Nitro vs "poly"

PonchoGreg

I've always felt the nitro-finished guitars I've had/tried sounded more open and less, well, plasticy than their poly (ester I guess?) counterparts  - especially acoustically.  BUT, and it's a big but, I'm not sure how much of that is down to:

- the thickness of the finish, regardless of what it is
- the way the guitar is put together, again regardless of finish

I guess it's hard to do a straight A/B. Actually, @GoldenEraGuitars ; have you ever had the opportunity to do a straight comparison on complete guitar refinish, playing before/after? Any conclusions?

ICBM

In my opinion, if there is any difference in sound at all - which I do think there is - it’s down to the thickness of the finish and not the type.

ESBlonde

ESBlonde said:

Poly

Poly

Not sure? But I'll say poly.

Yay! I win .......sweet FA.

Poly - put the kettle on!

I think any 'mojo' that might be attributed to the finish is about the 60 year old guitars that are about as rare as hens teeth. Most of those old guitars were blessed with being made of old growth well seasoned timber that has since matured further (if thats possible).

For this reason nitro is associated with good guitars, even though good guitars are made today in much larger quantities.

Or I could be talking Horlicks!

LastMantra

Imo any difference in sound will/would be so minute that it makes it impossible to measure considering all the other, almost infinite, variables.

Ddigger

Poly is way better.  It seals all the magic tone inside!

I am not bothered one way or the other.  If I like the guitar. I like it.

Bridgehouse

I’m flagging the OP for trolling.

guitars4you

ICBM said:

In my opinion, if there is any difference in sound at all - which I do think there is - it’s down to the thickness of the finish and not the type.

I recall PRS saying something similar once at a convention - He implied most builders agreed that the thinner the finish the better

SteveRobinson

guitars4you said:

I recall PRS saying something similar once at a convention - He implied most builders agreed that the thinner the finish the better

Is that when he said that they "aim for a thickness of 5 mils" and I'm thinking 5mm?! and it turns out that's American for five thousands of an inch.

TINMAN82

Have come to the thread late and read the answer already, but before doing so I’d have said poly, poly, nitro. 

The checking on the last one (blue) looks more like nitro checking I’ve seen, but I guess any finish could check like that if exposed to extremes of temperature.

The wear pattern on the top one could be either but it looks more like poly to me. The middle one looks like burnt plastic, as if it’s been up against a radiator or something so more obviously poly.

No doubt nitro preparations vary- my AVRI tele is chipping off in chunks in a way I haven't seen on Gibson’s.

Pretty sure nitro doesn’t affect tone in any measurable way (on an electric at least).

However all my guitars are nitro as I prefer the feel, and I’m pretty sure I could identify nitro vs poly from feel more easily than heavily cropped thumbnail images. For me, it’s about feel #1, ageing gracefully #2.

ICBM

LastMantra said:

Imo any difference in sound will/would be so minute that it makes it impossible to measure considering all the other, almost infinite, variables.

It depends - if you strip off something like the Fender 1970s 'Thick Skin' finish and replace it either with a natural oil finish or a thin lacquer, I think there is a clear difference.

guitars4you said:

I recall PRS saying something similar once at a convention - He implied most builders agreed that the thinner the finish the better

My PRSs certainly all sounded great. I have to say the finish on my Trans Purple Standard did mark in quite an ugly way in a couple of places though - where the wood underneath had dented, but the finish layer not broken, it separated from the wood and left a very obvious paler blue mark.

LastMantra

I've never played a guitar that didn't have enough 'sustain'.

LastMantra

ICBM said:

LastMantra said:

Imo any difference in sound will/would be so minute that it makes it impossible to measure considering all the other, almost infinite, variables.

It depends - if you strip off something like the Fender 1970s 'Thick Skin' finish and replace it either with a natural oil finish or a thin lacquer, I think there is a clear difference.

How can you tell tho? 

thegummy

LastMantra said:

I've never played a guitar that didn't have enough 'sustain'.

I've said that before too - I don't know how long people are holding notes for but I don't remember ever playing a guitar where the note died down before I wanted to stop or change notes anyway.

Only time I can think is with flatwounds on a bass - sometimes one might want to hold a single note for longer than they'll ring for so a different type of string would be chosen for that song.

Ddigger

Rumbled... Guilty as charged...

ICBM

LastMantra said:

How can you tell tho? 

By doing it!

thegummy said:

I've said that before too - I don't know how long people are holding notes for but I don't remember ever playing a guitar where the note died down before I wanted to stop or change notes anyway.

I swapped my Jaguar for a PRS largely because the Jag didn’t sustain well enough for the type of sound I wanted after my band changed musical direction - clean chords just died too quickly on the Jag.

The Jag was nitro too .

LastMantra

ICBM said:

LastMantra said:

How can you tell tho? 

By doing it!

thegummy said:

I've said that before too - I don't know how long people are holding notes for but I don't remember ever playing a guitar where the note died down before I wanted to stop or change notes anyway.

I swapped my Jaguar for a PRS largely because the Jag didn’t sustain well enough for the type of sound I wanted after my band changed musical direction - clean chords just died too quickly on the Jag.

The Jag was nitro too .

And round, and round we go.