Pickup gurus...a question

[salvarsan]

Then there's the theory of wire "burn in." Hifi guys have forum wars on that subject....

It's not remotely a theory,
more like a "SWAG" or Stupid Wild Assed Guess.
Those people are deluded and have too much
money to spend on useless fetishes, and are
the legal prey of snake oil salesman everywhere.

Prey on them or ignore them, but don't get sucked in.

-drh

[daz]

For a solid body guitar you are not going to hear any difference between a nitro finish, thin or thick, and a poly finish. You also wont hear any different stripping the guitar to the bare wood (as long as you don't remove wood in the process). I know this from direct experience building instruments. My buddy always uses 2 part urethane finishes, and his guitars sound just like all the Les Pauls he owns.

The idea that the finish is damping the wood is silly because the wood has far more mass. The finish will vibrate along with the body. The other silly things I read all the time is that the wood needs to "breathe" and that poly traps moisture in. The wood doesn't breathe, it's dead, and If nitro lets moisture out, it will also let it in! Finish is suppose to prevent that from happening.

i have to say, this is probably the first time i heard someone agree with me. everyone is talking about nitro and the "thin skin" nitro finishes and how much better they sound. yet my THICK poly MIM reissue was so much better sounding than my nitro american that i sold it and kept the MIM. Not only that, but i have painted numerous strats and have played the same strat both finished and unfinished and heard no difference. i do have to say tho that a finish CAN kill tone if too thick or using a type of paint that doesn't dry fully. when i started painting guitars i dio recall painting a body that then died tonally. but it was because i used metallic and then clear and it ended up much too thick and never dried completely. But in the case of what you find on production guitars, i don't think there is any difference. i too think it's a BS myth that people have bought into much too easily the same way they'll but a piece of junk that sound horrible just because it's old.

[David Schwab]

I agree with you because we have both built guitars, and played them with no finish, and later with finish. That dispels the whole myth right there. It's perpetrated by marketing. And right now the big craze is vintage guitars.

But think about it. Why would finish harm the tone of a solid body. That's implying that the wood has to be a certain way, and that some finish is going to change that. If thick finish harms the tone, than heavy woods like ash should sound bad also. The wood hardly vibrates, and when it does it will take the finish along with it.

Let's take it a step further, what if you made a guitar from something similar to the finish with no wood? I have a lucite guitar I built, and it sounds very good. It has no finish, and except the neck, no wood either.

It doesn't sound like plastic, and it's not tinny sounding. It actually has a LOT of low end. I have to string it up with light gauge strings or it gets too boomy sounding.

[Possum]

...

Well Dave, if you strip the finish off a guitar down to wood the tone will RADICALLY change on the guitar. I did this to a cheap Chinese Squire which had tons of poly finish on it, the guitar sounded real hard edged, bright. I hated the color and the tone, it was a 90 dollar test guitar, so I decided to give it some "character" by relicking it (as in re-licking it with my tonque, ha.) I didn't care if I wrecked it as it was nothing I would ever want to play. I took a heat gun and softened the finish and scraped it off and hit it with sandpaper, there is almost no finish on it left. The matte finish on the pearly white neck I took brown shoe polish and "aged" it. The guitar's tone completely changed from sounding like it was made of glass to a real warm pleasant acoustic tone. It became a real nice guitar to play, whereas before it just was unpleasantly shrill. I have also played a Warmoth strat that was completely unfinished body and neck also and it was too much, too soft sounding, and really needed to have something on it finished to give it some kind of edge which it completely lacked.

My friend who refinished his Gibson Historic in nitro would completely disagree with you that finishes have no effect on tone, whatever Gibson is using is killing the tone the wood, as his refin completely opened up the tone of that guitar. given the choice of buying a nitro finished LP vs. a poly finished one, I would never choose the poly fin guitar. I don't believe poly ages well, I've seen guitars from the 70's, poly finished and they still sound too hard edged, nitro finished vintage guitars just get better with age, why I don't know maybe the wood can breathe better.

I had a custom tele made years ago and had the luthier do a nitro Mary Kay finish on it, that guitar sounds wonderful, a heavy factory poly finish would just make it sound like a rock I'm sure. I don't like poly factory finishes, if I had time I would probably sand off most of my guitars that have it and the tone would soften up alot. Maybe you're doing thinner finishes I'm sure would sound better, most factory guitars I've read can have several pounds of that stuff on it, I sure scraped enough of it off that Squire :-)

[Possum]

...

OK, here's an analogy, take a bell and ring it. Now dip the bell in multiple heavy coats of poly finish and ring it, it will get duller sounding, the treble will get clipped.

[daz]

I know you weren't talking to me, but while i agreed with him i also said that i had dulled a guitar's tone with a bad (IE: real thick) paint job. So i agree it CAN happen. My point is that in most cases it doesn't matter within reason. i do realize there are some cheap fenders with paint so thick you could measure it with a ruler. But those done within reason like any poly burst i've had on a mid level strat aren't affected. For one thing some of those really cheap squires and such have undercoats as thick as most poly guitars total finish, and then after that the finish color is done to make it thick enough to repel armor piercing projectiles. Seriously.... i think the point here is that we're talking a nitro finish compared to a GOOD poly or finish that was done well and not just applied by the gallon on a $150 dollar guitar. I had a cheap squire once that when chipped i noticed the finish was probably closer to 1/8" thick than 1/16th ! Of course that can affect it, but we're, or at least I am talking about nitro vs a well done poly finish, because thats what this was about in the first place. and a good poly finish like on my MIJ and MIM doesn't affect the tone enough to notice if at all. Like i said, i had a nitro USA strat and my MIM is is much more resonant and full sounding.

[David Schwab]

OK, here's an analogy, take a bell and ring it. Now dip the bell in multiple heavy coats of poly finish and ring it, it will get duller sounding, the treble will get clipped.

But that would be dipping the strings in poly finish not the body. The strings are ringing, not the body. If you dip the bell's wooden handle in the poly, the bell still rings.

The less sound a solid guitar makes acoustically, the less energy it's absorbing from the strings. Like a heavy ash body. So it has a tight low end and a bright top end. But paint is not going to alter the density or weight of the body enough to matter.

An acoustic instrument is another matter. And even then you really have to get a lot of finish on to make a difference.

Another thing to think about is many new guitars have poly finishes. New guitars always sound thinner than they do after they have loosened up a bit. It's also because many cheap guitars use poly finishes and they wouldn't sound good with nitro.

[David Schwab]

I don't believe poly ages well, I've seen guitars from the 70's, poly finished and they still sound too hard edged, nitro finished vintage guitars just get better with age, why I don't know maybe the wood can breathe better.

Guitars age. The tone changes. I have catalyzed nitro on my basses. It's a very hard finish. When I first strung the basses up, they were very taught and bright sounding. But that wasn't the finish, that was just a new instrument. After a few days they started to sound warmer. Even after a few hours you could hear it.

Those hard sounding guitars would sound hard with nitro. It's just the way those guitars sound. My poly finished Charvel is much smoother sounding than my nitro finished Tele for instance. The Tele sounded bright like that with no finish.

On one of them I stripped off the finish and refinished it, so it's an old bass with new finish, and it sounds the same as it did with the old finish.

I don't doubt that some factory guitars have too much finish on them. You could probably do the same thing with nitro. But properly applied, you wont hear a difference in finishes on a quality made instrument.

I have taken finishes off cheap guitars. I didn't hear a marked difference in tone until after I changed hardware.

[Possum]

.....

Well we disagree on the importance of solid body resonance. In the 70's they thought that solid body guitars should be as dense as possible and not resonate with the strings, so we have 65 lb strats and 100 Les Pauls :-) I totally disagree with this premise, a solid body guitar should be resonant and vibrate with the strings. My Epiphone Les Paul is not very resonant and is real harsh and bright acoustically, my cheap shit nitro Stellar on the other hand is nitro finished and the body is very resonant and acoustically very loud, this is so important to what it does to your pickups that I made a video of both guitars unplugged because my real PAFs sound different in each of them despite identical wiring harnesses and caps and pots. HOw the guitar sounds unplugged is what you're going to get out of your pickups, a dense unyielding solid body guitar won't be helped much by better pickups.

Watch this video, its for DiMarzio's "new" PAF pickup (its new???), they had the presence of mind to demo it in his real '59 Les Paul and a reissue. Unfortunately they used some crappy amp with a ton of distortion so its not a good case here, both sets of pickups just sound bad because of the amp and the player. But listen how loud and beautiful the old LP sounds how resonant it is, the new one sounds tight and harsh, I know from my own guitars that pickups sound better in an acoustically resonant intstrument, the wood is very important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbgUMqUMns

When I had EMG as a client Rob told me when you buy a solid body guitar to jam it hard into your ear and play it unplugged, if it sounds beautiful through the wood, you've got a good instrument to build on. Maybe this stuff isn't so important for basses, but guitars its real important. I suppose a thin poly finish would work but I don't like poly and they use it on everything and put way too much on. Nitro to me is more like blues jeans, it ages with the guitar, it wears nicely, kinda like why I like nickel plated bucker covers instead of chrome, its just more organic to me :-)

[Possum]

.....

Here is the unplugged comparison I did some time ago, the acoustic tone of these guitars dramatically affects how any pickup put into them will sound, I had to do this video because any pickup I was putting in my Epiphone, viewers were saying the pickups were bright, the same pickups in the Stellar sound much warmer, so I had to show that the guitars sound that way by themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzWK8coQKvk

[Stevenson]

Nitro is not thinner. It all depends on how much your spray. I used catalyzed nitro on my instruments. It's very hard when cured. Also you are saying nitro is not as hard, so why would they use plasticizers? I've never heard of a plastisizer used with nitro. Nitro is plastic... it's cellulose. Just like cellophane.

For a solid body guitar you are not going to hear any difference between a nitro finish, thin or thick, and a poly finish. You also wont hear any different stripping the guitar to the bare wood (as long as you don't remove wood in the process). I know this from direct experience building instruments. My buddy always uses 2 part urethane finishes, and his guitars sound just like all the Les Pauls he owns.

The idea that the finish is damping the wood is silly because the wood has far more mass. The finish will vibrate along with the body. The other silly things I read all the time is that the wood needs to "breathe" and that poly traps moisture in. The wood doesn't breathe, it's dead, and If nitro lets moisture out, it will also let it in! Finish is suppose to prevent that from happening.

Look at the old Fenders dipped in Fullerplast and then sprayed with nitro (or acrylic) lacquer. You can't get that Fullerplast off the wood. It's as hard as a rock. And those guitars sound just fine.

Eventually air quality laws will mean that every guitar is finished with UV cured poly.

Plasticizers are part of the formulation. They prevent the lacquer from cracking. Nitro has between 10-20% solids, polyester has 80% solids making it easier to build up heavy coats, sometimes too heavy. In a factory setting, finishes tend to be built up real heavy to prevent burn through when buffing. I use polyester sprayed very thin, basically misted on the body. I have deliberately sprayed on many thick coats on a test body to see what would happen, the guitar sounded dead (acoustically and plugged in). Stripping the paint and refinishing with a thinner buildup brought it back to life.

Ted

[David Schwab]

Well we disagree on the importance of solid body resonance.

No, we don't.

In the 70's they thought that solid body guitars should be as dense as possible and not resonate with the strings, so we have 65 lb strats and 100 Les Pauls :-) I totally disagree with this premise, a solid body guitar should be resonant and vibrate with the strings. My Epiphone Les Paul is not very resonant and is real harsh and bright acoustically, my cheap shit nitro Stellar on the other hand is nitro finished and the body is very resonant and acoustically very loud, this is so important to what it does to your pickups that I made a video of both guitars unplugged because my real PAFs sound different in each of them despite identical wiring harnesses and caps and pots. HOw the guitar sounds unplugged is what you're going to get out of your pickups, a dense unyielding solid body guitar won't be helped much by better pickups.

My favorite sounding guitar at the moment is a cheap FirstAct garagemaster with a basswood body and a 25.5" scale. It sounds great unplugged and with the new pickups I installed great plugged in.

I always listen to a solid body unplugged first, including my basses. If it sounds like crap unplugged, it's going to sound like crap amplified. Louder crap.

Watch this video, its for DiMarzio's "new" PAF pickup (its new???), they had the presence of mind to demo it in his real '59 Les Paul and a reissue. Unfortunately they used some crappy amp with a ton of distortion so its not a good case here, both sets of pickups just sound bad because of the amp and the player. But listen how loud and beautiful the old LP sounds how resonant it is, the new one sounds tight and harsh, I know from my own guitars that pickups sound better in an acoustically resonant intstrument, the wood is very important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbgUMqUMns

They are actually nice sounding pickups. Old guitars sound better than new guitars, but the new guitars will sound that way too, eventually.

When I had EMG as a client Rob told me when you buy a solid body guitar to jam it hard into your ear and play it unplugged, if it sounds beautiful through the wood, you've got a good instrument to build on. Maybe this stuff isn't so important for basses, but guitars its real important.

It is important. It's a shame EMG's don't reproduce that tone though!

I suppose a thin poly finish would work but I don't like poly and they use it on everything and put way too much on. Nitro to me is more like blues jeans, it ages with the guitar, it wears nicely, kinda like why I like nickel plated bucker covers instead of chrome, its just more organic to me :-)

Right, a properly applied coat of poly sounds the same as lacquer. But not a mile thick. And you know a lot of high quality hand made acoustic guitar makers use epoxy as a pore filler.

I'm just amused when you have Gibson saying "thin nitro finish" when all this time they could have applied a thin poly finish. Now they use it as a marketing ploy, when if it was important to them, they would have been doing it all along.

But still.... look at all them Fullerplast finished Fenders.

[Mike Sulzer]

viewers were saying the pickups were bright, the same pickups in the Stellar sound much warmer, so I had to show that the guitars sound that way by themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzWK8coQKvk

Here is a topic where Possum and I agree! The acoustic sounds of solid body guitars vary tremendously, and a lot of this carries through to the "electric" sound. It is no mystery why. Different woods damp vibration very differently. And it is well-known that you can affect this by removing some of the wood. That is, the differences in the woods show up more if you let the wood vibrate more.

[daz]

just for the record, you cannot judge any new guitar till it has a good 7 years minimum on it. Preferably 10. I can't count the number of new guitars i have had that sounded so bad i would truly call them unusable. But the ones i have kept changed dramatically after several years. Most i sold, but a few i hated to part with due to the feel or other things even tho the tone blew. I hoped age would cure that tho and so far in every case it has. My current #1 was like that. I mainly played it at home to practice only because i loved the neck and the look. In about 7-8 years it literally went from a guitar that i would never gig with because it sound so bad, to what is now my main #1 and sounds fantastic, thick poly and all.

i still stick to my guns on this....yes there are finishes that can dull the tone, but those are on cheap guitars that i wouldn't include in the tone vs finish debate because it would be like including some no name brand of car in a shootout with posrche and other fine sports cars. It's apples and oranges. A mim reissue and a nitro MIA reissue are both quality quitars and fender knows better than to spray either finish to a point where it will deaden tone. On a $200 chinese guitar it's a much different story. these are sold to kids who know no difference, and pouring ion thick finishes isn't a concern. i have stripped finishes off several MIJ's and noticed zero difference in an unfinished body the few times i tried that. I also should say that while just my opinion, buying a solid color verses a burst of clear finish guitar on a cheapie increases the chance the finish will affect it. I agree with David, but like i said only to the point where finishes are horribly thick or wet. (some coatings take time to cure, probably some undercoats) I don't agree that among reasonably quality guitars with reasonable quality finishes that there is enough difference for the ear to pick up when comparing nitro to poly. i can't, yet i hear a lot of very subtle things that judging from what i read on many guitar forums isn't far off from dog hearing compared to many others It's probably why i'm so friggin picky about everything. (which is a curse)

[Possum]

....

Its funny how "cheap guitars" become next year's "vintage" gotta have. Most of the guitars players pay top money for in the vintage market were just utility guitars back in the day.

OK, David we agree. Well, I still think what Paul whatshiface did with DiMarzio's guitar was awful, I've never heard a '59 sound worse than what that amp did to it, how can you tell anything about either set of pickups going through that much blaaah. What a missed opportunity, maybe they just handed him the amp and said here do this quick. I thought it was just awful, but the unplugged section was priceless and I copied the video for future reference.