2 hrs of Guitar Porn

clarkefan

Fantastic vid, I enjoyed the range of excellent condition guitars (does the owner have a big box of ashtrays?) and the guys' enjoyment and playing of these things.

I sincerely hope Mick bought that 62 Strat, I echo the thoughts that it brought out something in his playing over and above his usual stylings.

The *fantastic* thing about that guitar is it's not mint, so he can feel free to connect the bridge pickup to a tone pot.

This might sound ridiculous, but in the past I've owned a stock original vintage guitar, and it's different to owning something modern.  

There's like a weight on you to not touch history or something, it's very real, it's like you're a custodian, you're not free to do whatever you want to it, entirely separate from the money involved.

rsvmark

Very enjoyable vid. I especially liked the geekery on show from @ATB_Guitars - loving the vast knowledge and insight. If I had the dough, I would certainly enjoy dropping a few quid in there

DrBob

Mick never stood a chance from the moment he picked that 62 up. He must have found a way to buy it, surely ?

Great looking shop. If the Euromillions win comes in, I’m straight on the phone

soma1975

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

Having played a bunch of old instruments at the Fretboarders meeting a couple of months back and really wanting to feel what you stated, I can only say absolutely not. Was gutted that my LP with replica PAFs and 50s wiring didn't sound the same as the 50s LP I played. 

They each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Edit. To be fair the magnets in pickups do get weaker with age, so to get that vintage sound perhaps it would be necessary to lower one's pickups a tad, or fit weaker magnets.

Literally the opposite of confirmation bias FFS. 

thegummy

soma1975 said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

Having played a bunch of old instruments at the Fretboarders meeting a couple of months back and really wanting to feel what you stated, I can only say absolutely not. Was gutted that my LP with replica PAFs and 50s wiring didn't sound the same as the 50s LP I played. 

They each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Edit. To be fair the magnets in pickups do get weaker with age, so to get that vintage sound perhaps it would be necessary to lower one's pickups a tad, or fit weaker magnets.

Literally the opposite of confirmation bias FFS. 

It doesn't work like that, you don't only get it if you wanted that result.

It's that you had it in your head going that it's a possibility.

I'm not saying you definitely did only think that because of bias, just that we're not any less likely to be affected by bias just because we didn't want that result.

Not sure why he seems so confident that your conclusion was caused by bias rather than actual hearing. We know these biases do exist and sometimes cause mistaken beliefs but it's obviously not the case every single time.

Could you explain what you meant about the depth of the sound thing?

paul_c2

I'm not sure a vintage guitar is something I'd buy if I won the lottery. I can understand their appeal for some, but not for me. 

soma1975

thegummy said:

soma1975 said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

Having played a bunch of old instruments at the Fretboarders meeting a couple of months back and really wanting to feel what you stated, I can only say absolutely not. Was gutted that my LP with replica PAFs and 50s wiring didn't sound the same as the 50s LP I played. 

They each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Edit. To be fair the magnets in pickups do get weaker with age, so to get that vintage sound perhaps it would be necessary to lower one's pickups a tad, or fit weaker magnets.

Literally the opposite of confirmation bias FFS. 

It doesn't work like that, you don't only get it if you wanted that result.

It's that you had it in your head going that it's a possibility.

I'm not saying you definitely did only think that because of bias, just that we're not any less likely to be affected by bias just because we didn't want that result.

Not sure why he seems so confident that your conclusion was caused by bias rather than actual hearing. We know these biases do exist and sometimes cause mistaken beliefs but it's obviously not the case every single time.

Could you explain what you meant about the depth of the sound thing?

Of course it's a possibility. It either sounds different or it doesn't and you are playing them side by side to hear if there is a difference. Literally nothing to do with bias. 

Of course the irony being that someone repeating the idea that it's the Emperor's New Clothes or confirmation bias without finding out for themselves or experiencing it displays a clear bias. 

My point was that I lacked the language to explain, not that it could not be explained so any attempts come off as clumsy.

I'm sure it must have been the same when people jamming matchsticks in the in-between positions on their Strat 3-way switches tried to describe the sound and the best they could come up with was out of phase and bell like, which over the decades has just become accepted. 

Three-ColourSunburst

It is confirmation bias when someone believes that vintage instruments have a certain 'mojo' or in some way sound better than modern instruments, and those expectations influence their interpretation of what they hear. Whatever the player thinks they are hearing there might still, in reality,  be no consistent or characteristic difference between old and new instruments - and that this is the case is further supported by the need to describe any supposed differences using essentially meaningless terms such as 'it has more depth to its sound'.

Look at things another way. Most people believe that different instruments, even of the same model, have significant differences in their sound and feel, and that this has always been the case. This means that of all the instruments made in '59 or whenever, some were great, most were middling and some were dogs. It is likely that the ones that have been cherished and survived through the years were the best examples, and so perhaps (perhaps) on a percentage basis more surviving vintage guitars are 'good' examples than the percentage of those that rolled off the production lines last week. However, this just reflects a sort of natural selection, not their age per say. 

And then there is the issue of just how original and 'authentic' all those cherished vintage guitars actually are. People still rave about them even when in reality it is a bitsa that once was routed for a Floyd, has rewound pickups and a refin, so all that authentic vintage mojo must have surely evaporated into the ether long ago.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/arts-the-great-rocknroll-swindle-1126886.html

https://benicetobears.com/2016/09/16/almost-all-vintage-guitars-are-fake/

https://planetbotch.blogspot.com/2012/09/where-are-all-the-real-vintage-strats.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20180330013436/http://davidjpym.com/page459.html

thegummy

soma1975 said:

thegummy said:

soma1975 said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

Having played a bunch of old instruments at the Fretboarders meeting a couple of months back and really wanting to feel what you stated, I can only say absolutely not. Was gutted that my LP with replica PAFs and 50s wiring didn't sound the same as the 50s LP I played. 

They each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Edit. To be fair the magnets in pickups do get weaker with age, so to get that vintage sound perhaps it would be necessary to lower one's pickups a tad, or fit weaker magnets.

Literally the opposite of confirmation bias FFS. 

It doesn't work like that, you don't only get it if you wanted that result.

It's that you had it in your head going that it's a possibility.

I'm not saying you definitely did only think that because of bias, just that we're not any less likely to be affected by bias just because we didn't want that result.

Not sure why he seems so confident that your conclusion was caused by bias rather than actual hearing. We know these biases do exist and sometimes cause mistaken beliefs but it's obviously not the case every single time.

Could you explain what you meant about the depth of the sound thing?

Of course it's a possibility. It either sounds different or it doesn't and you are playing them side by side to hear if there is a difference. Literally nothing to do with bias. 

Of course the irony being that someone repeating the idea that it's the Emperor's New Clothes or confirmation bias without finding out for themselves or experiencing it displays a clear bias. 

My point was that I lacked the language to explain, not that it could not be explained so any attempts come off as clumsy.

I'm sure it must have been the same when people jamming matchsticks in the in-between positions on their Strat 3-way switches tried to describe the sound and the best they could come up with was out of phase and bell like, which over the decades has just become accepted. 

I totally agree with you that just because someone can't describe a difference or explain the science behind it, it doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

On the bias thing though - you seem to be saying that if you can hear a difference then it's nothing to do with bias. That's really missing what bias is - the bias makes you hear it differently.

So many people think that what they hear is what's there in reality (and it's a reasonable assumption when they don't know otherwise).

If you did the test I mentioned where you'd be passed various guitars and not told if they were new or old but you had to detect which were which - if you did that and weren't able to guess correctly, would you not then think you were being influenced by confirmation bias when you thought you could hear the difference when you knew in advance what they were?

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

It is confirmation bias when someone believes that vintage instruments have a certain 'mojo' or in some way sound better than modern instruments, and those expectations influence their interpretation of what they hear. Whatever the player thinks they are hearing there might still, in reality,  be no consistent or characteristic difference between old and new instruments - and that this is the case is further supported by the need to describe any supposed differences using essentially meaningless terms such as 'it has more depth to its sound'.

I don't get why you're saying that with such certainty as if vintage instruments definitely don't sound different so anyone who thinks so must be biased.

Is there some evidence I don't know about that proves that there aren't any differences?

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

I don't get why you're saying that with such certainty as if vintage instruments definitely don't sound different so anyone who thinks so must be biased.

Is there some evidence I don't know about that proves that there aren't any differences?

What could be responsible for any supposed differences? First off, as I have already pointed out, the magnets in the pickups of old guitars get weaker, and that this could influence the sound. On the other hand knowing this we could get the same sound by using weaker magnets from new, so there is nothing 'special' about the older instrument in this regard. Same with wiring, pot values and winding technique - all of these have been forensically studied and so could be reproduced in a modern instrument.

A guitar is just a slab of wood with some wired attached to it and some simple electronics, so what else is left where this mysterious 'vintage mojo' could lurk? The 'old wood' hypothesis is laughable, given the basic laws of physics, so that leaves just once place - in the head of the player, which makes it 'real' in a psychological if not actual, physical sense.

Even in the world of vintage violins, where the vibration of the body actually produces the sound one hears, it seems that the supposed magic of old instruments exist only in the head of those who pick one up knowing its provenance. For example:

Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been proposed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated. Player's judgments about a Stradivari's sound may be biased by the violin's extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’ individual experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind conditions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i) the most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stradivari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument's age and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv) most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/3/760.full.pdf

Old Italian violins are widely believed to have playing qualities unobtainable in new violins, including the ability to project their sound more effectively in a hall. Because Old Italian instruments are now priced beyond the reach of the vast majority of players, it seems important to test the fundamental assumption of their tonal superiority. A recent study found that, under blind conditions, violin soloists generally prefer new violins and are unable to distinguish between new and old at better than chance levels. This paper extends the results to listeners in a hall. We find that they generally prefer new violins over Stradivaris, consider them better-projecting, and are no better than players at telling new and old apart.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/21/5395.full.pdf

jonnyburgo

It would be nice to have a ton of disposable cash for a guilt free spend down there, although I'd probably be paralyzed by indecision.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I don't get why you're saying that with such certainty as if vintage instruments definitely don't sound different so anyone who thinks so must be biased.

Is there some evidence I don't know about that proves that there aren't any differences?

What could be responsible for any supposed differences? First off, as I have already pointed out, the magnets in the pickups of old guitars get weaker, and that this could influence the sound. On the other hand knowing this we could get the same sound by using weaker magnets from new, so there is nothing 'special' about the older instrument in this regard. Same with wiring, pot values and winding technique - all of these have been forensically studied and so could be reproduced in a modern instrument.

A guitar is just a slab of wood with some wired attached to it and some simple electronics, so what else is left where this mysterious 'vintage mojo' could lurk? The 'old wood' hypothesis is laughable, given the basic laws of physics, so that leaves just once place - in the head of the player, which makes it 'real' in a psychological if not actual, physical sense.

Even in the world of vintage violins, where the vibration of the body actually produces the sound one hears, it seems that the supposed magic of old instruments exist only in the head of those who pick one up knowing its provenance. For example:

Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been proposed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated. Player's judgments about a Stradivari's sound may be biased by the violin's extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’ individual experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind conditions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i) the most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stradivari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument's age and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv) most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/3/760.full.pdf

Old Italian violins are widely believed to have playing qualities unobtainable in new violins, including the ability to project their sound more effectively in a hall. Because Old Italian instruments are now priced beyond the reach of the vast majority of players, it seems important to test the fundamental assumption of their tonal superiority. A recent study found that, under blind conditions, violin soloists generally prefer new violins and are unable to distinguish between new and old at better than chance levels. This paper extends the results to listeners in a hall. We find that they generally prefer new violins over Stradivaris, consider them better-projecting, and are no better than players at telling new and old apart.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/21/5395.full.pdf

Is your certainty based on the fact that you can't work out the theory behind what would make it different?

In those violin examples, they both seem to say that there was a definite trend where the players generall chose the same violins to be the better one and the same ones to be the worse ones. That indicates that there is indeed a difference.

The fact they weren't able to tell which is which is only indicitive of the player's ability to know which is which - the fact they're all choosing the same ones to be better and worse is the important thing. If it was that half of them chose one to be better and the other half chose the other to be better it would suggest no difference.

Since the idea of "best" or "better" is completely subjective, the only thing a test can prove is whether they're different.

There would need to be a blind test with guitars to have any kind of certainty. People would play a number of guitars where some would be vintage and some new and they had to say which they thought each example was.

Obviously if they get it right then it indicates there's definitey a difference. But even if they put "vintage" for every new one and vice versa, it would still indicate the same result, that the difference is there.

soma1975

Three-ColourSunburst said:

It is confirmation bias when someone believes that vintage instruments have a certain 'mojo' or in some way sound better than modern instruments, and those expectations influence their interpretation of what they hear. Whatever the player thinks they are hearing there might still, in reality,  be no consistent or characteristic difference between old and new instruments - and that this is the case is further supported by the need to describe any supposed differences using essentially meaningless terms such as 'it has more depth to its sound'.

Except I said I didn't believe that stuff and wanted to feel my LP was just as good sounding an instrument. I also said they sounded different, not better depending on what you want an instrument to sound like and your setup etc. 

Nothing meaningless about the description of 'more depth' other than it is inadequate and does t do it justice as I have already stated repeatedly. 

There's a super quick way of finding out for yourself rather than trying to have a dig at the perception or understanding of people have already experienced it. 

As it is, some random bloke telling a bunch of people who have played a whole heap of instruments over the years that they haven't experienced what they stated they have experienced because 'confirmation bias' is at best disingenuous. 

So anyway you asked the question (to which you clearly didn't want to accept  an answer which deviated from your hoped for outcome) and I have given my honest response. 

There's nothing worse than an internet expert telling people why they are wrong armed only with hyperlinks without having found out anything for themselves. Not really anything else to be said so I shall leave you to it. 

stickyfiddle

I've only just started watching this. That 335 sound 15 mins in... 'kin'ell 

Also, I'm watching on the big TV with proper sound setup. Decent quality stereo right in my ears is making want to go to Cheltenham and spend lots of money...

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

In those violin examples, they both seem to say that there was a definite trend where the players generall chose the same violins to be the better one and the same ones to be the worse ones. That indicates that there is indeed a difference.

...Since the idea of "best" or "better" is completely subjective, the only thing a test can prove is whether they're different.

I have never argued that some instruments don't sound better the others. The argument here is whether or not old instruments consistently and characteristically sound better than more recent ones, because they are old, rather than because they have undergone a process of natural selection, and that even faithful modern replicas of old guitars cannot replicate that true vintage sound, which is was soma1975 claimed.

soma1975 said:

Was gutted that my LP with replica PAFs and 50s wiring didn't sound the same as the 50s LP I played.  They each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar.

So, 50's Les Pauls supposedly "each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar". That is, 'each'  (i.e all of them) had something "never heard in a modern guitar", and surely they must have supposedly sounded better or why would soma have felt "gutted" about the sound of his replica in comparison.

I feel that the reality - objective reality, not the sounds someone thinks they hear in their head knowing that they are playing a mojo-laden vintage instrument - is that - as with vintage violins, even Strads costing millions - the reality is that in a blind test modern instruments would show up very well against vintage ones, and that it is very likely it would be a modern instrument that would be judged to be the best sounding and best playing. 

Three-ColourSunburst

stickyfiddle said:

I'm watching on the big TV with proper sound setup. Decent quality stereo right in my ears is making want to go to Cheltenham and spend lots of money...

Objective achieved then.

impmann

soma1975 said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

It is confirmation bias when someone believes that vintage instruments have a certain 'mojo' or in some way sound better than modern instruments, and those expectations influence their interpretation of what they hear. Whatever the player thinks they are hearing there might still, in reality,  be no consistent or characteristic difference between old and new instruments - and that this is the case is further supported by the need to describe any supposed differences using essentially meaningless terms such as 'it has more depth to its sound'.

Except I said I didn't believe that stuff and wanted to feel my LP was just as good sounding an instrument. I also said they sounded different, not better depending on what you want an instrument to sound like and your setup etc. 

Nothing meaningless about the description of 'more depth' other than it is inadequate and does t do it justice as I have already stated repeatedly. 

There's a super quick way of finding out for yourself rather than trying to have a dig at the perception or understanding of people have already experienced it. 

As it is, some random bloke telling a bunch of people who have played a whole heap of instruments over the years that they haven't experienced what they stated they have experienced because 'confirmation bias' is at best disingenuous. 

So anyway you asked the question (to which you clearly didn't want to accept  an answer which deviated from your hoped for outcome) and I have given my honest response. 

There's nothing worse than an internet expert telling people why they are wrong armed only with hyperlinks without having found out anything for themselves. Not really anything else to be said so I shall leave you to it. 

Well said.

3TS has previously stated that we are "mistaken" for thinking that having a guitar that is vibrant and resonant is a good thing, as this causes dead spots. Er no... no, it doesn't necessarily. He also stated that the 'ill-advised' believe that electric guitar design isn't about subduing this resonance and that that all guitar designers strive to remove the effects of this. Strangely, when I asked an old guitar designer friend of mine (name witheld as he he doesn't want to get dragged into this) he said "cobblers" and "well, there's someone who's read lots and knows nothing". But of course, my friend doesn't use "science" to base his opinion... he uses 30 years of guitar design experience... meaningless, I imagine, as it doesn't fit the 3TS viewpoint.

I think he believes that everyone on here has no experience - and that some of us haven't worked in the Music Industry for years (and still do). I've used the term 'cod-science' in the past to describe his outpourings... I've been criticised for doing so. But I think it sums it up. Make your own mind up.

I suggest you do what I have done, put him on "ignore". 

soma1975

3TS said:

So, 50's Les Pauls supposedly "each in their own way had a depth to their tone I have never heard in a modern guitar". That is, 'each'  (i.e all of them) had something "never heard in a modern guitar", and surely they must have supposedly sounded better or why would soma have felt "gutted" about the sound of his replica in comparison.

I feel that the reality - objective reality, not the sounds someone thinks they hear in their head knowing that they are playing a mojo-laden vintage instrument - is that - as with vintage violins, even Strads costing millions - the reality is that in a blind test modern instruments would show up very well against vintage ones, and that it is very likely it would be a modern instrument that would be judged to be the best sounding and best playing. 

You are the only person on here going on about mojo. I was talking specifically about the 50s Les Pauls I played the day in question. And to aid your selective quoting to change meanings, 'I have never heard' is not the same as 'has never been heard'. For example it appears everything sounds the same to you. Anyway that's me done. 

Of the 50s Les Pauls you have played did they sound the same as Epiphones? 

soma1975

impmann said:

Well said.

3TS has previously stated that we are "mistaken" for thinking that having a guitar that is vibrant and resonant is a good thing, as this causes dead spots. Er no... no, it doesn't necessarily. He also stated that the 'ill-advised' believe that electric guitar design isn't about subduing this resonance and that that all guitar designers strive to remove the effects of this. Strangely, when I asked an old guitar designer friend of mine (name witheld as he he doesn't want to get dragged into this) he said "cobblers" and "well, there's someone who's read lots and knows nothing". But of course, my friend doesn't use "science" to base his opinion... he uses 30 years of guitar design experience... meaningless, I imagine, as it doesn't fit the 3TS viewpoint.

I think he believes that everyone on here has no experience - and that some of us haven't worked in the Music Industry for years (and still do). I've used the term 'cod-science' in the past to describe his outpourings... I've been criticised for doing so. But I think it sums it up. Make your own mind up.

I suggest you do what I have done, put him on "ignore". 

Yep.


At the end of a day if a Squier sounds the same as an original '62 to you then you are  a very lucky man who will find far better things to spend your money on. 

Although by 'uses science' I assume you meant 'uses reddit sub-forum' to come to these silly conclusions.