Forum

A few months ago I started a thread asking what, in technical terms, happens to a guitar when it ages or is "played in." A lot of people responded with some very interesting theories and science.

In the latest issue of Wood & Steel, Taylor Guitars' magazine-style newsletter that they send to all Taylor owners, someone asked a question about whether this is all just a myth. Here's what Bob Taylor had to say:

"It’s more than a myth that guitars sound better with age and with playing. However, people don’t know why. Not that it couldn’t be studied, but who’s going to do that? There are some theories, like the vibrations from playing break down the wood, or the age and seasoning of wood break it down somewhat. Yes, people have made “time machines” to vibrate guitars, and a difference can be perceived, but not a difference that is as apparent as the natural change in aging.

I can tell you this: When spruce is relatively new, its grain structure is like celery. If you pick at one strand you can pull off a long strip, even with your hands. We clamp binding to guitars with masking tape and have to be very careful not to pull up the spruce grain when removing the tape the next day, as you can pull a strip out, like pulling a hangnail gone bad. When a guitar gets old, this is no longer a problem, as the grain becomes less stringy. So toss that into the data bank of things that make you go, “Hmm.” I have noticed that guitars change with both playing and with age. I have a 20th Anniversary Taylor that sits in a display case in my house. Today it sounds way better than when it was new, with very little playing in its history. It’s undeniable. Currently it’s getting played a lot just because it sounds so good. Your guitar will continue to age for the better, and your effort won’t really speed or slow the process."

This seems to refute the belief that guitars, locked away in a closet won't improve -- that they must be played in order to improve. Bob seems to be saying that the primary component in the improvement in the sound of tone woods is aging, and that playing, while important, is secondary.

Thanks for posting that dennis...very interesting. kind of like a fine bottle of wine!

If a guitar improves in a closet, will anyone enjoy the sound?

Snatch the pebbles from my hand grasshopper, then go and water the zen garden while I contemplate the rest of the article.


Interesting stuff.

Dennis, I was reading an article last year in Time Magazine about why Antonio Stradivari's violins and cellos sound so good. There were many expert theories put forth; the varnish he used, a change in the wood structure of the Spruce he used caused by the 'mini-ice age' during the 15th - 17th century in Europe; and pre-treatment of the wood before the instruments were made, to name a few.
Scientific examination have ruled all of those theories out. The varnish he used was no different than that used by other luthiers of his time. Microscopic tests on the wood fibers showed no significant difference and the pre-treatment of the woods was ruled out because there were only trace amounts and other violin makers of his time used the same wood, with completely different sound quality than a Stradivarius.
About all that is left, is the fact that the violins and cellos made early in his career either, didn't sound very good, or were average at best. The prized instruments of Stradivari were all made late in his career. Which leaves the gained experience, skill, and craftsmanship of Stradivari as the leading reason that his instruments had such a magical tone and clarity.

Also, I found interesting, all of the prized Stradivari instruments are over 300 years old, it's only in the last 100 years that precautions have been taken to protect the instruments from humidity and temperature extremes.

Bill

dennisg wrote:

Bob seems to be saying that the primary component in the improvement in the sound of tone woods is aging, and that playing, while important, is secondary.

I reckon playing is a VERY important component of sound, but maybe I'm missing something.

Couldn't help myself Dennis. Thanks (sincerely now) for an interesting article.

Loved this thread. I have a 35 year old guitar that I probably paid $100 for that really does sound lovely. I wish this were true for my voice.....

I guess it's reassuring to learn that playing it badly won't make it sound worse.

But I'm wondering what exactly it is about the sound of an older guitar that we perceive as "better."

I speak from ignorance, having never heard, side by side and from the same guitarist, the sound of an old and new guitar of identical design; but would be very interested in the impressions of anyone who has.

Equally interesting would be some spectrum analysis. I know we have some audio engineers here.