Lutherie myths?

[Dave Bagwill]

I'm not weighing in on whether he is right in ALL his thoughts, but it is fun reading and gives food for thought.

http://liutaiomottola.com/myth.htm

[Tim Benware]

"Older Instruments Sound Better Than Newer Ones

Maybe they do. But if they do it may have less to do with age than with other factors."

This would be an interesting topic!

EDIT: I like this one too.

"Neck Joint Type and Sustain

Conventional wisdom has it that the construction of neck joint of the instrument influences the sustain of the instrument. Neck through construction (for electric guitars and basses) is considered to offer the best sustain, followed by set neck (i.e. glued on) construction. Bolt-on necks are considered to offer the worst sustain. A recent experiment in this area suggests that this order may be backwards and that folks can't hear the difference in sustain based on neck joint type anyway."

[ken cierp]

Yeah that's a good one -- I understand that the idea that there is bass and treble side of a guitar is what got Micheal Kasha and Gibson in a twist with the acoustic scientist.

[Dave Bagwill]

If you click on the topic on that web page, it will take you to a longer discussion.

[John Link]

There is nothing like a doulbe blind study, using highly opinionated "experts" as the guinea pigs, to investigate strongly held claims.

Decades ago a mag called STERO REVIEW did just that with the then new Monster Cable (large guage, expensive speaker wire that had come into vogue - it was more "musical", produce "sparkling highs" and "resonant, deep but not muddy bass", etc.). The golden ears were asked to distinguish between Moster Cable and 14 guage zip cord of equal lengths in exactly equal (and very good) systems, using identical speakers playing at identical volumes. They got it right 50 percent of the time, wrong the other 50 percent, which exactly corresponded to the workings of pure chance.

If it had been me, I would have made them pick the Monster Cable from 10 choices, not 2, since it cost about 10 times as much at the time.

There is something to be said, in theory, in favor of tight joints. The construction advantage is not really questionable. An instrument that falls apart is not a good sounding one as that happens. But tightness in the places that do not contribute to movement of the plates contriubtes, in some small way, to directing string energy to the plates, which are capable to translating it into sound. So if one joint is tight enough to prevent destruction, but some other is somehow "tighter" than that, it might be at least a smidgeon better. But so often, the arguments in favor of this or that type of construction on the basis that it is tighter than any other are baseless, or rather, based on bias. It is just one of many ways to achieve the same thing. When you think of all the stress endured by an automobile engine and the fact major components of it are bolted together, it is hard for me to accept that a bolt on neck is not as tight as a dovetail, even a dovetail cut perfectly on all mating surfaces. Yet we read in advertisements about the sonic advantages of the traditional dovetail joint. What are they? How have they been tested/

[ken cierp]

Recently I contacted a couple of guys over at the Martin factory and asked about the three premium lines of Martin guitars Standard, Retro and Vintage noting the progression in increased pricing. Because allegedly each series has a variation in construction and materials used I asked what the consumer could expect to gain in sound quality along the increase progression of cost. This of course is a pointed question – and the answer was exactly what I expected “some people like the sound of one over the other” – right!

And of course this is because in the real world our ears can’t hear glue or finish or premium Sitka over Red Spruce, Lutz – and, a meticulously constructed guitar is going to sound really good whether 1937 specs or 2013 specs.

My point is double blind testing of sound quality expectations is something Martin, Gibson, or Taylor will never do internally, externally and for sure against top of the line imports. They know all claims would be at the very least clouded and some down right trashed. It is my belief that most often guitar lovers buy with their hearts and not necessarily with their ears – not a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing for manufacturers to offer many good choices.

And John -- I believe there is a class action suit regarding Monster cable claims.

[John Link]

Ken, I'm sure you are right. Legally, there would be great liability if a company had hard internal evidence that its claims of sonic superiority had proven imperceptible to a panel of experts in a double blind test. Better to not know.

I wonder, though, if everyone followed their heart instead of their ear, would we still be building lutes and anemic parlor guitars. I'm assuming that the majority of hearts favor the sound of the past, as Martin is proving with the hefty prices they get for their reissues.

On the other hand, I have faith that when someone comes up with something undeniably an expansion of the possibilities, as did Torres, and as did whomever combined steel strings with the X-Brace, and as electronics have been developed for acoustic instruments that preserve their woody sound, odds are a following will eventually develop. These changes, of course, become the new status quo which serve as the foundation for new bias.

I am not saying, and I hope no one misunderstands, that innovation, just to be different, is of any particular value. In fact, it is wise to stick with tradition unless there is a very good reason to deviate. Most attempts to reinvent the wheel result in something much less functional.