|
Exitao -> RE: Guitar Longevity (May 14 2010 22:17:03)
|
Hmmm... threadjacked. Was this where the tutorial was supposed to be? [8D]
I am a bit curious about aged flamencos and if they are truly played out and what can be restored. If the soundboard has been too weakened because of too vigorous playing, I guess that's that. But how can a potential buyer know what to look for to know if there's any chance a good repair person can save it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: a_arnold
quote:
How come these changes are always POSITIVE?
Here's a theory: What if playing the guitar has nothing to do with it becoming "played in"? What if some makers sometimes use woods that aren't as well cured as they might be, and the drying out/seasoning process continues after the guitar is sold? So then the buyer notices change during the first few months while it dries out and adjusts to the buyer's home environment?
Here's another theory -- a testable one: Do people who live in dry environments (say, a northern climate in the winter) tend to report more improvement with time/playing while people who live (or keep the guitar) in humid environments notice less change?
Or: If a luthier in a dry environment ships to a buyer in a humid environment, is the buyer less likely to report improvement?
I bought a new Salvador Castillo from Paracho (which is notoriously humid) and play it in a relatively dry, humidity controlled house. It improved hugely. I also once bought a new Manuel de la Chica from a dry Mediterranean climate, and played it in the humid Washington DC environment -- didn't hear ANY improvement. It was a great guitar, but it didn't improve with time.
Maybe this is why there is so much variability in opinions on "playing in". Maybe it has nothing to do with playing the guitar and everything to do with humidity changes at the time of purchase.
Just a thought.
OK, here are some more thoughts:
If the wood was not sufficiently cured, I think that the odds are good that this would be bad for the guitar. However, there could be a difference between optimally cured and sufficiently cured for use.
I don't know, you could have a point.
The wood was supposed to be cured. But when the surface of the guitar is being finished, some moisture must penetrate the wood.
Once the exterior has hardened, the interior of the body has to wick what the wood absorbed. This could take time... can any luthier give a good guess how long?
And then there are the variables mentioned in the article Shroomy linked:
the effects of vibrations on the flexibility of the wood, the finish and even the glues.
It seems really hard to quantify some values and rule out confounds in any research applied to this subject.
Ron has a good point though when he asks "why are the changes always good?"
This question points to possible confounds. Is it not possible that as a person "breaks in a guitar" they are really just learning to get the best out of their guitar? (i.e. the guitar is breaking the player in?)
Just like people who try new strings and say they don't like the sound initially, but when they "settled in they sounded" good and now they are their favorite strings.
How much is simply the player being acclimatised to the sound? Do they still dislike the strings for the first few days every time they restring?
In psychology, they have something called the proximity effect, repeated exposure to a person can change your attitudes (eventual attraction to a person not initially your type, or even vice versa).
Could the same principle not also apply to guitars?
BTW: I'm not making any arguments, just asking questions. Which is the real point of research. Answer one question to get new questions to justify new research grants. :-P
I think the debating is great. Very educational. I just hope everyone can keep it up without getting angry.
|
|
|
|
