Is old stuff better?

ThePrettyDamned

ICBM;84984" said:

The modern guitars I've found which come closest to the sound of the old ones are Gibson 'pre-Historics' from around the mid 90s. I don't think they were using old-growth wood then! But those guitars are around twenty years old now, and are starting to sound really good. They still don't sound like real old ones, but they're some of the best modern guitars I know of.

Again to be absolutely clear, the 'old' and 'new' sound doesn't necessarily correlate with 'good' and 'bad', you can get either combination. My PRS sounds great too, and it's not an old guitar... nor does it sound like one.

One thing that's important to remember about those old recordings that were made with (then new, or at least new-ish) vintage guitars and amps… they used cables and in some cases pedals, which by modern standards were horrendously tone-sucking. The loading effect of a non-true-bypass pedal and thirty or more feet of coily cable probably makes more difference to the final sound than any subtle difference in the guitar or the amp.

Interesting you say that, I heard a bloke playing a plexi (a 50 or 100 watter) and he loved it, but to me it was stupidly bright and clangy. Fairly certain he was just enjoying being hendrix...

But the guy in the shop said to me that hendrix made it sound warm because of the massive capacitance on the cable. It was a huge, curly cable and a fuzz, wah and probably something else in front, all adding to it. So while plexi amps are horribly bright, they work fine with really shit gear.

EdGrip

No.

koneguitarist

The thing with old plexi amps is to use both channels to mix the tones. I use to use one in a country band, great clean amps.

stickyfiddle

My thoughts:

- Some old guitars are actually rubbish, some new guitars are rubbish.

- A lot of old guitars that were rubbish when new have been trashed or tweaked into oblivion until they're good (ie 70's Strats). Conversely, most of the great old guitars have been played loads, looked after and kept in good shape and thus continue to be great guitars.

- Loads of potentially-crappy 50's and 60's guitars had Floyds and Dimarzios inflicted upon them in the 80's. Most of these seem to have disappeared, presumed repaired, refinned and re-sold as originals...

- Most modern Gibson and Fender Custom Shop guitars are at least as good as your average vintage instrument.

- Most modern cheap guitars guitars from are seriously good, particularly compared with what you could get for the same price even 15 years ago.

- A lot of the woods used originally are revered now simply because they were used, even if they were chosen because they were cost effective, not because they were inherently better (does anyone actually care how a Brazilian rosewood fretboard affects tone compared with Indian?)

-My own best "posh" guitars (Si/WezV-made Cabronita and Gibson CS-336 stand up next to any other guitar I've ever played, including vintage strat, LPs etc)

downbytheriver

Interesting stuff.

In 30 odd years of owning Strats, god knows how many I have been through - this is my considered opinion based on what I have today.

The best Strat I own is a 1962. It's a refinish with a modern scratchplate but original body (with some extra routing), original neck and pickups. Sounds better than anything I have played anywhere, feels perfect (the neck is a bit worn but nothing major, it's been refretted). The ONLY downside is that the side dots on the neck are almost invisible in any gig situation (and to think I thought I didn't use them...) - don't know why it is so good, maybe it always was, maybe they get better.

I also have a nice light 1972. It's quite beaten up finish wise but is completely original except the neck pickup has been rewound (Bare Knuckle). This guitar is on a par with team built Custom Shop guitars for both sound and feel. Nothing like a late 70s strat. If they get better, in 10 years time it'll be as good as the 62... probably... but who knows how good that will be...

I have 2 Custom Shop Strats - a 56 RI and a 60 RI, both team built. Superb guitars both - I have over the years (starting in 1989) owned at least 15 custom shop guitars and they have ALL been extremely good. I love relics, they feel just like my old ones, the shiny ones just don't!

American Vintage - I don't have any of these any more - they just are not as good as the Custom Shop ones.

American Standards - very modern, not me at all. Same for all the Deluxe, whiz bang ones.

Mexican Standards - don't feel solid to me, don't like them.

BUT....

Mexican Classic Players 60s Strat - the best Strat you can buy outside the Custom Shop (or certainly the early ones were). Not relics but they feel great. Bags of twang.

Mexican Road Worn - feel like scratched standards.

Squiers, especially CV, outrageous value for money, mostly better than Mex. That Simon Neil Strat was ridiculously good FOR THE MONEY. (empahasis deliberate)

SO - in my experience, there is nothing like a really good old one. There is something like a fairly old one - it comes from the Custom Shop. Most of the new ones, feel just that - new, but new now is much more consistently good than new was in the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s. It's just not OLD.

impmann

Excellent point by @ICBM back there... No true bypass, "crap" quality cables, dull sounding strings etc? How did they possibly survive... their tones must have been diabolical...

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how *bright* vintage guitars can be - most folks go on about the "warmth" etc, especially with Gibsons. They have a lot of 'bite' underpinned by good bass - on a good one, that is. 

And have a wisdom Mr Stickyfiddle... 

ToneControl

stickyfiddle said:

My thoughts:

- Some old guitars are actually rubbish, some new guitars are rubbish.

- A lot of old guitars that were rubbish when new have been trashed or tweaked into oblivion until they're good (ie 70's Strats). Conversely, most of the great old guitars have been played loads, looked after and kept in good shape and thus continue to be great guitars.

- Loads of potentially-crappy 50's and 60's guitars had Floyds and Dimarzios inflicted upon them in the 80's. Most of these seem to have disappeared, presumed repaired, refinned and re-sold as originals...

- Most modern Gibson and Fender Custom Shop guitars are at least as good as your average vintage instrument.

- Most modern cheap guitars guitars from are seriously good, particularly compared with what you could get for the same price even 15 years ago.

- A lot of the woods used originally are revered now simply because they were used, even if they were chosen because they were cost effective, not because they were inherently better (does anyone actually care how a Brazilian rosewood fretboard affects tone compared with Indian?)

-My own best "posh" guitars (Si/WezV-made Cabronita and Gibson CS-336 stand up next to any other guitar I've ever played, including vintage strat, LPs etc)

I agree with all of this

Which I suppose leads me to my working principle - that, for use as a working guitar, a good 1960s Fender or Gibson should not cost any more than a good recent one, but we have to allow some extra for the nostalgia and vibe, but not 600% or 2000% extra.

In my mind, only collectors and museums should be paying more than £1500 for a 60s strat, for example. I have bought several amplifiers from this period for less than this, and I have no idea why 1960s guitars should now cost 10 or 20 times more than the excellent classic amplifiers that appeared on the same page in the manufacturer's catalogue, for around the same new price

Having said all this, my point was not whether Fender and Gibson have now got their act together and now build as well as they did in the 50s/60s. I believe they build better guitars.  I think the reason they can is that current luthiers know more about building good guitars and have better machines and better technology to help them with it. Same principle for amps and FX. How can they be less able to build better now, when they know everything that was known then, plus lots more too? I'm not convinced wood is harder to get now, look at the effort that Larrivee and Taylor spend chasing it to its source, I suspect that pro guitars have better raw materials now. 

I'm fine with people liking aged guitars, personally I'd prefer newer, and certainly would not pay more for an old guitar. My issue is that I haven't seen any evidence that guitars or amps were made better back in the 50s/60s than they are now, but a lot of people seem to believe the opposite. To me this seems a bit masochistic, since I think we have the best luthiers and amp makers here right now, and people are ignoring their work and buying old guitars for investment prices.

If non-players want to pay £10k, £20k, £800k for an old guitar to put on their wall or in a bank vault, I say "fine", I can buy a newish one built at least as well made, and most likely quite a bit better. People who prefer "aged" guitars can buy one that has that simulated in too

 

 

 

RocknRollDave

I can accept that guitars change over time, in a way that may enhance the feel and/ sound of them. This may (or may not!) be the "mojo" that people attribute to certain old guitars. I certainly don't believe it is down to guitars being "better" then than now.

One thing I do find amusing is the idea that some folk have of a 50's guitars taking on this great sound over all that time when, for example, Clapton's Beano LP was less than a decade old when he recorded that album - My LP Studio's almost twice as old as Clapton's LP was then, but that doesn't necessarily translate as it being a fantastic LP!

DartmoorHedgehog

I certainly agree that new is better than old in the case of less expensive instruments. At the high end it's easy to argue about whether people made them better in the '50s than they do now, or if the wood in an old guitar has somehow changed for the better since it was built. But for those of us amateurs who can't justify (too miserly or simply don't have the funds) spending thousands it's now possible to buy really pretty good instruments for less than £500, very playable ones for a couple of hundred, and that's new prices. Until not that long ago, less expensive guitars were nothing like as good as what we have now - and some were terrible.

Some of the "old stuff is good" is probably true, because only the best stuff has survived, but I think we're far better off now for choice of good instruments at reasonable prices than the folks of the '50s or '60s were. I know people like to poke fun at far-eastern-built, poly-finished guitars but is there actually anything really nasty on the market any more? (even the cheapest stuff is considerably better than the POS LP copy I had when I was a student in the '80s!)

crunchman

My thoughts (I know I'm repeating or reinforcing some of what has been said above):

Firstly - and above all else, there are good guitars and there are bad guitars - irrespective of age.

If you compare a good new one to a bad old one then the new one will win.  I'd take a good Classic Player Strat over a 79 I played a few years ago without even thinking about it - the 79 was awful.  In fact I'd probably take the average Squier over that one.  (I'd also take a good Classic Player over some new US ones).

The other thing is that old ones may be bad because of design issues. 

As an example, when I bought my first high end acoustic a few years ago, I tried some early seventies Martins.  For similar money, the new Vintage Series Martins were consistently far better guitars than the old ones were.  The main difference is that the Vintage Series have the pre-war forward shifted bracing. Martin also used a different wood for the bridge plate from around 68 to 98, which the purists say is a bad thing.

Old ones may also be bad because of bad wood e.g. late seventies back breakers.

In these circumstances I'd prefer a good modern guitar any day of the week.

Having said that, guitars do sound better as they age.  I'm convinced this is down to changes in the wood.  The effect is more obvious on acoustics, but it's still there on electrics.  I've seen this in my own guitars.

Whatever some say, wood definitely makes a difference to the sound of an electric.  If you want convincing of this then try an all Mahogany PRS Standard alongside a Custom with its great big thick maple top.  There is a definite difference.

As wood makes a difference to tone, then if the wood changes as it ages, it stands to reason that a guitar's tone will change.  It will be subtle but it will be there.  It's an ongoing process but for me, I've had 3 or 4 guitars that really started to open up around 5 years old.  Hopefully they will continue to improve as they age more.

The other thing to bear in mind is the quality of the wood in the first place.  With Les Pauls the lightweight "Honduras Mahogany" that was used on the 57 - 60 Standards is not available in commercial quantities anymore.  The stuff that is available in large quantities would be back breakingly heavy if they didn't weight relieve it.  Brazilian rosewood is no longer available.

I think that when you get a good one, the old ones do have something that new ones do not.  I've played some absolutely stunning old ones.  The really good ones all seemed to be really light.  Whether it was light wood in the first place, or whether there is something to "drying out" or other structural changes that effect the amount of water in the wood I can't say.  If it's different wood in the first place then we'll have to take out mortgages and get old ones if we want that extra bit of tone.  If it's age then we can afford to be patient.

bertie

I am living proof that old stuff is better

koneguitarist

Honduras Mahogany is not always light, same as ash. whats wrong with using Teak, Sapele, etc,nothing.

Its just we are programmed to believe we have to use what the old guitars used or its not as good, maybe its better for guitars?

ICBM

koneguitarist said:

Honduras Mahogany is not always light, same as ash. whats wrong with using Teak, Sapele, etc,nothing.

Its just we are programmed to believe we have to use what the old guitars used or its not as good, maybe its better for guitars?

I agree. A lot more use of different woods would be a good thing. 

I made a bass body from Iroko once (similar to teak) - I just had a piece about the right size with a nice grain and thought I would try it. Weighed a ton, but sounded fantastic. Unfortunately it gave me some sort of skin reaction when I played it - it was an oiled finish at that point so it would have been too difficult to put something over the top.

Taylor uses Sapele instead of mahogany for a lot of their guitars.

The best-sounding 'modern-style' acoustic I have ever played was made with American Black Walnut, where rosewood would probably have been expected.

My favourite vintage-style acoustic is my Gibson Dove, which is maple - although a traditional wood, definitely not the most common choice.

WezV

ICBM said:

I made a bass body from Iroko once (similar to teak) - I just had a piece about the right size with a nice grain and thought I would try it. Weighed a ton, but sounded fantastic. Unfortunately it gave me some sort of skin reaction when I played it - it was an oiled finish at that point so it would have been too difficult to put something over the top.

I hate iroko for the reasons you state, its heavy, hard to work and can give a nasty reaction.  its often used for lab workbenches as its very resistant to chemicals.  this meant i used to have access to a lot.  I made a woodblock for a drummer but would not touch the stuff for guitars.  It does have a very clear tap tone.

I have always used alternative woods as well as reclaimed versions of the woods we love, but I don't think using different woods solves all the problems.   Its great for someone like me who builds a few guitars a year, but if a whole industry does it the we just end up with more woods we are short of.  obviously truly sustainable alternatives are much better, plantation grown rosewood is nearly a viable choice , sapele is accepted by many and is fairly sustainable.  

but look at something like wenge, used by some guitar comapnies for decades, touted by many big names as comparable in tone to braz RW, also currently popular for furniture... when does it stop being a viable alternative and start being a wood I should feel guilty about using??

i have used sapele a few times for necks and bodies, i would still chose a south american mahogany over it for a traditional gibson style build every time.  quite happy with sapele for other things though, its extra stiffness over those traditional mahoganies does make it a good choice for necks but its hard to make light bodies out of it without considering weight relief (not really a problem to me either).  both those factors make it a good choice for acoustic back and side sets as it is

Lew

Better stuff is better. Old stuff is old.

geepers0677

^ This.

koneguitarist

I can honestly say I have not played a bad new quality guitar. By that I mean a guitar £500 upwards. Played some I did not like, but not bad ones. However I have played bad old quality guitars, such as Gibson and Fender.

ThePrettyDamned

@wezv I really like your approach. I don't care what a guitar is made of, so long as it sounds good. I'd feel better if it wasn't something unsustainable #imahippy