It is currently Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:22 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
Post subject: nitro vs poly vs nothing---helllllppppp!!!!!
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:16 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Sun City West, AZ
OK, I'm totally confused! If guitars are supposed to have a certain moisture content in the wood, then why would an old guitar with seasoned, dryer wood be more desireable as an instument than a new properly humidified guitar? Why would Fender, Gibson, et al, manufacture an instrument that has had the finish worn thin, or completely removed in some cases? If the finish is only to protect the paint, stain, or whatever, then it would make no difference if a guitar had a finish or not. However, it seems from what I have read, that one of the main reasons for a finish, be it nitro or poly, is to "seal" the wood. This would have to be to "seal in" the moisture level at the time it was made. If this is so, then why don't acoustic instruments have a finish on the inside as well as the outside? Why won't many manufacturers guarantee a neck that isn't sealed with a finish? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me (the whole finish debate) as to why a nitro sealer would be more desireable. And yet, it is obviously WAY more desireable as this is the finish used on the best instruments. If older, dryer wood is better, then why seal the guitar at all?
Help me out here, guys. The more I think about it, the more my head hurts! :shock:

_________________
Custom made all Koa Strat SSS
"FrankenStrat" P90s
Nashville Tele
Light Relic Baja Tele
Tele 1980s Vintage
Gibson Les Paul Special
Gibson Custom Shop "Montana Gold" J200
Fender "Blues Deluxe"


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:40 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 1257
Your head hurts because many of the assumptions you're working on aren't true. Not your fault: the Internet Echo Chamber bounces these myths around so long, pretty soon everyone imagines they're true.

!. Old acoustic guitars are more desirable for their dry wood, because on an acoustic guitar, the body vibration is the amp. Age makes virtually no difference in the tone of an electric guitar. The resonance of a given solid body will change lsightly through it's life, but the sond of the guitar will change very little, if at all.

2. Guitar companies make guitars with worn or thin finishes because guitar players A) mistakenly believe they will sound better and b) want guitars that look like the ones their heroes played.

3. The finish is there to prevent further staining, marring, and swelling of the wood, just like on a table. It's not to to "seal in" a given moisture level. but to seal out bad things.

4. Manufacturers don't guarantee a neck that isn't finished because it can swell up and warp, delaminate, etc.

5. A nitro finish is more desirable because of the way it looks as it ages. All other things being equal, nitro doesn't "sound" any different than any other finish. However, since most guitar players now imagine this to be true, even companies like Fender are making claims for better tone through thin nitro. They aren't giving the customer a true tone difference: they're jut giving them what they want.

I know there will be a huge amount of impassioned argument on this subject, but if you talk to seasoned players who have played a lot guitars in a lot of situations, they'll all say pretty much the same thing: the way you play is far, far more important to your overall "tone." For fast, fast relief from Internet Echo Chamber induced headaches, practice more and tinker less.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:13 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:33 am
Posts: 722
Location: Australia
Good points...as far as treatments such as nitrocellulose go, that was just the lacquer that was employed at the time when electric guitars first hit the scene. It was used on cars, furniture and other musical instruments as well. When it proved more economical to switch to other coatings, they did.

Dryness of wood is indeed important in an acoustic guitar. If you were to buy a top-of-the-line guitar from, say, Conde Hermanos, it would be made from woods that have been aged for twenty years already (well...according to their website, anyway, and at those prices it had better be true!).

Apart from any improvements to the way the instrument sounds, once wood has dried out a bit it becomes less susceptible to sudden changes in its environment. I have a flamenco guitar from the '60s (OK, OK, it's a Conde Hermanos, the only make I really know anything about..heh); I've had it for the past twenty years, and all the cracks in the bouts were filled in before it came to me. The sides of the guitar tend to develop hairline cracks along the grain because they're subject to considerable tension just from their own curvature -- but once the wood dries out, it expands and contracts less easily and becomes more stable.

In the electric guitar world, the finish seems to depend on the quality of the wood used for the body. Somebody here posted a link to a truly great read about this sort of stuff, but I can't remember it just now...in a nutshell, ash is a nice-looking wood but quite porous, so if you're going to go to the trouble to fill the pores you should give it a natural finish that showcases your effort rather than cover it with a colour that's going to have to be sprayed multiple times before it "takes".

Got an alder body with a cosmetic flaw? Cover it up as economically as you can and call it a "custom colour". A bit tastier-looking? That'll be the sunburst one, then. And if you stuff that sunburst up...well, someone will be ordering another custom colour soon, I'm sure. Heh.

A lot of Custom Shop time these days seems to be taken up with replicating the features of the old guitars that -- through chance -- turned out the best. That's not a bad thing...there must be quite a few old guitars out there that were crap to begin with and haven't improved with age, even though they're worth a fortune to a collector. Umm...I've strayed off-topic here, sorry 'bout that.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:37 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Sun City West, AZ
Thanks for the very well reasoned replies. Your comments confirm what I had come to believe. I agree with your internet thought--a lot of info out there and it's hard to determine what's real and what's baloney! It's an interesting, albeit sad, thought that instrument manufacturers would reinforce the myths concerning finishes, etc to simply sell more product at a higher margin, but business is predatory and we are the prey.

_________________
Custom made all Koa Strat SSS
"FrankenStrat" P90s
Nashville Tele
Light Relic Baja Tele
Tele 1980s Vintage
Gibson Les Paul Special
Gibson Custom Shop "Montana Gold" J200
Fender "Blues Deluxe"


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:05 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 1257
To be fair, there's nothing predatory about it, and I don't think they do it to score a higher profit margin, but to simply add features that players want.

Human behavior is what it is. Everyone wants to be a knowledgeable insider, and to have a handy argot and a pre-determined set of beliefs to demonstrate their Cool Guy status. If you're in a guitar store and want to sound like a hip dude, there are a handful of things you can say that no one will argue with: Hendrix was the greatest of all times, software modelers "just aren't there yet," thin finishes let the wood "breathe," etc. It doesn't matter if they're true or not: they're common knowledge.

Now, imagine you're a product manager at Fender, and you get 30 e-mails a day asking "When, oh when is Fender going to bring back the 'vintage' techniques that create great tone, like thin coats of nitro?" Well, you're gonna do it. And you're not going to tell them you did because they wouldn't stop asking for it: you're going to tell them you did it because, yep, they're right, it lets the wood "breathe" and creates great tone.

The sound made by a guitar is about 75% player. All the rest is religion.


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:36 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:57 am
Posts: 13164
Location: Peckham: where the snow leopards roam
Mmmm - good posts.

Another thing that may have you confused, crazyunclebill, is the word "sealer". There's umpteen variations on how to finish guitars, and many of them involve a sealer layer. It is not there to seperate the guitar from the world but to seperate the timber from the finish above it.

Two examples: rosewood (on acoustic guitar bodies) is a wood with a lot of natural oils in it which can conflict with lacquers and cause problems such as poor adhesion. Therefore, makers such as Martin spray a vinyl sealer before proceeding to the lacquer (which in Martin's case is sometimes nitrocellulose, sometimes waterbase).

Also, when applying any lacquer, especially nitro, to timbers you often find that the solvent disappears into the wood, sometimes coat after coat. That makes the remaining solids potentially unstable and also simply wastes costly product and time. Therefore a thin sealer layer, again often vinyl (PRS guitars for instance), is applied to create a barrier and keep the "build coats" above it from sinking.

Fender famously used a filler called Fullerplast, which Forum user Mr Bill tells us is polyester based. Fullerplast is a grain filler - I don't know whether it also performs the sealing function just described. I also don't happen to know whether Fender still use Fullerplast or if they've moved on to something else - anyone?

Cheers - C


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:03 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 558
SlapChop wrote:
Your head hurts because many of the assumptions you're working on aren't true. Not your fault: the Internet Echo Chamber bounces these myths around so long, pretty soon everyone imagines they're true.

!. Old acoustic guitars are more desirable for their dry wood, because on an acoustic guitar, the body vibration is the amp. Age makes virtually no difference in the tone of an electric guitar. The resonance of a given solid body will change lsightly through it's life, but the sond of the guitar will change very little, if at all.

2. Guitar companies make guitars with worn or thin finishes because guitar players A) mistakenly believe they will sound better and b) want guitars that look like the ones their heroes played.

3. The finish is there to prevent further staining, marring, and swelling of the wood, just like on a table. It's not to to "seal in" a given moisture level. but to seal out bad things.

4. Manufacturers don't guarantee a neck that isn't finished because it can swell up and warp, delaminate, etc.

5. A nitro finish is more desirable because of the way it looks as it ages. All other things being equal, nitro doesn't "sound" any different than any other finish. However, since most guitar players now imagine this to be true, even companies like Fender are making claims for better tone through thin nitro. They aren't giving the customer a true tone difference: they're jut giving them what they want.

I know there will be a huge amount of impassioned argument on this subject, but if you talk to seasoned players who have played a lot guitars in a lot of situations, they'll all say pretty much the same thing: the way you play is far, far more important to your overall "tone." For fast, fast relief from Internet Echo Chamber induced headaches, practice more and tinker less.


Couldn't agree more with all stated here.

How many times you heard a recording and said "hmm this sounds like nitro!"


Top
Profile
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:16 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 558
Ceri wrote:

Fender famously used a filler called Fullerplast, which Forum user Mr Bill tells us is polyester based. Fullerplast is a grain filler - I don't know whether it also performs the sealing function just described. I also don't happen to know whether Fender still use Fullerplast or if they've moved on to something else - anyone?

Cheers - C


Its was used both to fill the grain and create a slick surface over the wood, without the need for much sanding, so the guitar could be easily and quickly finished. More plast, less nitro on the top coat = money saving for Fender. I think these days they don't necessarily use the Fullerplast formula, but still use an urethane or poly base anyway, and goes in 90% of the Fender line. Though some guitars even after 63 could have no plast or nitro top coat sometimes, if they were really in a rush at the factory, just colored paint straight on wood.

I dont believe in the "old guitars are better" statement. Clapton, Page, Hendrix, Peter Green and all them used guitars that were 10 years old or brand new guitars, and they sounded great right then. It's all about being a great player and composer and knowing how to record and capture the good tones. :!:


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: