Once a vintage guitar becomes a commodity, what's the point?

Kittyfrisk

guitars4you said:

Kittyfrisk said:

And if guitars that have not been played for a long time sound 'dead', then why are so many guitarists swooning over the Closet Classic Stratocaster for example, where it is supposed to sound like an instrument that has been unplayed, in a case under a bed for many years ???  Go figure   

I think the point here is that it is meant to LOOK like an un-played under the bed example - Even so I've sold and played far to many Custom Shop models - I'm not trying to sound like salesman here but a player who loves guitars like you and other FB members do - If you tried 3-4-5 C/Shop guitars you'd find each has a slightly different vibrant acoustic voice - One will probably have something more about it that you like - Doesn't mean the others are dead or poor examples, just that you prefer that one - Tap the bodies of 4-5 different CS Strats and you'll find a slightly different pitch/note on each guitar - Not a golden set in stone test, but often the Strat with a higher acoustic pitch will produce a more crisp voice - The one with a lower pitch will produce a more chilled voice

I find different players will try the same 3-4-5 guitars and pick a different guitar they prefer - I've not done this for a while, but have done it in the past with 3 or 4 customers inc myself and never once have we all picked the same guitar we prefer

soma1975 said:

Just because you (or I) might lack the vocabulary to accurately describe this difference it doesn't mean the difference is in our heads. Nothing to do with science and I get the feeling those invoking it as a way of dismissing what people are saying simply have not done the test for themselves because it is obvious once you have.

 

I tend to agree with this - I've said before that Shelly and Wordsworth would not be able to write about what we hear and like - I'm not an academic by any stretch of the imagination, so not really looking for the scientific approach, to tell me why A or B or C is better - But I do know what my hands and ears prefer and as such I always let them guide me 

I agree with you too.
That's why the Closet Classic comment had a 'wink'...

And I also 'I do know what my hands and ears prefer and as such I always let them guide me ' as you do & should.

That's why it puzzles me that in tests such as the recent Lancaster study & many others, that people can initially easily differentiate between guitars and tell you exactly what & why the differences are.
Then in blind tests, the same people can't tell the difference between the same instruments.

It seems to be that there is as much involved in 'seeing'  or even purchasing good tone, rather than in just hearing it.   

ICBM

Kittyfrisk said:

If you read further what I had written, you would have come across this part  ' I'm conflicted in that I support physics, material science etc. but I also know that having played genuine 50's Les Paul's & other 'grail' guitars, that there was an undefinable, certain something about them

Me too, and I do believe science can be used - it's just that you need to be careful how you devise the tests, because the human ear/hand/brain/whichever part is involved is very different from any measuring instrument. It's very poor at things that measuring instruments do easily, like giving exact values for distance, frequency etc, but very good at doing things that are extremely hard with a measuring instrument, like identifying patterns and fine detail in very complex information.

Even if something can't be measured, it's still possible to do blind testing or direct-switching testing and get valid results. On the other hand if something can't be either measured *or* detected in a blind or switching test, then it's pretty certain that it's not real. But if you can prove that something is real then you have to accept that it is, even if there isn't necessarily an obvious physical mechanism for it to be... but there *will* be one. There's no magic, just physics.

guitars4you

Kittyfrisk said:

guitars4you said:

Kittyfrisk said:

And if guitars that have not been played for a long time sound 'dead', then why are so many guitarists swooning over the Closet Classic Stratocaster for example, where it is supposed to sound like an instrument that has been unplayed, in a case under a bed for many years ???  Go figure   

I think the point here is that it is meant to LOOK like an un-played under the bed example - Even so I've sold and played far to many Custom Shop models - I'm not trying to sound like salesman here but a player who loves guitars like you and other FB members do - If you tried 3-4-5 C/Shop guitars you'd find each has a slightly different vibrant acoustic voice - One will probably have something more about it that you like - Doesn't mean the others are dead or poor examples, just that you prefer that one - Tap the bodies of 4-5 different CS Strats and you'll find a slightly different pitch/note on each guitar - Not a golden set in stone test, but often the Strat with a higher acoustic pitch will produce a more crisp voice - The one with a lower pitch will produce a more chilled voice

I find different players will try the same 3-4-5 guitars and pick a different guitar they prefer - I've not done this for a while, but have done it in the past with 3 or 4 customers inc myself and never once have we all picked the same guitar we prefer

soma1975 said:

Just because you (or I) might lack the vocabulary to accurately describe this difference it doesn't mean the difference is in our heads. Nothing to do with science and I get the feeling those invoking it as a way of dismissing what people are saying simply have not done the test for themselves because it is obvious once you have.

 

I tend to agree with this - I've said before that Shelly and Wordsworth would not be able to write about what we hear and like - I'm not an academic by any stretch of the imagination, so not really looking for the scientific approach, to tell me why A or B or C is better - But I do know what my hands and ears prefer and as such I always let them guide me 

I agree with you too.
That's why the Closet Classic comment had a 'wink'...

And I also 'I do know what my hands and ears prefer and as such I always let them guide me ' as you do & should.

That's why it puzzles me that in tests such as the recent Lancaster study & many others, that people can initially easily differentiate between guitars and tell you exactly what & why the differences are.
Then in blind tests, the same people can't tell the difference between the same instruments.

It seems to be that there is as much involved in 'seeing'  or even purchasing good tone, rather than in just hearing it.   

I think a blind fold test is easier when you are still actually playing the instrument - You can see how it responds to your own personal touch - Play soft or attack etc and see how the guitar responds - Use the volume pots on the guitar and let subtle but effective variations adjust the gain level on the amp etc

Far harder to tell and/or appreciate subtle variations if someone is playing it and you just listen

To be honest I pay little attention, if any, to such studies - Not saying they are wrong - But I'm not sure I need to go there

soma1975

Exactly this. ^^

I have this with modelling gear as well. If someone else is playing it all sounds great but if I am playing it then the feel of a valve amp makes me play in a different (and preferred) way to a modelling amp.

Kittyfrisk

ICBM said:

Kittyfrisk said:

If you read further what I had written, you would have come across this part  ' I'm conflicted in that I support physics, material science etc. but I also know that having played genuine 50's Les Paul's & other 'grail' guitars, that there was an undefinable, certain something about them

Me too, and I do believe science can be used - it's just that you need to be careful how you devise the tests, because the human ear/hand/brain/whichever part is involved is very different from any measuring instrument. It's very poor at things that measuring instruments do easily, like giving exact values for distance, frequency etc, but very good at doing things that are extremely hard with a measuring instrument, like identifying patterns and fine detail in very complex information.

Even if something can't be measured, it's still possible to do blind testing or direct-switching testing and get valid results. On the other hand if something can't be either measured *or* detected in a blind or switching test, then it's pretty certain that it's not real. But if you can prove that something is real then you have to accept that it is, even if there isn't necessarily an obvious physical mechanism for it to be... but there *will* be one. There's no magic, just physics.

Well put. But... I still want magic & mojo too    

ICBM

Kittyfrisk said:

But... I still want magic & mojo too    

"Any suitably advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

The odd thing is that for guitarists, it's the other way round!

Kittyfrisk

ROFL !  wis is yours