?
5. overdrive pedals used to be mostly awful, now many of them are better than amp-generated overdrive, contrary to the dogma of the 80s/90s which I was immersed in myself

 

So my personal opinions are:

• Old design does not mean best design, go upstairs in Musicground to see the worst old stuff, but even the best 50s/60s stuff can be improved
• Aged instruments or amps are not necessarily better. For amps I think usually worse.
• All designs can always be improved, particularly when we are talking the first 50 years of change after the initial design
• Technology, skills and understanding have all improved, and the best gear today will be better for it

 

 

 

UnclePsychosis

Old stuff is cool. Many musicians can't tell the difference between "cool" and "good". Thats not to say that there isn't old stuff which is also good. 

ICBM

impmann said:

I'm not sure everyone wants their guitar tone distorted - that's not true. Yes we can all argue the semantics of what distortion actually is but not everyone wants distortion as such. A harmonically rich sound, perhaps.

That is distortion. It's not semantics at all, it's an important distinction which matters enormously to electric guitar sound. (What guitarists call distortion is *clipping*, which is a specific and extreme type.)

If you want to hear what an undistorted electric guitar sounds like, DI it and listen to it through studio monitors or a good PA system. It's actually not a *bad* sound - I like it for 'pseudo-acoustic' tones sometimes - but it definitely isn't everyone's idea of what a great clean electric guitar tone is like, I don't think.

ThePrettyDamned

ICBM said:

impmann said:

I'm not sure everyone wants their guitar tone distorted - that's not true. Yes we can all argue the semantics of what distortion actually is but not everyone wants distortion as such. A harmonically rich sound, perhaps.

That is distortion. It's not semantics at all, it's an important distinction which matters enormously to electric guitar sound. (What guitarists call distortion is *clipping*, which is a specific and extreme type.)

If you want to hear what an undistorted electric guitar sounds like, DI it and listen to it through studio monitors or a good PA system. It's actually not a *bad* sound - I like it for 'pseudo-acoustic' tones sometimes - but it definitely isn't everyone's idea of what a great clean electric guitar tone is like, I don't think.

I really hate that sound because it's so flat and dead. BUT I heard that the Beatles used to overdrive the input on the desk for some of their overdrive, including Birthday - which I love! If someone made a pedal that did that one sound...

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

I heard that the Beatles used to overdrive the input on the desk for some of their overdrive, including Birthday - which I love! If someone made a pedal that did that one sound…

'Revolution' is the classic example.

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to do in a pedal that will be run through a guitar amp because it's the full-range response of the direct recording which gives it that savage edge. If you put it through guitar speakers you won't get that.

WezV

ToneControl said:

I thought the ideas about old instruments improved was because the wood had learned to resonate better with regular use. Probably much less noticeable with solid body electrics that acoustics. The wood can't dry out more, it's all kiln treated or aged first, the water content just varies up and down with your local weather in your house/car/loft/cellar

......

 

Not commonly discussed, but I have read that unlike violins, which last for 100s of years, acoustics die eventually, apparently after 30-40 years they start to sound worse rather than better. Does anyone know more about this?

this is mainly about acoustics, but there is more to wood aging than just drying out

there is some evidence the structure of the wood does continue to change, essentially the cellulose in those plant cells loose mass and plasticise as they age. the theory is that it is better to have it used to being a guitar as it sets into this  older structure.  as this happens they actually start to be influenced less by the surrounding humidity, they loose their hydroscopic abilities.   if you look at very old acoustic tops they can often be starting to turn translucent.

whilst on the subject of acoustic instruments there is an easy way to make them sound awesome and give more volume.  you force some tension in the top with sprung braces, but as the instrument settles in you loose that tension and the sound can deteriorate    Benedetto talks about the idea of using sprung braces in his book and reckons you get about 5 years before the sound starts to deteriorate..  big problem on a guitar, not so much on a violin which is designed to be dismantled

back on electrics, i am less sure its to do with the wood ageing, for me its more to do with the old stocks of wood just being generally better.   they didn't have to go looking for suitable wood, it was just there for the taking

ESBlonde

I think old wood generally provides better tone. Probably because the amount of properly seasoned timber available was adequate for the manufacturing of the time.

The Classic designs (LP, Start, Tele etc.) were designed to be mass produced in the factories of the day. Whilst Gibson liked to advertise that they had skilled craftsmen (so the LP had a carved top) they were in fact assembly line workers in the 50s. Guitars then were made to last a lifetime and most people only owned one guitar. Electric guitars were designed to emulate acoustic guitars or give a decent representation only louder. Leo was (probably still is) the guitar amp designer but he strove to get (then) hi fi sounds from valves and paper cones.

What we have become accustomed to is the way certain artists took those designs and made art/music that has lasted. Our ears are conditioned to those sounds.

I am privileged to own an old amp and have played/owned in the past a bunch of old guitars. Many were good and desirable, I wonder if they left the factory like that or at some stage of their lives they found themselves in the hands of someone to tweak them for optimum performance.