finishing swamp ash

[jpbo]

Need advice from the pros
i have a one piece swamp ash for my bass project and i'd like to know what is the best finish to apply to the body to get the best tone ?
i want to see the grain of the wood (translucide)
i have search and didn't find too much.
Can someone explain me the process a little an a good address to sent it to be paint.

thank you

[nbfanca]

You have many, many options depending on what you want. You can go to:

http://www.lmii.com/carttwo/FinishOverview.htm

for a duscussion of various finishig methods.

Personally, I like a Tru Oil finish for things like this. Tru Oil is sold as a gun stock finish and is just wiped on with a rag. Instructions can be found here:

http://www.lmii.com/carttwo/truoil.htm

The advantage is ease of application and, unlike lacquers, it is not a hard surface and thus not a tone killer. The disadvantage is that you cannot buff it to a mirrorlike shine and it is not a very durable finish (forget it if you are planning to take the guitar on the road). Also it cannot be colored, so any color you add will have to be stain in the wood.

Now ash is an open pore wood. That means to get a really smooth surface you will have to use a pore-filler. Like this:

http://www.lmii.com/CartTwo/thirdproduc ... ore+Filler

I apply it with a foam bursh in the direction of the grain and then wipe it off perperdicular to the grain. Some people sqeegee it off with an old credit card, but a cloth or paper toweel seems to work fine. Do that a couple of times and you will get a very smooth finish. Tru oil makes its own filler, but I don't like it.

[nbfanca]

A few more things about Tru Oil.

First of all, everyone seems to have their own technique. Here's another one.

http://falcon.jmu.edu/~dehartcg/finish.htm

The other problem is that all the work goes into the wood preparation. I sand down to 600 grit and then finish with fine steel wool. Then I put in the sealer. I usually use several coats of sealer and while each coat is still wet, rub down the guitar vigorously with a paper towel (which is slightly rough) to keep the surface smooth. I don't bother to seal the surface unless I use the sealer to add color to the grain. In fact, as long as you want a uniform color, you can put the stain in the sealer. (This is how, back in the '50's, Gibson used to put the red color into the mahogany on the back of their Les Paul 'Bursts.) If it needs further staining, you can add it later. I apply the tru oil directly to that.

Many people recommend using fine steel wool between coats of Tru Oil. I don't. I tried that and found that it was too easy to go through the finish into the color. Instead when I apply every coat, I first of all apply the coat to a small part of the guitar, and remove it immediately. I then give the guitar a vigorous rubdown with a paper towel. This seems to smooth the surface sufficiently. Four or five coats is usually enough. Because I work, I usually apply one before I leave for work in the morning, and then another when I get home in the evening.

Also you read things, (for example on the Lmii site - that's Luthiers Merchantile International) that you should touch the guitar while finishing. I originally tried to follow that, but then I forgot once, and couldn't see any difference, so I don't bother now.

As usual, your mileage may vary.

You may like it or might not. Just like on furniture, the oil really brings out of the beauty of the wood. I'm not a big fan of really shiny guitars anyway, so the finish looks great to me.

[teb]

The advantage is ease of application and, unlike lacquers, it is not a hard surface and thus not a tone killer

Tone killer? Sorry, but I don't think I'm buying that one on a solid body ash bass. There are way too many other factors that will seriously influence your tone - the biggest of which is likely what you do with your fingers. Put the finish on your bass that you like best from a cosmetic/precticality standpoint. Assuming that your components and amp are up to snuff, the biggest influences on your tone are at the ends of your arms.

[nbfanca]

Uh.....yeah, on a soluid baody guitar, it means less, but it means something.

Tell me, why did Paul strip his bass? (Let me note that John and George stripped their Epis and claimed it opened up the guitars.)

Face it, if you go through a fuzzbox and have the overdrive channel on 10, hey it probably don't matter.

But if you want a good acoustic tone, which translates into the clean electric tone, everything matters.

[nbfanca]

Oh and let me add that yes, fingers mean more than finish, or body style or pickups. Believe me, and I've seen it many times, that a gret player will plick up whatever piece of crus that is around, and sound sound just like him(or her) self. You don;t know the difference, but at the same time he openlyt bitches about what a lousy piece of crud he's playing.

But that is simply avoiding the question about what is the best finish to apply. I don't claim that Tru Oil is the best finish or even the best for a True tone from the wood - but it works well. If you bother to buy a Swamp Ash body, and for going for a Swamp Ash sound, then go for Tru Oil or any similar thin finish.

If you just want the look, who cares?

[nbfanca]

OK, the difference in finish depend on the weight (or really the stiffness which is usually proportional to the weight) of the neck/body. For a very heavy (very stiff) set the finish has less effect than for a light set. But in many cases the difference is about the same as between a cheap Chinese p-bass pickup and a Seymour Duncan p-bass pickup.

[teb]

I'm no Beatles expert, but I believe Paul stripped and repainted his bass because he wanted it to look psychedelic. If he'd been into "opening up the tone" on his basses, I'd think he would have done it to his Hofner - where it might actually make a substantial difference. Had it been a Casino, I can see where it might change the tone (much of which is awfully subjective) but grinding the varnish off of a big hunk of solid maple? I'm not buying that one either.

You can certainly alter the tone of a solid body bass - change pickups or wiring, change the bridge, change the nut, varnish the fingerboard if it's fretless, etc. and certain woods have certain tonal characteristics and sustain characteristics, but I'd be willing to bet that I can make a far more drastic tonal change on just about any solid body bass with my fingers, or by switching strings, or simply by giving a knob a quarter turn, than I would by grinding the finish off and oiling it. I firmly believe that bass players either have "the touch" ...or they don't. If you have it, you can make pretty decent sounds and tone come out of just about any bass that is set up reasonably well and not just a total hunk of junk. If you don't, there isn't much that's going to save you other than practicing to see if maybe you can develop a genuine feel for the instrument.

If you prefer that oiled wood look over glossy varnish, by all means go for it. But expecting it to give you better tone isn't likely to happen from what I've seen. I actually tried it with my first bass about 1968. It was a bright red Hagstrom with a thick, very hard gloss finish. The fire engine red got to me after a while, so I sanded it off (took forever) stained it something more subtle and woody-looking and oiled it (some sort of teak oil oil as I recall). I don't remember any change in tone, but it was certainly a bit more organic to look at.

[nbfanca]

Paul first painted his bass psychedelic right over the fireglo, and then stripped it at about the same time John and Geroge stripped their guitars.

It doesn't take long to realize that EVERYTHING matters in the final sound of an instrument.

But if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no tonal changes for different woods, a Les Paul should sound like an SG, ash should sound like alder.

The truth is that a hard stiff finish restricts the vibration of the wood. The thinner the finish the less restriction. That is very easy to understand.

And yes, I have a oil finish on a '64 Hofner I restored and the thing is much more open and acoustic sounding than any other one I've played.

[jingle_jangle]

Most of what you hear in a solid body guitar or bass, in terms of finish, is the ring of hype.

Yes, there is no question that everything you do to a body, including choice of strap pins and removal of the knobs, will affect the tone. It's all measurable down to a ridiculous level of resolution!

The real issue comes down to what an individual can himself hear. Some players have (or claim to have) ears like dogs. I say, fine. Use the thinnest finish you can that can give protection and leave the wood with whatever sound you hear or think you hear.

If you're afraid that a finish of a certain type can kill your tone, fine--don't use it. But IME (which is fed by 45 years as a player but limited by only five very intense years as a luthier) you're talking about something like 1/10 of 1% of the sound. It's still wood.

Paul and John stripped their guitars because they had heard it would give a more "open" sound. This was the same hearsay then as it is now. The only difference is that the instruments we'd use to measure the difference would have had transistors then and will have computer chips now.

Then there's the issue of finish affecting acoustic instruments. That's a whole other topic...

[collin]

Ironically, the people that tend to obsess over the difference in tone between minute details like finish types are typically lousy players blaming bad tone on something crazy like paint.

A truly great guitarist can pick up almost any guitar and make it sing.

(Not trying to criticize the science of luthiery or anything like it, but I think a great deal of a guitar's sound comes down to who is using it.)

[jingle_jangle]

No disagreement here, Collin.

I'm the odd man out, though...a mediocre player without "dog's ears". But, I ain't tone deef, either!

[nbfanca]

Harrison, as Lennon had done, stripped the finish off his Casino (right). "They became much better guitars," he said in a Guitar Player interview. "I think that works on a lot of guitars: If you take the paint and varnish off, and get the bare wood, it seems to sort of breathe."

'Nuff said

http://www.thecanteen.com/harrison8.html

I should point out, that I am not talking about huge changes here in the sound, but as Paul points out in his cumudgeonly fashion, it has to do something and a lot of really good players thinks it makes a differences (who'd argue wth George?)

Now can someone else besides me stop trading un substantiated opinions (and that includes me) and answer the fellow's query?

[nbfanca]

I should also add that I have never stripped a good finish on a guitar to replace it with tru oil and I don't think I would do that. As a matter of fact I even finished a Strat in nitro last summer because I wanted a white guitar. (I am however tempted to strip that awful poly finish off my Epiphone Casady bass.)

But the fellow isn't asking about stripping a guitar, he's talking abaout finishing an unfinished body without covering the wood.

I've given my advice, what's yours?

[jingle_jangle]

I've given it. Oh, yeah, material recommendations.

Minimum protection, maximum openness, easiest to apply (brush/rag):

Watco's Danish Oil
Tung Oil
Walnut Oil
Bore Oil

Trade-off some protection, typically thin, easiest to spray:

Nitrocellulose (clear or color)

Best flexibility, thin, great protection, tricky to apply:

Conversion varnish

Thick, great protection, bulletproof, not too hard to apply:

Polyester or polyester lacquer

Don't use:

Enamel and floor varnish

Oh, yeah, none of the Beatles were exactly technically obsessed, or even knowledgeable. Mostly because they didn't have to be, as they enjoyed early success. So, their opinions would be considered just that, and uninformed by any objective standard.

But we still love them like brothers.