Does an acoustic instrument require a breakin period?

Bill McCloskey · Posted 8 Jun 2013 8:07 am

Carried over from the Asher discussion.

Here is what Andy Volk wrote: "Over the last few years, I've played 3 or 4 of Bill Asher's standard body hollownecks and while they all sound terrific, it's my opinion that they really need about two years of playing to really open up and produce the sound of which they're capable. This is true of almost any new acoustic in my personal experience and it was certainly the case with the Bear Creek. The music emporium currently has a standard Asher style IV in stock. This guitar has a cool experimental translucent yellow/amber finish and even the fret makers are yellow. I played it and it will be a killer guitar once it's been played in.

What struck me immediately about this Asher maple guitar (aside from the stunning visual factor) was how it already sounded broken in just a month or so of the work bench. "

Here is what I wrote:

"I've always been skeptical about the need to "break" an acoustic guitar in. I've never been convinced that playing an instrument does something fundemental to the wood to change its sound. I've always felt that the effect you notice is your brain becoming more and more familiar and used to a guitar where you are able to bring out sounds that were harder when your hands and brains were still getting used to the instrument."

Thought it deserved its own topic.

Can anyone convince me with non subjective data that an acoustic instrument changes tambour, not just by age, but BY PLAYING. I knew I guy who used to break in his guitars by sitting them in front of a speaker and blasting music at it 24/7.

I'm not convinced.

Andy Volk · From: Boston, MA

I firmly believe guitars DO break in over time based on my own personal experience over 40 years of playing acoustic guitars but people do have differing views on this. I also believe the relative humidity of the environment at any given time has a big effect on the sound.

From the Petros guitar company:

A Word on Top Development Over Time
The Cedars and Redwoods do not develop dramatically over time like the Spruces. This is primarily because the Spruces contain resins that continue to dry and harden over many years. Cedar and Redwood don’t have resins and sound pretty well developed right off the bench. All guitars will break in and develop regardless of resin content by virtue of playing and vibration through some magical realignment and relaxing of the wood fibers and molecules. All very scientific!

Or maybe it's just the fungus? Smile

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/09/how-one-man-using-fungus-change-violin-industry/56652/

Bill McCloskey · Posted 8 Jun 2013 1:18 pm

I think it has more to do with the way our brain works. I remember when CD's came out. I HATED the sound because suddenly every noise from a classical guitarists sliding his fingers up and down the fret board was clear and noticeable. It drove me crazy. Later, I never noticed it. My brain needed to adjust to the new sound which sounded strange to me. Once it did, it sounded normal again.

James Williamson · From: California & Hawaii

I agree with Andy that the best guitars I've heard or owned were/are so old they're almost saw dust again...that said a green guitar can be aged by playing like Andy mentioned or else by finding some representative music cd or record with large dynamic range and playing it loudly into the guitar non stop for a few days. Same way you break in new speakers by applying variac voltage for 48 hours...all things that are musical need to loosen up a bit to sound their best

Stephen Gambrell · From: Over there

Acoustic Guitar magazine did an article a few years back, about clamping acoustic guitars into some kind of vibrating machine, and varying the frequency of the vibrator. And they plotted before-and-after graphs, as well. They used an old Gibson J-45 as a reference, after making sure it was in good enough condition to handle the vibration. On all the guitars they tested, after the vibratory, there was a more pronounced attack, increased sustain--and the harmonics were much more pronounced, as well.
I have played hundreds of acoustic guitars over the years, so I feel qualified to say that yes, there is a "playing-in" period. Adirondack (red) spruce probably takes the longest to play in. And because that tonal change is SO gradual, over such a long period of time, the player might never even notice it. I bought a new Martin D-35 in 1978. A friend went with me, to pick it up. He moved away, but came back for a visit, and HE noticed the change in that guitar's tone. I never did. And on the other hand, a top-shelf bluegrass picker had an old D-18 for sale--a real case queen. He had a good price on it, and I played it for a while. It had been in a closet most of its life, and it was lacking. Tone, sustain, volume--pffft. I didn't buy it, and the guy was glad. After hearing what it sounded like, he wanted to "play it in," to improve it.
All in the brain? Not sure. But our brain is located inside our head, to which are permanently attached, our ears!
So I think I can say, with at least a LITTLE authority, that any SOLID acoustic instrument is gonna require a break-in period.

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

seems logical to me.

Bill McCloskey · Posted 8 Jun 2013 4:03 pm

It doesn't make sense to me. Smile

A tree: it lives in the forest for dozens maybe even hundreds of years. Beaten by weather, in the sounds of nature, birds, storms, civilization, radios.

It is chopped down, made into an instrument and by playing music at it, you somehow change the molecular shape of the wood fibers that somehow being exposed to the elements for 80 years didn't?

Sorry. can't make the leap: what exactly is CHANGING?

Jerome Hawkes · From: Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA

Well, then don't believe it...
This reminds me of the smoking causes cancer debate. If not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, then it must not be true.
I've owned/commissioned enough instruments to know firsthand. I've got a recording of my 2008 Gilchrist F5 mandolin from a gig the day I got it - completely different inst now. Then again, I've had some that never opened up, even after a few years of playing.
You are really going to hear this on high end instruments - not $500 mass factory types.
It has nothing to do solely with age - it has to do with use. Those pre-war arch tops and Martins that were played 6 nights a week for 30 years will peel the paint.
_________________
'65 Sho-Bud D-10 Permanent • '54 Fender Dual-8 • Clinesmith T-8 • '38 Ric Bakelite • '92 Emmons D-10 Legrande II

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

bill, the wood was alive in the forest.

then the dead wood was assembled into an acoustic instrument.

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

then...the more deader the wood gets and the more settled the instrument construction becomes, the more musicer it gets.

Bill McCloskey · Posted 8 Jun 2013 6:56 pm

Chris i never made the argument that AGE can't change the sound of a guitar. I question whether playing music changes the sound.

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

even talking to your instruments makes them sound better.

Paul DiMaggio · From: Fort Nelson, British Columbia, Canada

Bill I don't have any scientific explanation for it but I personally had 2 guitars and not expensive ones either, that had not been played for ten plus years and after a month or so of being played on a daily basis showed increased volume. One was '49 or '50 Harmony Sovereign, the one that came without a pick guard.The woman I got from had bought new for her son in 1950. He played for a year or so then quit. It sat in a closet til 1964 when I bought it. Compared to my Framus jumbo it was really quiet. After about a month it started to get louder and by 2 months could pretty much hold it's own with the Framus. The other one was a Suzuki medium size flat top, it sat in a garage for 11 years, cost me a 26 of Wiser's deluxe in 1995. It also gained volume after a month or so of playing.

Andy Volk · From: Boston, MA

From Dogwoodguitars.com ...

Why do old guitars sound better?

Why do some old guitars sound so good? Even inexpensive guitars can age into really good sounding instruments, and some old guitars attain legendary tone. Why is this? The answer can be found in one of three factors and the best combine all of them.

First it should be pointed out that some old guitars sound great… but not all of them. This is true regardless of brand. It is probable that many average sounding guitars don’t make it to old age because they aren’t deemed worth taking care of. On the other hand, a guitar that sounds warm and fat when newer will probably experience better care and that translates to relative longevity. But this possibility aside, it is also true that a mediocre guitar is not going to morph into a world class instrument with time. So it can be said that not all older guitars are great sounding, and those with the experience to know can verify this. But it does seem to happen that many older guitars sound better than modern ones. Let us consider why this may be.

What is the most important factor in the tone of any acoustic guitar? The answer is the quality of the top. (Please see my article on Voicing and Tap Tuning for more on this topic.) The availability of quality wood “in the old days” was better than it is now in these days of limited natural resources. It is also probable that judging wood for intrument tops was a skill that has diminished with time. Violin makers know this, and even today the best violins are made by luthiers who know how to find the right wood. So many great old guitars have better top wood than modern guitars. And you can be sure that when you hear an amazing sounding vintage guitar, it owes its tone in large measure to a great top, whether by happenstance or someone’s skill.

Secondly, vintage guitars were made (if they are old enough) by luthiers who understood some of the principles of tap tuning. Martin ceased individually voicing their guitars in the 1940′s and 50′s. Voicing alone is not the answer; you can’t voice a poor guitar top into greatness. But voicing, when done with skill, will bring out the best in a guitar and will cause all of the parts to work together. But a modern voiced guitar with a great top will get better with age. Why is this?

Wood contains cells that are shaped like tubes. Everyone knows that wood absorbs moisture in humid conditions and expels moisture during dry conditions. This is what causes wood to swell or shrink at different times of the year. The moisture is stored in these hollow cells. There is evidence to suggest that over a long period of time these cells tend to collapse, which in turn limits how much moisture they can absorb. In other words, the older wood becomes more stable and reaches equalibrium. These changes cause the guitar top to become dryer, and lighter and more stiff as it ages… the perfect recipe for an improving top. The lighter and stiffer a top is, the better it will sound if everything else is equal.

If an older guitar combines a great top that has become more stiff and light with age, with individual voicing for optimum response, the result can be a truly legendary tone cannon. No magic, no mystery, just good science!

Bill McCloskey · Posted 8 Jun 2013 8:03 pm

Again, I'm not talking age. I'm talking Playing music with, towards, in front of, etc has any effect on the sound of a guitar.

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

blowing pot smoke into the sound hole gives the wood a cosmic oneness.

Jerome Hawkes · From: Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA

Bill - you're just whizzing in the wind here - go buy yourself 2 brand new acoustic insts and play 1 everyday for 10 years and leave the other in the case. then report back. If you are looking for a scientific answer, that's the only way to prove it true or false.
Age alone will not cut it - it's playing music or vibrating the wood. Ask any symphony string player how long it takes to break in a new violin to where it will respond and open up. I'd say 8-10 hrs a day for 5-6 years min. And that's for a very fine violin. It's not going to sound any different after 5 years by sitting in the case.
_________________
'65 Sho-Bud D-10 Permanent • '54 Fender Dual-8 • Clinesmith T-8 • '38 Ric Bakelite • '92 Emmons D-10 Legrande II

Bill McCloskey · Posted 9 Jun 2013 4:14 am

Okay,

Again, I believe that effect is due to learning how the guitar works. Your mind, body, fingers etc adjust to each new instrument. The breaking in period is not with the guitar itself, it is with the player who learns to bring out subtleties with the instrument while playing it.

Here is a better test, and one that shouldn't take as long: take a guitar which is completely broken in and hand it to someone else to learn to play. My guess is that they will feel that same "breaking in " period, because it is THEY that need to adjust their way of play for that particular instrument.

John Dahms · From: Perkasie, Pennsylvania, USA

My 2 cents worth:
First, I have a lot of acoustic guitars of different woods and makes. Second, I have been playing for 45 years and have a lot of experience with tone.
I have no doubt that some instruments not only open up with playing but can go "back to sleep" if left unplayed for a period of time. I have several that do this. I have taken the psychological aspect into consideration and while it does play a part in many facets of how we perceive our senses, my experience shows it does not belie the facts in this case. Bill you have a very valid point that how we adapt to the instrument unconsciously can play a part but I believe it goes farther than that.
Let's not confuse opening up with aging. They are 2 different aspects of what a wooden instrument goes through. Aging has to do with characteristics on a molecular level like moisture and cells and things that happen over time. Playing-in is more of a short-term thing and while I think is more likely to affect a newer instrument can certainly still be needed in a vintage piece. An instrument that is regularly played won't fall asleep.
It doesn't seem to me to be a brand thing. Some instruments and some woods are more prone and some are less prone to be affected.
For example, I have 2 koa & spruce guitars, one Martin, one Taylor. They both can be very responsive and produce the “bloom” in their note that we look for but both will respond like a cold fish if left unused for a few months. If I force myself to play them awake for a week or so they respond and open up again. I have seen this with koa before. I have maple / spruce guitars that are always ready and one that needs to be played awake. I have rosewood guitars that do that as well. I had a maple Gibson A5L mandolin that seemed to be in a coma and was worthless unless played heavily for a week or so then would be fine, but would quickly go dead if left unplayed for only about a week. This one was so obvious that I couldn't live with it and sold it.
I bought a ToneRite device (now I have opened a can of worms) and have used it with success to keep several guitars at the ready and to wake up sleeping guitars.
I don't care if it sounds cosmic or big-foot or whatever, it is a real phenomenon.
_________________
Time flies like an eagle
Fruit flies like a banana.

Dave Thier · From: Fairhope, Alabama, USA

I've always wondered about this myself. I suspect the real answer is all of the above. Certainly you cannot discount the personal perception element and there are the day to day changes due to temperature and humidity.

Another element I have wondered about is stress relief. I have a friend who builds guitars and I watch him cut, sand and shape the wood then glue and clamp it together. I have to believe there is a period of time where stresses are relieved through time and playing that are apart from chemical/physical changes in the wood.

Dave

Jim Cohen · From: Philadelphia, PA

I think it would be fun and very interesting to design an experiment to test this. Here are a few of the design elements that one might want to include:

a) Having an independent panel judge the sonic qualities of the sound emanating (so it's not the player him/herself judging whether the sound is "blooming" or is "comatose")

b) Having someone else play the guitar for so many hours per week x so many weeks before the test is done - NOT the player who will perform on it for the test run. That should eliminate the possibility that Bill is concerned about, i.e., that the player gradually adapts his/her technique over time to coax a better sound out of the guitar (and when he/she puts it away for an extended period and then returns to the guitar, they've lost the technique and have to re-learn it to "wake up the comatose guitar"). If someone else does the "playing in", with whatever technique they have and use, then there's no possibility for such accommodation by the player who'll be performing the test run.

c) The study should be double-blind, i.e., neither the player nor the panel of judges knows which guitars have been "played in" and which ones have not.

d) Some guitars would not be "played in" at all, some would be "played in" for a certain amount of time that [somebody] feels should be adequate to do the job, and some guitars "played in" for only half that amount of time (to see if there is a "dose-effect").

Complications I can forsee are that:

a) the guitars presumably won't all sound the same at baseline, even if they are the same make/model, same strings, etc. Perhaps this can be dealt with by doing a before-and-after comparison on each guitar, using each one as its own control, and measuring the before vs after difference for each axe as a function of whether it was "played in" or not and, if so, for how long.

b) the very act of "playing in" will put more time (including more dirt and oil from the player's hands) on the strings that alone will change the sound. Perhaps this can be addressed by putting the same branded new strings onto all guitars before the test run/panel judging, so that factor is eliminated.

I'm sure there are other limitations I'm not thinking of right now, but I think this would be an interesting experiment. Perhaps luthiers, violin-makers, etc. have known this stuff for generations already, however.
_________________
www.JimCohen.com
www.RonstadtRevue.com
www.BeatsWalkin.com

Andy Volk · From: Boston, MA

Here's an interesting comparison via the ToneRite by a person who, while not scientifically rigorous, seems to be trying to as fair and objective as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtDXnTGnNc8

chris ivey · From: california (deceased)

hey....what's all this have to do with steel without pedals?

Bill McCloskey · Posted 9 Jun 2013 8:10 am

Chris,

It came from a discussion on whether an acoustic weissenborn can open up due to it's being played.

Bill McCloskey · Posted 9 Jun 2013 8:19 am

Interesting clip.

I went back and listened to the before and after a couple of times and if there is a difference in the sound of the guitar, I can't hear it.

Forum Index > Steel Without Pedals	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic