Unofficial Taylor Guitar Forum - UTGF
Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Taylor Acoustic & Electric Guitars => Topic started by: krugjr on February 17, 2014, 05:11:56 PM
-
Thought about sending question to "Ask Bob" in the W&S but you all are just as informative and much quicker. Any difference between a Taylor that has been stored in a "controlled environment" at a dealer for 2-3 yrs and one that just came off the assembly line? (assuming all materials and construction methods the same) mostly concerning, does a guitar need to be played right away to properly start the "opening up" and "tone maturing" processes and does that "opening up" only start when a guitar is played, and can that maturing process be hindered if a guitar sits for 2-3 yrs without being played?
-
I purchased a 2011 in 2013 I could not tell the difference between that one a a factory fresh off the truck guitar. As far as opening up, well, I don't know what that guitar sounded like when it was factory fresh off the truck. I do know that it was never opened or played at the store. One thing I can tell you is it is a beaut! 8)
-
I'm going to side-step the question somewhat. Sorry. I would wonder why the guitar had been sitting in dealer inventory for so long. If it were a small store off the beaten path and the guitar was expensive I'd be less hesitant than if it were a "shop queen" in a store with a lot of traffic. My guess is that the maturing process happens regardless of whether a guitar is played, but is definitely accelerated by playing. So I would expect a 2-3 year old NOS to sound different (all other things being equal) than one just off the truck.
-
Speaking somewhat from experience, I've purchased two guitars that were new, old-stock (NOS), and I haven't noticed any discernible difference between their sound quality and a newer guitar.
Now, one of the guitars of which I speak is a Liberty Tree Guitar, so it's a bit harder to make a one-to-one comparison there, since the back/side wood is unique. But the guitar sounds pretty good to me, regardless. That guitar was a 2002 issue, and I purchased it late last year -- approximately 11 years old. My understanding (through my correspondence with the authorized Taylor dealer) was that the dealer had kept for display purposes in their store, and only decided to sell it around the time I purchased it. I don't know how much it was played while it was displayed, but it doesn't look like it was handled very much 'cause it looks like a new guitar.
The other was the T5-S with the Aztec Gold top, which was a 2008 model that I purchased earlier in 2013 (5 years old, almost to the day), also from an authorized Taylor dealer. I simply bought it as an interesting companion piece to a '98 Corvette that I own with the same color of paint (well, at least the names are the same; the actual color shades are a bit different; see attachment). Anyway, that guitar essentially sounds like any other T5-S I've played.
Based on what I've read, the 'opening-up' and 'tone maturing' process starts right away and progresses with age; playing the guitar essentially just speeds that process along by 'limbering' up the wood, in particular, the top wood -- making it more responsive. It's probably analogous to exercising/flexing the human body: little by little, it gets better.
-
I seriously doubt anything "happens" to a guitar that is literally just sitting around (assuming proper RH and no adverse conditions, of course). Any "opening up" process cones from playing: vibrations, and lots of it, compounded with the passing years is what tends to alter an acoustic's tone. Consider NOS as simply "new." Whatever variations one may perceive are likely the timbral differences that exist between guitars in the first place. If there's any advantage, perhaps with such a "closet queen" as it were you can try and bargain for a better price. And if from a Taylor dealer, then you get to enjoy a full factory warranty to boot. :)
Edward
-
Someone posted this link here before, but it is very interesting. Robert Godin talking about guitar woods and the effects of a guitar being played.
It is quite interesting to ponder: http://youtu.be/MPh9_gFH7t4
It made me look back on my experience with a closet queen 2011 Spring LTD GC 12 fret cedar/macassar. It had been sitting in a closet unplayed and I ended up selling it. It just wasn't for me I guess. Perhaps being that it sat in the closet for 2 years while the other guitars were out being played...it was a late bloomer? At the end of the day though, I think if you play a guitar and it speaks to you, it doesn't matter if it's right off the production line or been played like a six string on a Tommy Emmanuel tour!
-
I agree with those who say a guitar only opens up when it's played. In fact, I wonder if sitting around for a long time might in some way lower the ultimate potential of an instrument. I'm no luthier, but guitars are meant to be played and sitting in a case or hanging on a wall unplayed for years might mean the instrument cures differently - the glues, the joints - and might never reach the potential it would have had.
-
MB.....thanks for the Godin link, some good stuff.....I've heard a little of that philosophy here at UTGF and that is why I asked today's question, especially the part where your guitar "learns" how you play...it opens up the most with the vibrations you play the most...and I never would have thought about exposing an acoustic to the stereo, etc, etc...pretty cool...
thanks for the feedback so far, all of you!
-
I bought a NOS 2005 614ce in late 2007 at a fairly busy GC in NJ. It was the best sounding, best playing x14;instrument in the store, presumably because it was played in and more opened up.
-
and I never would have thought about exposing an acoustic to the stereo, etc, etc...pretty cool…"
I first heard this many years ago when I was very young and learning to play the guitar. A guitar "learning" to sound better, whether by listening to your stereo, or by being played, makes a nice story. But in my experience that's all it is. Great sounding guitars were great sounding when they left the shop, they didn't magically become that way.
FWIW, obviously the above is MY OPINION based on my experience with acoustic guitars over a lot of years. If someone can actually demonstrate this sound improvement, I'll be more than happy to admit I have been wrong. However, one would think that the proponents of placing a guitar in front of the stereo and playing music or test tones to it to "improve" the sound would set up a simple before/after recording to demonstrate the improvement. Interestingly, there HAVE been such tests with violins using all sorts of very scientific equipment and no difference in the sound occurred. Scientific American (if I remember right) had an article about it some years ago in reference to making a new violin sound like a Strad. Further, quite recently, in a blind test in France, violinists preferred the sound of brand new violins to old violins…the old violins were Strads and Guarnari's.
This would also tend to support the fact that professional classical and flamenco guitar players do not play old guitars in concert…a few years old is pretty much the limit. Paco de Lucia, for example is constantly using a new instrument. This is one reason that endorsements by players aren't worth much. The guitar they are playing today will be discarded shortly in favor of another one, frequently from a different maker.
If it doesn't sound good now, it's never going to, no matter how much Jimi Hendrix/Leo Kottke/Paco de Lucia/Andre Segovia you play TO it or ON it. ;)
-
Bob Taylor, in response to a letter in Wood & Steel, recalled a guitar that sat in his closet, virtually unplayed for many years. Upon finally taking it out of the case, he noticed that the guitar sounded appreciably different from the way it did when it was first built. And upon further investigation, under a microscope, he observed that the wood had changed on a cellular level.
If this is true, and we have no reason to believe it's not, Bob is saying that a guitar will change over time, regardless of whether it's played or not.
-
Bob Taylor, in response to a letter in Wood & Steel, recalled a guitar that sat in his closet, virtually unplayed for many years. Upon finally taking it out of the case, he noticed that the guitar sounded appreciably different from the way it did when it was first built. And upon further investigation, under a microscope, he observed that the wood had changed on a cellular level.
If this is true, and we have no reason to believe it's not, Bob is saying that a guitar will change over time, regardless of whether it's played or not.
This is interesting information. I haven't heard about it previously but don't doubt what you say. I think a guitar's tone has a tendency to change even when it isn't played so this might very well be the reason why. :)
-
Perhaps this is a matter of degree. Wood, being organic, will age even in a closet. But PLAYING a guitar will change it more, and in different ways. I love the notion that what you play on a guitar - those particular vibrations - "tune" the guitar to sound best on the music you love most. Not sure I believe it, but it's a seductive notion.
-
My guitars sound different from day to day. Maybe it's my perception and reception, or maybe it's the barometric pressure, humidity, etc. And often, they sound different after about 20 minutes of playing.
-
My guitars sound different from day to day. Maybe it's my perception and reception, or maybe it's the barometric pressure, humidity, etc. And often, they sound different after about 20 minutes of playing.
I've noticed a similar thing as well. And have attributed it largely to the same things you have (my current mental state, level of fatigue, atmospheric conditions, etc.) -- as well as my inconsistent skills that I'm working to improve.
I've actually started doing something that I think mitigates some of the atmospheric effects of the 20-minute 'warm-up' period, though: When I get home from work, I'll take mine out of the case and put it in the guitar stand of my playing area well before I plan to start playing (usually about an hour prior). I'll prepare my dinner, sit down a bit to relax while I eat, then start practicing. By then, the guitar has adjust to the prevailing atmospheric conditions. So if it doesn't sound right, it's probably me...
-
While there is little scientific evidence of measurable improvement with before/after testing, we all "know" that guitars tend to open up. You can argue whether perceived changes are "real" improvements, or simply comparisons between today and idealized (probably suspect) memories of what the tone used to be. Do you REALLY remember exactly how this guitar sounded several years ago? Can you see paint chips at Home Depot under store lighting and know for sure that it matches your kitchen wall?
My personal opinion is that both age and vibration help to mature or "open up" the tone. Wood is essentially nature's composite material. Man-made fiberglass is long glass fibers embedded in a polyester resin binder. Wood is long cellulose fibers embedded in natural resin. Over time the resin hardens or crystallizes, which changes the properties of the wood. With movement and vibration, the fibers break loose microscopically from these resin attachments and therefore vibrate more freely, also changing the properties of the wood. So both age and vibration are likely factors in the improvement. Which one is more important? Don't know. It is hard to get one without the other.
The main question is: Does the guitar sound good right now? If so, it is a winner and most likely will only sound better in the future. I would not worry too much about whether it is six months or six years old.
-
Whether it's a guitar's wood changing over time that alters its timbre, or the vibration it experiences over years of use, there are tonal differences perceived: this we can all agree on. Here's the problem: how much of those "tonal differences" are due to our perception having changed?
"I know it's different, I can hear it ...today....." hmmmm.....
:D
Edward
-
While there is little scientific evidence of measurable improvement with before/after testing, we all "know" that guitars tend to open up. You can argue whether perceived changes are "real" improvements, or simply comparisons between today and idealized (probably suspect) memories of what the tone used to be. Do you REALLY remember exactly how this guitar sounded several years ago? Can you see paint chips at Home Depot under store lighting and know for sure that it matches your kitchen wall?
Whether it's a guitar's wood changing over time that alters its timbre, or the vibration it experiences over years of use, there are tonal differences perceived: this we can all agree on. Here's the problem: how much of those "tonal differences" are due to our perception having changed?
"I know it's different, I can hear it ...today....." hmmmm.....
:D
Edward
I think the last two post are spot on. My bet is that we can not remember precisely the tone of our guitars when it was brand new, to now 2 or 3 years later. When things change slowly we don't notice the difference. I have heard of people saying that one day they pick up the 1 year old guitar and it has suddenly opened up, I am a bit skeptical. I do believe that the sound of a guitar changes over the years, after all it is wood.
-
thanks again to all of you for your imput.....didn't think we'd go quite so deep, but it's fun......glad I asked UTGF instead of "Ask Bob"...instant information...theories, opinions, experiences, etc.....GREAT RESPONSES
-
I've noticed exactly the same thing. I can tell the guitar is adjusting to the room by how it goes out of tune after 15 minutes - often going sharp. Once I make that adjustment, it settles in and doesn't go out of tune for a long time.
My guitars sound different from day to day. Maybe it's my perception and reception, or maybe it's the barometric pressure, humidity, etc. And often, they sound different after about 20 minutes of playing.
I've noticed a similar thing as well. And have attributed it largely to the same things you have (my current mental state, level of fatigue, atmospheric conditions, etc.) -- as well as my inconsistent skills that I'm working to improve.
I've actually started doing something that I think mitigates some of the atmospheric effects of the 20-minute 'warm-up' period, though: When I get home from work, I'll take mine out of the case and put it in the guitar stand of my playing area well before I plan to start playing (usually about an hour prior). I'll prepare my dinner, sit down a bit to relax while I eat, then start practicing. By then, the guitar has adjust to the prevailing atmospheric conditions. So if it doesn't sound right, it's probably me...
-
I purchased a "New Old Stock" Big Baby..... I sent it back because it had some serious sound and physical problems. I think it was dry....Very Dry. The fretwires were unreasonably sharp, and it sounded really bad. I can only explain the sound as harsh/unpleasant. I have played with a few of the Big Baby's so I certain my description is accurate. Make sure that you can return any "New Old Stock" you are looking at just in case there is an issue with it.
-
Bought a new old stock 614--two years older than any other Taylor on the wall, and better sounding than the others (which ranged inclusively from 114-814 but were all current year models). No current year 614 to compare it with at the time, so the impact of the wood type may skew this unscientific observation.
-
as long as the NOS is kept in a "friendly environment", how many years it is stored doesn't seem to negatively affect the quality of said guitar.....that's pretty much what I'm hearing from the responses.....and whether a stored guitar "opens up" without being played is a debate that will continue for as long as music is played and songs are sung.....fun stuff.....oh, by the way, my most recent purchase (last month) a 2010 516ce CV NOS from Wildwood Guitars is absolutely awesome....Adirondack top and bracing, and for my heavy rhythm songs, it is the loudest and clearest tone I've heard, no matter how aggressively it is played.....I save my 514e-FLTD for the "pretty" songs (did I just say that?) and when I get after a heavy rhythmic song, out comes the 516.....I do prefer the light strings on the 514 and some of you suggested some brands of med-lights and I've already tried a couple and love them....little easier to the touch and they add that bit of brightness to my strummin'.....like some of you have said here, stick with a "good" store, with a return policy, and you can't go wrong.....Wildwood had to order "a bunch" of the addys in 2010 to get exclusive rights to market them, that's why the NOS.....they fit my style so well, if someone buys my gorgeous, perfect, mint (hint hint) 2009 855ce, I might just get a 514 CV too.....GAS attack coming on, I better excuse myself and head to the medicine cabinet for relief! Have a great day, my friends! Special thanks to michaelw.....
-
as long as the NOS is kept in a "friendly environment", how many years it is stored doesn't seem to negatively affect the quality of said guitar.....
+1
even if it has hardly been played at all, provided humidity & temperature have been kept in check, a fresh set of strings,
a once-over to recheck neck relief & a fine-tooth comb just to make extra certain that the condition is still "as-new" & all's 8)
i forgot to note that those black ice .55 picks look to be of a jazz profile, rather than
a standard cut, but they're not tiny teardrop ones, so hopefully those will work for ya :)
-
While there is little scientific evidence of measurable improvement with before/after testing, we all "know" that guitars tend to open up. You can argue whether perceived changes are "real" improvements, or simply comparisons between today and idealized (probably suspect) memories of what the tone used to be. Do you REALLY remember exactly how this guitar sounded several years ago? Can you see paint chips at Home Depot under store lighting and know for sure that it matches your kitchen wall?
Whether it's a guitar's wood changing over time that alters its timbre, or the vibration it experiences over years of use, there are tonal differences perceived: this we can all agree on. Here's the problem: how much of those "tonal differences" are due to our perception having changed?
"I know it's different, I can hear it ...today....." hmmmm.....
:D
Edward
I think the last two post are spot on. My bet is that we can not remember precisely the tone of our guitars when it was brand new, to now 2 or 3 years later. When things change slowly we don't notice the difference. I have heard of people saying that one day they pick up the 1 year old guitar and it has suddenly opened up, I am a bit skeptical. I do believe that the sound of a guitar changes over the years, after all it is wood.
My three year old Taylor 414 changed it's sound in less than 3 weeks time during a period of high humidity in early spring. This was not not a case of fading perceptions or poor memory. The bass volume increased and the very high notes way up the neck on the solids got "sweeter" sounding, more silky. I have played it every day since I bought it new. The change was so remarkable it caused me to write a post here wondering if my Taylor preferred a higher humidity than it's factory origins. After being raked over the coals here for even suggesting it, I abandoned that theory. Someone even suggested I didn't really like the Taylor sound and actually preferred the muffled tone of a "wet" guitar. To my delight the sound change stayed when it was dried out in a couple of weeks.
Something, some stiffness (like a glue joint) let loose inside that guitar that made it change fairly quickly. I'm sure this isn't a normal occurrence but I'm VERY positive it happened.
I thought for a time that environmental changes of temperature and humidity could contribute to the opening of a guitar, but its also true I was playing it every day at least an hour, HARD, and had reached about 300 hours.
An argument against age alone comes from a 1987 Fender 260S solid top dread I owned for almost 20 years and never played because it always sounded brittle and shrill. It was never stored properly and was exposed to wide variations in temp and %RH. It sounded awful in 1987 and it still sounded awful in 2006 when I began playing it. By 2010 after I had worn out the first 5 frets from playing it was a different guitar.
I'm a retired scientist and remain unconvinced it doesn't happen simply because some poorly conceived (or well conceived) experiment fails to produce a positive result. Thanks anyway. Love my Taylor
-
I recall a Bob Taylor response in W&S about this a couple of years ago. Paraphrasing, he said that the guitar will have three basic periods of noticeable "opening up" -- after the first couple of hours, after a couple of months, and maybe again after a couple of years. The first one is likely a result of the glue and finishes achieving their final cure plus the wood settling into its new stressed condition as a guitar. The second phase is likely due to some playing time. The third phase is probably a combination of playing hours and aging, and possibly living through some cycles of temp and humidity.
-
the polyester finish & non-organic glues are pretty much cured once the guitar is being assembled -
some guitars may seem to be a bit "tight" or "focused" initially & there will be some acclimation from
different environments, such as the factory, while in transport, the dealer & the owner's residence,
but the frequency & duration of playing will likely have the most perceivable effect on tone, if any
over time, some of the hemicellulose in the wood dissipates, reducing the weight of the wood, not to be
confused with loss or lack of humidity & with further playing allow the guitar to vibrates more freely -
the "decay" of hemicellulose happens over time, whether the guitar is played or not, & provided the guitar has
been stored in a temperature & humidity controlled environment, after a few years a string change may be
needed & maybe a minor tweak of the truss rod, but it will probably sound a bit different than when it was built