Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hi all,
I'm wondering about the perceived differences in the tone of acoustic or semi-acoustic guitars when they wear different kinds of lacquers and sealers. What is the popular analysis of traditional, CV, nitro, polyuretthane/polyester, varnish, painted, plain wood, oiled, or any other finish choices for acoustics and electrics RE: tone?

Is there something to be said for letting the wood breathe?

I've frequently thought of the very same thing.

I vaguely remember JH or PW saying something to the effect of it could make a difference on a hollow body instrument, but not so much so on solid body guitars. I'd imagine just how thick or heavy the paint is applied might make a difference, but I can't say for sure. Just seems logical.

I also inquired once with Eric a while ago if a refin I was considering would possibly changing the sound of my 74 4001. I was and still am considering a refinish to Walnut. I love it so, and she could use a refin, but I didn't want to change the sound. I was told that to the naked ear, I shouldn't notice any difference. I probably asked Paul once before too, but I don't recall.

I know that's kind of a white bread response, I'm sure the pro's will chime in soon.

I LIKE TO THINK natural finishes make a difference. I think of violins, cello, and other orchestra strings and they only have a varnish of sorts on them. I just can't see how a sealer of paint couldn't make the tone different, but what do I know. To me, they are more pleasing to the eye in a natural state. I've said it a thousand times, THEY ARE MADE OF WOOD, lets' see the natural beauty of the grain. Some say it's like playing furniture if they aren't painted....To each his/her own.

Someone posted a very interesting post a while ago about some kind of clear coat Fender was using. Everyone thought their clear coat allowed the wood to BREATHE and therefore dry out over time. Someone posted that the clear coat they used was a plastic base that sealed the wood making it impossible for it to BREATHE. I'm sure a search will turn up that thread.

ajish4 wrote:
I LIKE TO THINK natural finishes make a difference. I think of violins, cello, and other orchestra strings and they only have a varnish of sorts on them. I just can't see how a sealer of paint couldn't make the tone different, but what do I know. To me, they are more pleasing to the eye in a natural state. I've said it a thousand times, THEY ARE MADE OF WOOD, lets' see the natural beauty of the grain. Some say it's like playing furniture if they aren't painted....To each his/her own.

Someone posted a very interesting post a while ago about some kind of clear coat Fender was using. Everyone thought their clear coat allowed the wood to BREATHE and therefore dry out over time. Someone posted that the clear coat they used was a plastic base that sealed the wood making it impossible for it to BREATHE. I'm sure a search will turn up that thread.

1. Differences that finishes make acoustically, can be measured in any instrument. Whether or not these differences are audible varies--a lot. George B., my band-mate, swears that his nitro-finished Nashes have a definite different "feel" and resonance. I've got no doubt as to the veracity of this statement. But, whether this makes a noticeable difference in the amplified sound, depends, I suppose, on the listener's hearing acuity, to some extent. I cannot hear any difference in sound where solidbodies and semi-solids are concerned, in the amplified sound.

2. Acoustic guitars are a whole other matter. Most finishes stiffen the surfaces while sealing the pores, and I think these differences are audible to many, if not most, people with normal hearing, if they are listening under the right conditions.

3. I've held and examined and plucked both a Stradivarius and an Amati violin. Before I was allowed to do this, I was given a 10-second lesson on exactly how to hold one and take it from another's hand or its case--by the neck, contrary to what we might think. This is because the necks are mostly devoid of varnish after all these centuries, whereas the bodies still are covered with the original varnish, which even the briefest contact with the heat and pressure of a hand or fingers, will show fingerprints, which takes months to recover from (the varnish is self-levelling, because it never fully hardens). This varnish can be as thick as .020" (twice as thick as a polyurethane finish on a modern acoustic guitar). So perish the thought of the wood breathing better because of less varnish back then. Moreover, scientific testing has shown no difference between a nicely-played-in instrument and one newly-constructed of the same materials and to the same specifications. This, however, is not considered conclusive just yet. I wonder why...

4. The stuff Fender's been dipping their guitars into the past half-century is called "Fullerplast"; it's a polyester grain filler and finish undercoat/leveller that varies in thickness from about .015" to over .060". depending on time, place, viscosity, phases of the moon and the number of llamas in Argentina at any particular time. In any event, this schmutz is thick, and messes with the "open" sound of any guitar, "thin-shell" color coats notwithstanding.

Boy this topic pops up an awful lot. Anyway...

Lots of people swear that the finish affects tone, others claim it has no effect at all. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I can imagine that if a cello or double bass were finished in a thick polyester coat like many budget-priced solidbody guitars today, you'd probably hear a difference between it and one that was only wearing a thin varnish or shellac finish.

In the case of solidbody electrics, I don't put much stock in the "breathing wood" thing. It's all marketing hype if you ask me (and we all know a certain manufacturer likes to use that phrase). I once had a poly finished Tele and loved everything about it except the color. So I had it professionally stripped down to the wood and refinished in a nice vintage blonde nitro, because I bought into the "thin-nitro-makes-for-better-tone" argument. When I got it home and plugged it in, it sounded exactly the same...no better or no worse than when it wore a poly finish. Expensive lesson learned (well, at least it looked better).

I think it's more important to judge each individual guitar on its own merits. If it sounds good, what difference does it make what the finish is? I've played poly finished guitars that sounded incredible and nitro finished guitars that sounded awful. What type of finish a guitar has doesn't influence my decision on whether to buy the guitar or not. Sound and playability are pretty much all I care about...and it doesn't hurt if the guitar looks nice, too.

Acoustic guitars are another issue altogether. I'm sure the finish thickness and composition are variables in the vibrational equation. But what I said above still applies here...Play it. If it sounds great, use it. If not, lose it.

This is mostly a meee tooooo post. While I accept that some people will find a difference between finishes, I don't buy very much of the finish part of the discussion about solid body electrics with the following exception: fretboard finish. A finished fretboard, like most Ricks, does provide what I refer to as "spankiness". I used to think that had more to do with the wood beneath it, but now I think it has more to do with the fact that a finished fretboard doesn't absorb vibration the same way as one that isn't (then, of course there is still a difference between the "spankiness" of unfinished fretboards of different composition between each other.) I'm sorry about making up a technical term here, but the "spankiness" keeps the string excited and adds some color to what the pickup receives. I also accept that I may be crazy.

For hollow body guitars there would be an increasing level of interplay of the finish as designs' vibrational inhibition is reduced- think of the block of wood down the center of a Rick 300 series or thinner Gibson, which makes the acoustical properties less of a part of the sound, vs. a large body jazz guitar that doesn't have the center block to deaden the acoustical properties. Then, there would again be another difference between a guitar that used an electronic pickup to, say, an acoustic that was unamplified or mic'd- each step having more interplay with how the guitar was finished.

Finally, for all of that, a well-made, well-finished guitar is gonna sound good.

BTW: at least one of George's guitars sounds great partially because of the tiki stickers, but I gotta say that some of it is the player.

(edit: I forgot to mention llamas.)

Ric O'Sound wrote:
In the case of solidbody electrics, I don't put much stock in the "breathing wood" thing. It's all marketing hype if you ask me (and we all know a certain manufacturer likes to use that phrase). I once had a poly finished Tele and loved everything about it except the color. So I had it professionally stripped down to the wood and refinished in a nice vintage blonde nitro, because I bought into the "thin-nitro-makes-for-better-tone" argument. When I got it home and plugged it in, it sounded exactly the same...no better or no worse than when it wore a poly finish. Expensive lesson learned (well, at least it looked better).

I think it's more important to judge each individual guitar on its own merits. If it sounds good, what difference does it make what the finish is? I've played poly finished guitars that sounded incredible and nitro finished guitars that sounded awful. What type of finish a guitar has doesn't influence my decision on whether to buy the guitar or not. Sound and playability are pretty much all I care about...and it doesn't hurt if the guitar looks nice, too.

Acoustic guitars are another issue altogether. I'm sure the finish thickness and composition are variables in the vibrational equation. But what I said above still applies here...Play it. If it sounds great, use it. If not, lose it.

Good points all, Daniel...

but, when we say, "poly", we are being vague. There are two kinds of "poly" used in guitar finishing: polyester, and polyurethane. Asian and Mexican made guitars tend to be polyester, and Ricks are polyurethane, as are other brands and many higher-end guitars.

Polyester is generally thick; it's used because it's cheap and not as labor-intensive to apply; it builds rapidly, is insensitive to moisture, and at the thicknesses it's used, it resists checking--it's thick-shelled. Think "surfboard".

Polyurethane is thinner (usually much thinner) and quite flexible, but more labor-intensive to use because it's thinner and softer.