The Hmmm Let Me Think About That Finish Thing Again Thread

[László]

I sometimes start discussing my thinking about PRSes by saying that I started playing them in 1991. There have been changes to the guitars over the years, and among those changes have been finishes. I've been reading about finishes, and how they affect the tone of instruments, thinking a lot about my own experience with different finishes, etc., and I'd like to initiate a discussion along those lines at a level beyond "all finishes sound alike/different/oh yeah?/who says so?"

While this subject has been a common discussion among guitarists, violinists, and other string players who use wooden instruments, it's a topic of discussion among orchestral brass players, piano players, and all acoustic instrument players at one level or another. In other words, it's not just we guitar crazies who go on about this. I'm not sure that's a relief, but it does provide one with a lot of additional data points.

One of my close friends is a sax player who insists that unfinished, unplated brass sounds better for his saxophones than a plated or lacquered instrument. There is much discussion among trumpet players as to whether a silver plated, unplated, or lacquered instrument is best and what that does for the tone. Players in major orchestras have been involved in testing these theories and making various findings.

What I'm finding is that there seems to be a common thread: the material used for a finish matters. The thinner the finish, the better, though some thin finishes do worse over time, and some do better. Varnishes seem to have the most variability, as the instruments absorb moisture and become soft in warm weather, and also absorb dirt and oil from the player's hands and arms and unless they are applied perfectly they tend not to age well and refinishing is very difficult.

My own experience with recent PRS guitars forced me to completely reverse my prior thinking that this business of finishes was all BS. The V12 and nitro finished PRS guitars I've owned recently have convinced me that finishes matter, and that they matter a lot.

My former thinking was that the only difference between, say, a nitro finished guitar and a poly finished one was that the nitro was sticky. And my experience over the years with Gibson seemed to bear this out.

What I've since learned is that there are huge varieties among finish blends, their hardness, their weight, how thickly they have to be applied, etc., and that all of this stuff matters for tone and for the feel of the instrument in one's hands. Not all nitro is in fact sticky - the PRS stuff isn't sticky at all.

Beyond the question of what kind of finish, the question of how the finish is applied and later buffed, is something that those who make and repair instruments for orchestra players at the highest level insist is hugely important. So it's not just materials, it's techniques. It has to be thin enough to be light and not affect the resonance of the material the instrument is made of, on the other hand, it has to survive polishing and sanding, yet still provide sufficient protection for the instrument for the inevitable environmental changes and from the debris our skin leaves behind on the surface.

I'm not qualified to go much beyond the points I've made, except to say that I have reached my own preferences regarding finishes in recent years. However, this isn't to say that one finish type has to be "the best" for anyone, it's to say that finishes sound different from one another, and that's OK. It adds to one's ability to make choices.

 

[HANGAR18]

I believe that in one of those many videos on youtube that PRSh rattled off a bunch of things which affected the tone of an instrument and I believe that the finish was one of those things mentioned. So, yes, the finish would affect the tone, but to what subtil degree, that would be difficult to measure.

Also, a buddy of mine just bought a 1985 guitar (yes I said nineteen eightyfive) and it had what seemed to be a rather thin finish. (If he is ever stupid enough to sell it, I hope he sells it to me. hahaha) The guitar sounded incredibly great but I think the way it was wired had as much or more to do with the tone than the finish. Just an opinion based obversation. YMMV

 

[ozboy]

For a quality acoustic, eg collings, varnish adds about $1k to price and the claim is this is required because of the extra labour involved. . So far for electrics I'm not convinced those things make much difference to the sound as compared to pup choice or even which position the pup switch is set to. And then there's the amp settings.

 

[Whitecat]

It's impossible to properly scientifically compare finishes though.

One can compare pickups, in theory - controlled conditions, same guitar, etc. You can compare strings, hardware, even neck/body combinations to some degree (although that's fraught with peril).

But finishes? Not possible. You can't strip down and refinish a guitar just for comparison because too many variables would be screwed by just that process.

Who is to say that one piece of wood doesn't "take" nitro better than another, for example? Just as two pieces of an identical species of wood can vastly vary in weight and density and thus offer nothing of substance to the "tonal stereotype" argument people often push, perhaps some of those factors affect the finish as well. Maybe more pore filler is needed in one piece of ash than another, and even if the topcoats are somehow rendered identical, there's still a difference underneath - which may or may not have an effect.

When it comes to finishes, I generally don't care anymore because they can't be objectively compared - unless you're going PS, you don't really have a choice, do you? If the guitar meets the spec I want and I like how it plays/sounds and it has a nitro finish, fine - good to know so I don't put it on a regular stand. If it has a poly finish, or V12, or oil, or whatever, no biggie.

Anyway, in conclusion, my personal opinion is that yes, there might be a very small effect on tone, but on an electric especially it's completely minimal and the tweak of one knob or a change of plectrum even will negate and change anything quite rapidly - but there's no way to prove it or measure it. Just my 2p - YMMV etc.

 

[Boogie]

Interesting topic. Regardless of the yes or no answers to the tone influence of finishes, having been alive and in the guitar stuff for more than a couple of years., I've noticed numerous changes in materials and techniques applied between makers. In my limited experience, the nitro of the 50s was fairly thin and brittle. Unless the guitar was stored in a controlled environment (like a museum) the tell-tale patina/crackleure was inevitable. The 60s saw a thickening of the same finish...and yes, I'm over generalizing. The 70s saw a change in finishing materials to reduce cost, and in about 1979 saw the advent of what I call the "plastic dip" era. Thick poly finishes that didn't breathe. The 80s saw a refinement in those materials and a return to the vintage recipe. The 90s were a blur for me since we were raising kids and I only got to look at guitars. The new century was when I really took note of PRS' materials and noticed the difference. Through to today, the innovations in finishingn seems to be mostly in application and PRS has had the only solid innovation in materials, of note. With all of the variance over time in finishing, materials and construction techniques, I'd be hard pressed to pin down a real difference in one factor. Today, it would be interesting to have two identical guitars, each finished with nitro and V12 for comparison.

YMMV and my opinion may be completely wrong.

 

[NomadMike]

If I can't tell in a totally blind taste test then it really doesn't matter to me. In other words if I can't identify what finish (or woods or caps, or pickups or hardware or etc) are used without doing a comparison while wearing headphones then it likely won't matter to me in the real world. For me these days it's down to; does it sound good, is the build good and is it the sound I'm after. This might be because of less than optimal hearing (thank you guns, guitars and good times) or I've just been beat over the head too often by marketing types telling me X is better than Y because it's traditional (or modern) and then telling me Y is better than X a year later.

 

[garrettb]

If at some point different finishes become measurably better or worse for tone, then I will care. Until then, it's just a cosmetic and feel preference.

 

[László]

To those who have said that differences have to be measurable, here's a question: do you believe that an all-mahogany guitar sounds the same as a mahogany guitar with a maple cap? How about a maple neck and fingerboard compared to a 'hog neck and RW board? How about simply going from a RW board to an ebony one?

And did you require scientific measurements and/or blind tests to come to these conclusions?

One more final question: If you played 100 instruments with one finish, and 100 instruments with a different finish, and heard some pretty consistent differences in the tones of the two sets of instruments, do you think you'd start making some general conclusions on your own about these differences, or would you still require scientific proof? What if the number was 1000 of each?

 

[ViperDoc]

Zeroing in on how finish affects tone would require comparing a run of identical guitars made by the same person using flitch-cut wood blanks (successive wood slices from the same tree), and then finishing them with different finishes. THAT would be interesting. There are too many other decisions that are made aside from the ones you "think you're making" when guitar-building to be able to identify what's contributing what to the guitar's tone. However, there is NO QUESTION that finish affects tone. EVERYTHING AFFECTS TONE.

 

[László]

It's impossible to properly scientifically compare finishes though.

One can compare pickups, in theory - controlled conditions, same guitar, etc. You can compare strings, hardware, even neck/body combinations to some degree (although that's fraught with peril).

But finishes? Not possible. You can't strip down and refinish a guitar just for comparison because too many variables would be screwed by just that process.

However, it's easier to compare brass instruments, because two identical pieces of brass made with the same metallurgy and tolerances can be created. And studies using orchestral players have been done.

One test using Chicago Symphony players had them select identical sounding unfinished brass instruments. They then plated one with silver, left one unfinished, and finished the third one in typical lacquer. The players all then again played the instruments, and agreed that the silver plating made no difference at all (before the test they had thought that silver plating would affect the tone). They also unanimously agreed that the lacquer did affect the tone, making it darker. It was found that the silver plating was only half as thick as the lacquer. Similar tests were run on gold plating, and the conclusion was that gold plating also affected the tone in a negative way, perhaps because of its weight.

Having played an awful lot of instruments with different finishes over the years, I do think that nitro was part of the "sound" of older Gibsons, and that poly was part of the "sound" of older PRSes (I think I've had about 18 older PRSes over the years with the poly, and 4 or 5 with the V12, and two with nitro). To my ears, the V12 sounds different on the same PRS models, and the nitro on Private Stocks makes them sound a little different from the V12). Admittedly, I'm not equipped to do a scientific study, this is purely anecdotal. However, my own anecdotal experience matters - to me.

I think certain things result in what I'll call "tone families." The family members don't sound identical, just as families don't look identical (unless they're twins), but they still look familial. But even though the features of each family member might measure differently, there's still that resemblance that's easy to see.

I think the same thing happens with families of certain woods, certain hardware, and yes, certain finishes. It's hard to describe, and difficult to measure, but you still hear it fairly consistently. At least I think I can after 47 years of playing an uncountable number of guitars.

To paraphrase a famous line, I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[Deleted member 2284]

To those who have said that differences have to be measurable, here's a question: do you believe that an all-mahogany guitar sounds the same as a mahogany guitar with a maple cap? How about a maple neck and fingerboard compared to a 'hog neck and RW board? How about simply going from a RW board to an ebony one?

And did you require scientific measurements and/or blind tests to come to these conclusions?

One more final question: If you played 100 instruments with one finish, and 100 instruments with a different finish, and heard some pretty consistent differences in the tones of the two sets of instruments, do you think you'd start making some general conclusions on your own about these differences, or would you still require scientific proof? What if the number was 1000 of each?

I definitely agree that a blinded study etc. with enough samples (guitars) is a scientific and correct way to go about it. The sample size should be big enough to rule out the other variables of the wood, electronics etc... One possible conclusion, of course, may be that nothing can be concluded which in turn would not necessarily mean that finish doesn't affect tone, just that the other variables are as big an influence on tone.

For my part, I can totally see acoustic guitars being affected by the finish; I think of e.g. the top as a membrane meant to vibrate like a drum (or maybe the skin of a banjo). I personally have my doubts as to the effect on a solid chunk of wood like an electrical guitar body. The neck may be a gray area to me, but then again, there's a steel rod in there.

BTW, my CE 24's neck (nitro) is pretty sticky.

 

[László]

BTW, my CE 24's neck (nitro) is pretty sticky.

Yes, the newer PRS nitro isn't. I had a CU22 Soapbar with a nitro neck that was sticky in the late 90s, too. PRS currently uses what they call "shatter hard" nitro that is a harder finish.

Good observation about acoustic guitars, too, and I agree that's where you're going to hear it the most.

From reading what's out there, it appears that classical guitar makers were discussing the effect of finishes as early as the days when nitro finishes came into play, and were experimenting with various formulations until they found what they could tolerate.

Several makers insisted on French Polish for the tops (the guitar's "speaker") even if they sprayed the guitar with nitro on the neck, back and sides. Most have commented that they could hear a substantial difference; this goes back to the 50s and 60s at the very least. French polish is the thinnest finish of all. Unfortunately, it's a very fragile finish, difficult to repair, and one luthier of the time commented that he couldn't train workers to apply it correctly. It required a true artisan.

I was surprised that these finish experiments were going on that far back; the horn experiments date to the late 60s if I recall correctly.

We have several generations of musicians and very experienced orchestral instrument makers giving serious consideration to the question of what happens to the timbre of an instrument when different finishes are applied.

This tells me that it's a worthy topic for discussion, not to be taken lightly.

 

[Whitecat]

To those who have said that differences have to be measurable, here's a question: do you believe that an all-mahogany guitar sounds the same as a mahogany guitar with a maple cap? How about a maple neck and fingerboard compared to a 'hog neck and RW board? How about simply going from a RW board to an ebony one?

And did you require scientific measurements and/or blind tests to come to these conclusions?

One more final question: If you played 100 instruments with one finish, and 100 instruments with a different finish, and heard some pretty consistent differences in the tones of the two sets of instruments, do you think you'd start making some general conclusions on your own about these differences, or would you still require scientific proof? What if the number was 1000 of each?

At stage volumes, assuming same pickups/amps/hardware/strings/plectrum, the wood & finish matter very little to me. When they are turned up, I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference between my mahogany bodied/rosewood necked/boarded Starla and my PS mahogany bodied/necked, maple topped ebony boarded Starla. There probably is one but it's super minor in the grand scheme of things.

There are just too many other things that can change the tone with such a minor variance, the wood is the last thing I care about. I count on builders to choose stable wood, season it correctly and assemble it well. I really don't think the sound changes so much otherwise. I sound like me!

FEEL is another thing entirely of course... I will completely agree with anyone who says rosewood FEELS very different from maple and ebony and whatever else you might like to use.

Sometimes I think that guitarists like to overcomplicate tone with all these minutiae just to make it seem like there's more going on than there is...

In my 22 years of owning many guitars, the only conclusions I have reached that I'm not skeptical about is that "guitars are the sum of their parts" and "marketing reigns supreme."

Here's a cynical question for you all that's veering the discussion slightly, but I've been wondering it lately.

Is there any plain, boring, uninteresting-looking wood (specifically maple) in "the vault" at PRS?

If PRS (or any builder, for that matter) were building more strictly for tone, surely they would have some epic pieces in there that were selected for how they would sound, not how they look? And that someone might be willing to trade off crazy flame for plain-Jane if it meant it sounded monstrous?

Just wondering. The answer may very well be yes, and that would be cool.

(I agree that "everything affects tone" too, btw - it's just that I don't agree that everything affects tone in a consistent, measureable or significant way, especially when it comes to the organic components and how they interact with the rest of the piece.)

 

[László]

At stage volumes, assuming same pickups/amps/hardware/strings/plectrum, the wood & finish matter very little to me. When they are turned up, I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference between my mahogany bodied/rosewood necked/boarded Starla and my PS mahogany bodied/necked, maple topped ebony boarded Starla. There probably is one but it's super minor in the grand scheme of things.

There are just too many other things that can change the tone with such a minor variance, the wood is the last thing I care about. I count on builders to choose stable wood, season it correctly and assemble it well. I really don't think the sound changes so much otherwise. I sound like me!

FEEL is another thing entirely of course... I will completely agree with anyone who says rosewood FEELS very different from maple and ebony and whatever else you might like to use.

Sometimes I think that guitarists like to overcomplicate tone with all these minutiae just to make it seem like there's more going on than there is...

In my 22 years of owning many guitars, the only conclusions I have reached that I'm not skeptical about is that "guitars are the sum of their parts" and "marketing reigns supreme."

Here's a cynical question for you all that's veering the discussion slightly, but I've been wondering it lately.

Is there any plain, boring, uninteresting-looking wood (specifically maple) in "the vault" at PRS?

If PRS (or any builder, for that matter) were building more strictly for tone, surely they would have some epic pieces in there that were selected for how they would sound, not how they look? And that someone might be willing to trade off crazy flame for plain-Jane if it meant it sounded monstrous?

Just wondering. The answer may very well be yes, and that would be cool.

(I agree that "everything affects tone" too, btw - it's just that I don't agree that everything affects tone in a consistent, measureable or significant way, especially when it comes to the organic components and how they interact with the rest of the piece.)

The adirondack spruce top on my PS acoustic was selected originally for Tony McManus. It has no "bear claw" or other cool-looking features that acoustic guitar enthusiasts go for, it's very plain. Before I ok'd it, I was sent pictures taken in the vault, and the pieces of wood were marked, "T. McManus."

Naturally, I approved it, and the result is the best sounding acoustic guitar I've ever had the pleasure to play. So I guess the answer is yes.

As to what happens on stage, you're absolutely right that differences are difficult to hear. For recording, it's easier to hear them, and that's what I do for a living. I don't know if you listened to the links I've posted with demos of the Hammer of the Gods McCarty Singlecut, and other guitars I've owned; the differences are quite pronounced through the same amps.

 

[Whitecat]

Ah, acoustics are a different kettle of fish IMO... the wood matters more to me on them, and significantly the top. Based on many of the common timbers used I would expect that not all of it looks crazy - I was more surmising about the electric side of things.

Of course your Hammer sounds different - the formula is tweaked - probably for the good as it's an exceptional sounding guitar. I'd really like to know what's going on with the pickups before I'd be willing to comment any further. Has anyone measured them next to a set of "standard issue" 57/08s?

If PRS aren't fudging their marketing copy and they are actually wound differently then I would think that would be the main factor in tonal difference. But the body thickness and the brass anchor points on the bridge may come into play as well. Those would just be my instinctive suggestions anyway.

I think we can agree it's a stunning guitar either way!

 

[NomadMike]

To those who have said that differences have to be measurable, here's a question: do you believe that an all-mahogany guitar sounds the same as a mahogany guitar with a maple cap? How about a maple neck and fingerboard compared to a 'hog neck and RW board? How about simply going from a RW board to an ebony one?

And did you require scientific measurements and/or blind tests to come to these conclusions?

One more final question: If you played 100 instruments with one finish, and 100 instruments with a different finish, and heard some pretty consistent differences in the tones of the two sets of instruments, do you think you'd start making some general conclusions on your own about these differences, or would you still require scientific proof? What if the number was 1000 of each?

You can flip that around Les, did you do the same to determine a actual sound difference, the amount of difference, what the exact difference was and it's cause? What role did cognitive bias and ear fatigue play in determining the results?
Too many things to isolate so I just go with the sounds good/sounds bad approach and not worry about the wood except for stability, looks and weight, and finish for feel and looks. I'm shallow that way.

 

[László]

Ah, acoustics are a different kettle of fish IMO... the wood matters more to me on them, and significantly the top. Based on many of the common timbers used I would expect that not all of it looks crazy - I was more surmising about the electric side of things.

Of course your Hammer sounds different - the formula is tweaked - probably for the good as it's an exceptional sounding guitar. I'd really like to know what's going on with the pickups before I'd be willing to comment any further. Has anyone measured them next to a set of "standard issue" 57/08s?

If PRS aren't fudging their marketing copy and they are actually wound differently then I would think that would be the main factor in tonal difference. But the body thickness and the brass anchor points on the bridge may come into play as well. Those would just be my instinctive suggestions anyway.

I think we can agree it's a stunning guitar either way!

Definitely!

I can't speak to the specific pickup differences, though I do hear them, but I did open the control cavity, and found that there are slightly higher cap values in the Hammer compared to the current SC245, .033 instead of .022. This would be a very subtle difference. Both guitars also have different cap values than other PRS models. Also, that 'hog slab is thick!

 

[Rookie]

Seems to me the choice is this: Is it worth the extra hassle and potential problems to have a nitro finished guitar?
If I can't tell the difference, and yet I have to worry about stands, cases, sunshine, cleaning supplies, it's not worth it.
I have a PRS with a lacquer finish and a Gibson Les Paul with a Nitro finish. The PRS runs circles around the L/P.
But not because of the finish, IMO.

 

[László]

You can flip that around Les, did you do the same to determine a actual sound difference, the amount of difference, what the exact difference was and it's cause? What role did cognitive bias and ear fatigue play in determining the results?
Too many things to isolate so I just go with the sounds good/sounds bad approach and not worry about the wood except for stability, looks and weight, and finish for feel and looks. I'm shallow that way.

And there's nothing wrong with that approach! You bring up excellent points. Ear fatigue and cognitive bias definitely play a role.

Here's what my admittedly subjective and anecdotal experience tells me: guitars with certain finishes tend to have certain timbral personalities. That's as far as I can go.

I have done a 180 on this finish thing. I didn't think it would be audible, either acoustically, or amplified. I thought the idea that nitro sounded different was BS, for example. Gradually, my thinking has changed.

One memory in particular really strikes me. I have a 1965 SG Special that's been in my family since new. As you can imagine, I'm very, very familiar with its tone. I've played the guitar for 47 years!

A few years back I was in Chicago visiting my daughter, and at one point I had some time to kill, so I went to one of Chicago's finer guitar stores and spotted one of the early DGTs with the nitro finish. Only I didn't know it had a nitro finish. I hadn't played one before. I strummed it acoustically, and my immediate reaction was, "Oh my gosh, this sounds a lot like my SG Special and doesn't sound like my McCarty." Keep in mind, was only an acoustic strum. When I played it through an amp, I felt it had a little more of a Gibson-influenced sound, too, more than my usual McCartys, though plugged in, the difference wasn't as pronounced. It was still there, though.

The salesperson told me the finish was nitro. I hadn't a clue when I picked up the guitar. That's when doubt about my earlier opinion started to creep in.

I didn't think any more about it until I played another PRS with a nitro finish, and then a owned several PRSes with the V12 finish. All of them sounded a bit different plugged in and strummed acoustically than my poly finished PRSes. And I began to think, "maybe this finish thing isn't BS after all."

As I said, that's about as far as I can take it. I'm never going to be that guy who argues "this is the only way to think about this stuff." I think there's room for discussion and disagreement. There aren't any scientific tests. So all one can do is play a bunch of guitars and make up one's own mind.

Nonetheless, I think this discussion serves a purpose, and that it's fun and interesting. I'm not looking for pronouncements, nor am I trying to make any. This is simply a good discussion.

Seems to me the choice is this: Is it worth the extra hassle and potential problems to have a nitro finished guitar?
If I can't tell the difference, and yet I have to worry about stands, cases, sunshine, cleaning supplies, it's not worth it.
I have a PRS with a lacquer finish and a Gibson Les Paul with a Nitro finish. The PRS runs circles around the L/P.
But not because of the finish, IMO.

I agree about the extra worry and hassle, it's a valid consideration! Nitro takes some extra work. And you have to clean it more often or it gets problematic because dirt can build up more easily.

It's worth the effort to me, at least for studio work. If I played shows a lot, I'd use a V12 guitar for the reasons you state.

FYI: nitro is lacquer finish. PRS poly and V12 are also types of lacquer finishes with different binders and different materials in suspension.

 

[NomadMike]

It would be interesting to see actual studies done by some real life propeller heads, so far I've only seen ones by laymen that were pretty good but very flawed in the testing process, or some good ones done by college students that had better tests but were, well, experiments done by college students (lack of experience being the issue not smarts). But let's face it, coming up with an actual answer isn't in the best interests of the manufacturers and us players like our woods. Well, except for a brief time in the late 70's and 80's when some interesting designs and materials were showing up.
Come to think of it I'd love for Paul and his gang to take a stab at coming up with a good sounding non-traditional material solid body electric guitar. Maybe throw a nice maple veneer on it so it's perty.