the consequences of NOT playing in a guitar

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>Lutherie >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

a_arnold

Posts: 558
Joined: Jul. 30 2006

the consequences of NOT playing in a...

I recently bought a guitar that I fell in love with immediately. Couldn't keep my hands off it, played intensely (at least 6 hours) every day for months, wearing through a set of of strings every 2 weeks and giving myself tendonitis.

I had never done that before, but I noticed that (more than any other newly made guitar I have owned) the "playing in" improved the guitar very noticeably. That got me thinking.

I'm sure there are some of you guys who have had a guitar go unsold and almost unplayed for some time. I once bought a guitar that, when I got it home from Granada (in the '70's), and compared it to the guitars I already had, didn't capture me the way this one did. So I didn't play it enough to "play it in."

My question: If a guitar isn't played enough after it is first made, does it season and "solidify" (for lack of a better word) in the unplayed state, so it can never be played in as fully as it COULD have been when it was new?

Is it important to play it in when it is new? Or can the playing in be put off?

What, in fact, is the luthier's position on what physical changes take place while a guitar is being played in? (assuming it is well made of seasoned woods to begin with).

Also: I know guitarists who habitually tune their guitars a half step low or high, or who almost always play with a capo on a particular fret. Does the habitual frequency (key) or tension used during play in matter?

Tony Arnold

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 18 2007 23:29:43

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: the consequences of NOT playing ... (in reply to a_arnold)

Hi Tony,

I'm not a luthier so what I'm about to say might be 'mince' but this all made sense to me when I thought to imagine the molicules in the wood being forced into alignment by the vibrations from the sound. This seems to make 'picture sense' in that initially the natural resistance would hinder the tone or the responce from the wood, but after playing the instrument for a while the vibrations force alignment as they seek the shortest path and as a consiquence the wood is 'tuned' and the sound improves with reduced resistance within the molecular structure of the wood.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 19 2007 19:26:20

Patrick

Posts: 1189
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Portland, Oregon

RE: the consequences of NOT playing ... (in reply to a_arnold)

quote:

This seems to make 'picture sense' in that initially the natural resistance would hinder the tone or the responce from the wood, but after playing the instrument for a while the vibrations force alignment as they seek the shortest path and as a consiquence the wood is 'tuned' and the sound improves with reduced resistance within the molecular structure of the wood.

Yes, but we all know this only applies when it is a leap year, on Tuesday's when it's raining.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 19 2007 20:26:36

r0bbie

Posts: 160
Joined: Feb. 11 2007
From: Holland

RE: the consequences of NOT playing ... (in reply to a_arnold)

I did remember reading something like this somewhere on the internet and I did some googling. Maybe this has been here before on the forum but but they tested four guitars and I think there were two old and two new guitars.

http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/advice/vibration.shtml

Rob.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 19 2007 21:21:38

n85ae

Posts: 877
Joined: Sep. 7 2006

RE: the consequences of NOT playing ... (in reply to a_arnold)

Well, I'm not a luthier either. But I think there's nothing to worry about. Wood
is aged after it's cut to dry out, and luthier's intentionally age wood. I think like
all things organic, they just get stiff from sitting. Put the guitar on it's stand in
front of your biggest stereo speaker, and crank up some really thumpy stuff
full volume for a day or two, and it'll sound great again :)

Jeff

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 19 2007 21:48:13

a_arnold

Posts: 558
Joined: Jul. 30 2006

RE: the consequences of NOT playing ... (in reply to n85ae)

quote: Put the guitar on it's stand in
front of your biggest stereo speaker, and crank up some really thumpy stuff
full volume for a day or two, and it'll sound great again

Ha! That's noot such a crazy idea! In fact, what a great experiment. Do that with a new guitar and then check its responsiveness before and after with an oscilloscope. I wonder if anyone has done that experiment.

Of course the vibration isn't coming through the bridge....

I take it from the resounding lack of response from luthiers that nobody knows what the physical effects of play-in are...?

Or maybe all of you are at the Granada festival. I guess that's going on now...

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 23 2007 14:51:51