Re: poly vs. nitro clear coat - age

In article <UICdnY5mEM216ZTbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Evans <gtrdonevans@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Squier wrote:
In article <Q7adnWk6kMUkX5XbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Evans
<gtrdonevans@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Squier wrote:
In article <Q6adnfqWO4QL0pXbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Evans
<gtrdonevans@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Squier wrote:
In article <130ftsmeehj3d15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jim
<askme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Guncho wrote:
The finish on a solid body guitar has no affect on the tone
what so ever.


This is incorrect so any newbies please disregard it. Keith is
wrong.


I challenge ANYBODY to tell the difference in tone between two
solid body guitars, one with nitro, one with poly. Violins,
acoustic guitars, etc. are different. And I own a vintage nitro
finished Strat. There are just too many other variables that
make the finish on a SOLID body guitar much less of a factor.
That's my opinion.



On an acoustic I'd say that the poly is superior because its
thinner.


I'm pretty sure that's totally incorrect as well.

Depends. I'm pretty sure that my Ibanez Artwood is poly, and it
is very thin, thin enough that you can feel the grain in the
solid Engelmann spruce top.



Chris



Ok - here's my take on this - enough of the voodoo -

String energy, Solid Body Electric Guitars and pickups.

Yes - the wood (and general construction of the guitar and all its
parts)
does matter but ONLY as it relates to either facillitating
or damping string vibration. The construction of the guitar
matters but only as it relates to the enhancement or detriment of
string vibration.

You talk like that's a small thing. It isn't. If it was, you
would have trouble telling a Strat with humbuckers from a Les Paul.

Once you plug in a solid body elec. the pups can only deal with
string
vibration and then send it down the line as elec. signal.
The pups cannot 'hear' or see wood vibrations directly.

Tap on a pickup ... if it isn't silent, you are off base here.


ok... continue on reading if u dare

I dared last time. I'm not going to respond to every point. You
repeat yourself a lot here, so I'll just try to pick up the stuff I
really disagreed with.



What you are hearing when you place the headstock against another
piece of resonant wood is the residual energy being dissapated and
transfered from one piece of wood to the next. You are creating a
diaphragm... nothing to do with sustain - more with the ability to
increase the volume of the the resonant energy that is loaded into
the wood of a solid body after you strum or plucj the strings
(energy transferance.. hand - strings - wood and other parts of
guitar).

Not quite sure how you "load" energy into a guitar, but OK.
Anything that dissapates energy will affect the energy source to
some degree. In this case, we're talking about the strings. When
you touch the guitar to anything, you are affecting the resonance
of the body, and so it's effect on the vibration of the string.

however the pickups can only 'see' the energy of the metal strings
which form an electro-magnetic feast for the pups to deal with.
Pups cannot 'see' or deal with vibrating wood or anything else
except string vibration and the variances of those vibrations.

Only in the case of perfectly un-microphonic pickups are you right.


Here is the crux of
the biscuit though -

1. Pickups can only deal with energy loaded into the strings.
Pickups are magnetic and can only deal with the energy placed
into the metal strings above them or in some cases energy
loaded into metal (such as a bridge piece or inserted piece
that is metal placed into an acoustic type guitar etc) that
vibrates as a result of strings being plucked/strummed or
otherwise loaded
with energy.

By loaded with energy you mean inertia, right? There is no energy
source beyond the pick or hammering on of strings. Everything else
from there on out is expending or dissipating that energy.
Anything absorbing that energy in a non-linear fashion affects the
tone.


2. Electric/magnetic pickups CAN NOT "see" the vibrations from the
wood. Yes - when you strum a guitar the energy loaded into the
strings does transfer to the wood and other parts of the guitar
such as the nut bridge, etc.. BUT the pups cannot do anything
with this offloaded energy directly. They can only deal with
the energy of the string vibrations.

Not true. See above. I don't disagree that the majority the
pickup output comes from the strings, but not all. According to
you, my son's $170 Ibanez should sound just like a Les Paul, if I
put the same pickups on it. I doubt that.

Only indirectly (and this is
suspect) can the energy transfer from string to wood and other
guitar parts actually affect tone since the residual energy
from the initial loading of the strings to vibration of the
wood can in some cases actually come back and continue to
vibrate down the strings. The problem here is that the strings
on a solid body electric are actually fairly isolated from the
wood itself. Only a small percentage of energy loaded into
the strings initially (string vibration is the result of this)
actually dissapates into the wood.

Actually, that's one of reasons solid body guitars sustain more
than hollow body guitars.

When you place the headstock onto another piece of wood
or anything else that can also have a resonance point you are
effectively creating a diaphragm that acts much like a
vibrating speaker so you can hear the wood vibrate at certain
tone oscilations. The pickups cannot hear this since wood
does not create a magnetic field. Yes, other parts of the
guitar can affect string vibration - its duration or the
opposite, the damping of string vibration. A nut made of felt
would definitely put a damper on the strings, where as a nut
made of brass would definitely create a longer sustain of
string vibration since a lot less energy is being absorbed by
the metal brass nut (this leaving more energy in the strings to
keep vibrating.. actually oscillating) as opposed to a felt nut
which would absorb a lot of the string energy and dissipate it
within the felt.

3. People will strum or play an electric solid body unplugged and
here is where you can hear the residual energy of transfer to
the wood. You obviously hear the strings vibrating that is
giving you the bulk of what you hear when it is unplugged. But
you are also hearing the residual vibrations of the wood itself
(though subtle it's there) which adds to the tone. In a sense
the solid body is being heard like any other acoustic non-elec.
guitar. However it is false to assume that this has
necessarily anything to do with what the guitar will sound
like plugged in.

Why is it false?

Once plugged in - all
that matters to the pickups is what the strings are doing. In
some very small matter the wood plays a part only if that
residual energy (wood vibration) can be channeled back into
making the strings vibrate further. The idea of a solid body
is that the residual energy from the wood is isolated from the
strings. So people that consider solid body electrics with
properties with that of an acoustic are misguided. An acoustic
guitar is designed so that both initial energy loaded into the
strings AND the wood
body and neck work together. You do not have electric pickups to
deal with.

4. The only way wood or body and neck material make on any solid
body when it is plugged in and what you will hear is
how it relates to adding or modifying string vibration since
that is all that matters to pickups. This is minimal at best
and the only way that wood matters is when you play your
electric unplugged when you can hear the residual (vibration)
energy
loaded into the wood.

5. Finish coats on solid body electric guitars matter minimally to
the actual "tone" of an electric guitar. Finishes such as
polycoat or nitro lacquer would matter so minimally as to not
be an issue. A poly coat or a nitro coat is not going to impact
string vibration (actually soon after the strings vibrate over
magentic pickups a semi-spherical oscillation begins to occur
- not a simple back and forth vibration) and thus will not
affect 'tone' to any measurable degree.

Not sure how this matters. The direction of the string vibration
has to do with whether or not the finish affects the tone?

However, different finishes will affect the
visual appeal of a guitar and might exhibit tonal differences
when the guitar is played acoustically.

Might?

However, once the guitar is
plugged in and the output becomes an electrical signal - the
finish coat differences on a guitar matter very little and most
would say it is extremely minimal in its affect on string
vibration and energy being read by the pickups.

Whew... this is such a simple thing.. I wonder why people think
it is some sort of voodoo or something or something artsy that
only those with blessed ears can discern.

No Voodoo, no mystery, and my ears certainly aren't blessed. It is
pretty simple, we agree there, but absolutes just don't work here.
Everything affects a guitar's tone even the size an weight of the
player.

An electric guitar is a
science project, an acoustic guitar is where the voodoo and
cratsman art is more involved since in an acoustic - the energy
that offloads from the initial input from the strings and then
into the wood and other parts of the guitar is all heard and
meaningful. This has nothing to do with the way an electric
solid body guitar works.

So you believe that electric guitars don't respond acoustically? I
suggest that the interaction between the guitar body and the
vibrating strings has everything to do with tone. Just giving
different guitars the same pickups won't make them sound identical
.... why is that?

Don


Thanks Don for the replies.

How about answering them.

No - I just do not believe that acoustic properties that can
be minimally exhibited by solid body electrics make up a large
portion of what creates sound from an electric solid body.
I am saying that the wood is way down (waaaaay down) on the list of
things
that affect sound and tone
even though it is a minor contributor in an indirect way.

None of the stuff I've mentioned is indirect, and with all due
respect the fact that you do not believe something doesn't make it
untrue. I know what you are saying, now how about some proof ....

But I just cannot agree about solid body guitars having 'tone wood'.
That's a sham to me.

And yet you quote people at Fender talking about tone wood in your
defense. Is it just that you don't like the expression? If wood
does affect how a guitar plays, how is that a sham?

Ah well - I might seem like a pain in the arse - but I do like
the replies and conversation whether we agree or disagree.
This stew of knowledge and confusion will hopefully serve up
some tasty stuff along the way. At least people are thinking about
it.

Hopefully you will learn some stuff as well. You seem pretty closed
minded right now. I asked some questions you didn't seem to want to
answer. You like to put forth your theories, but when it comes down
to it, you don't support anything you say. You just repeat it over
and over in different words. I begin to feel like the "baffle 'em
with bull***" mode is in play. In any case, you're talking and not
listening.

Don



and what scientific proof do you offer that wood plays a major
factor in the tone of a guitar ? You offer nothing yourself.

I'm not trying to prove that at all. I merely am saying that I think the
wood has a significant effect on the overall performance (tone, liveliness,
sustain, feedback properties, etc.). You have been saying that the wood
doesn't matter. I disagree, and have asked what I think are fair questions.
You aren't really answering any of them.

At least I am attempting to. And I'll get better at it in time.
I am still young and learning - but I refuse to believe in this
tone wood thing (for solid body electrics) just because this
is some oft repeated addage that generates from people quoting
acoustic guitar makers and believing that it has the same major
impact on tone concerning a solid body electric.


It doesn't.
But once again - you offer nothing except good questions against
what I say. I appreciate that because it makes me work harder
and learn more how to prove what I say in a matter so succinct
that there can be no argument. I am not there yet - and either are
you for your counterpoint.

Difference is, I'm not trying to prove my point ... I'm just trying to open
a much needed window of possibilities on yours.

You are merely fluffing up old addages
that have little or no proof as they relate to _solid body electric
guitars_.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If, IME, a new swamp ash Tele
sounds brighter and snappier than an Alder Tele made in the same year with
the same pickups, I look for reasons why. As I said somewhere else, there
is more to this than treble and bass response. Danny Gatton spoke of how
fast a guitar responded. He was talking about pickups, but I find that with
everything else equal the wood contributes to this as well. I'm not alone
in this observation. You can't really believe that everyone who can
hear/feel the difference in wood effect on a guitar is being stupidly led by
advertising and opinion of others.

All the arguments I have heard that have merit only apply to
acoustic (non electric solid body) instruments. This type
of info cannot be applied the same to solid body electrics.
Wood is a minimal affect on tone on solid body electric.
I will not back down from that statement. Anything else is gibberish.

Great, don't back down. With all due respect, the one with the dogma here
seems to be you. You are trying to make your opinions sound like science
... much like the pre-empirical "scientists" using logic and rhetoric to
"prove" principles. When you have made more empirical observations, I think
you will relax your stance.

Take it easy.

Don



Don - you have shown me NO science to back up anything you have said at all.
Don't put the monkey on my back - it's on yours right now.

Ah well - we'll all have this same discussion another day and another time.
In time we might get this all figured out. The cool part is no matter
if the road you or I take ir believe is eventually wrong or right - it's all good. We learn just as
much by finding out the wrong way as in finding out the right way.
Depends on your point of view - it's all good though.

Anyways - I have based my stance on fact - I have more work to do
with the math - but it is fact - you offer absolutely nothing even
remotely factual at your end. Good day to you.
.

Loading