Weird (maybe not) request of builders

murrayatuptown

Hi:

I am inching closer to building something...I may modify a no-name acoustic that needs repair instead of starting from scratch for now (Collin oval plans), but what I would like to ask from a volunteer...I guess I better tell you what first...

I read about wet and dry sounding guitars, and so on. If one has no access to multiple such instruments in person to compare, and it's surely difficult to impossible to figure out what one is hearing in recordings, especially with other instruments playing, this is something one might only learn as an apprentice.

If anyone sees the merit of the following request and would be willing to humor me, I'd appreciate it.

I'd like to hear, or maybe it would be a useful thing to post for others as well, recordings of simple things like chromatic scale, isolated chords, and so one, posted with an opinion of the poster, as to whether it's a 'wet' or 'dry' sounding instrument. Maybe also of interest might be examples from a different type of instrument, like a 'regular' steel string flattop and an archtop.

Yes, there are a million variables, but if this request resulted in one or more person(s) seeing the merit and having the time to post a few examples recorded under similar conditions played by the same person, presumably with the same pick and playing style, it might eliminate many of those variables, and be a useful learning tool.

I recently added some spectral analysis apps and iStrobosoft to my iPhone. I am 'watching' as well as listening to pieces of wood as I tap them (hey, I could have worse habits, right?!?). For whatever it's worth, I'd like to compare different sonic examples with as many subjective and objective methods I can.

I know there are a lot of things such experiments will absolutely NOT be useful for, or tell me how to translate that into a recipe, but I think there is no harm in studying with whatever means of perception one has.

Thanks

Murray

Bob Holo

A long time ago, Michael & Josh & I used to use it to describe some of the really flat-toppy sounding gypsy jazz guitars. (The bad old days… haha.. when it was really difficult to get a halfway decent sounding beginner guitar - when you sort of had to pray that someone would sell their Patenotte on the cheap) Whereas there are a lot of good beginner instruments now.

Anyway, it described that rubbery rich technicolor flat-top sound. Imagine a Goodall Dreadnought; beautiful for some music but a very poor match for playing GJ… Then Michael got an old guitar in the shop whose soundboard was too thin… probably sanded thin by an amateur refinish job - and it had this almost 3 dimensional ultra-high metallic overtone type of thing going on… as though if you played it… dogs… blocks away, were probably whining and covering their ears. For some reason we started calling that sort of thing "wet".

Long story short, at this point, if the word ever did mean anything, it has long since lost its meaning. I've heard it used to describe basically anything a person doesn't like about a guitar. I've even seen a few guys who haven't developed good left-hand technique (and consequently leave a lot of open strings ringing while they play) call the most fantastic old vintage guitars wet. If you put a guitar with cut and power and dynamics in the hands of a neophyte, the result can be carnage. One of the benefits of beginner guitars is that they tend to be a bit less powerful and dynamic and therefore more forgiving of poor technique and ideal for beginners because of that… for the same reason you want your 16 year old kid driving that Ford Focus and not a Ferrari.

What I'm saying is - if that word ever did mean anything, it doesn't now. It has become a panacea. I think Michael may still use it from time to time to describe guitars with particularly graceless / shrill / metallic overtones… maybe not.

Just build. Don't worry about tuning things until you start to understand the variables in a personal and hands-on way. A lot of what you read online about luthiery is conjecture. It's a GIGO phenomenon. Myth and misperception about what does and doesn't affect a guitar's sound or playability invariably focuses attention away from the important things, and toward things that are easier or sexier to explain. This is why you see 10 threads on strings to every one thread on right hand technique... and 100 threads on which species of wood to use vs. 1 thread on how to tell if a piece of wood is a good example of its species and how to work with woods of different characteristics. 1,000 threads on tapping tops before they're attached to a guitar vs. 1 thread on how to tune a top after it is mounted so that it functions with the other parts of the guitar as a system... and so on.

Anyway, just build, and do so with an open mind and observant eyes and ears and keep your fingers away from the sharp end of the tools. There is no recipe. People doggedly stick to the misperception that there is, but there really isn't. I can build two guitars that appear different and sound similar or appear similar and sound different. Someday, you will be able to do that too if you keep at it. Build and learn. If you listen to what you read online it'll give you bad habits and misperceptions that you will have to overcome. Just buy a good method book and read it and build and learn and play and enjoy. Rock on.

TPC168

Stuart, I tend to agree with your above post. In all honesty, a great guitar in the hands of a great player is what matters. For some reason, in the gypsy jazz genre, we assign these "wet" or "dry" characteristics to the instrument so routinely it's comical. A really fine musician with a wonderful guitar can cover a ton of musical ground. I listen to Julian Lage play all forms of jazz on everything from a 34 L-5 to a prewar Martin 000, and I come away thinking it sounds phenomenal. I never say, "oh, that's really a wet, overblown, flubby, etc. sound--that's not what I want to hear when listening to swing." The player's technique and nuances dictate where the instrument's sound can go. This is why Django sounds like Django on anything he played!

Bones

I think of 'wetness' as excessive response at certain frequencies (ringing of specific individual notes) more than other most other notes. I've never played a GJ or archtop guitar that really rang like that on all notes. Metallic overtones could be some defect in the tailpiece or poor fretwork???

mab

I don't have much experience, so take this with a grain of salt. However if you have a guitar with a floating bridge, you could play around with making a couple of bridges. It seems to me at least that the two most important variables to that are weight and stiffness and by playing around with that you can attenuate certain frequencies and cut others and see how those variables affect the sound.

Also, can't agree more with Mr.Holo about watching the sharp end of those tools, a good chisel will take you down to the bone and I know experienced woodworkers who have managed to cut off digits because they got careless. Sorry, I just don't ever really see safety stressed in any of the threads I read and 95% of accidents could be avoided if people payed a little more attention to it.

murrayatuptown

Thank you...always good to have sanity checks (mine).

I have done wood working on (having a pace to do it) and off (not) since high school (mid 70's). I'm pretty spooked by and thus extremely careful around power tools, and know which end of hand tools to hold (soldering iron, too).

The floating bridge guitar I have is an archtop, and an odd one at that...laminate top, maybe back as well ('56 ES-135)...not a good candidate for acoustic playing...if there is another use for the term 'dry', I'd say it's dead and dry. I've taken it to a luthier I trust a few times to ask why it makes the noises it does instead of resonance...they say there's nothing to fix...it's not a carved archtop, but it sounds pretty nice plugged into a tube amp in the hands of someone who plays primarily on such an instrument. Not a stellar collectible, but it deserves enough respect to leave alone...

I will just proceed pragmatically. I don't subscribe to the cult thinking that only certain woods have to be 'just so'...there is ideal and there is making do. I particularly appreciate reading anecdotal stories about the topic...Bob Taylor's pallet guitars, Bob Benedetto's construction-grade pine guitars and explanation that luthiers have had to make do with what they can get for hundreds of years, if ideal wood isn't available. Mail order sure makes things easier for people who don't live in the climes where the 'right stuff' grows. Maybe it helps to have the name Bob ;O).

I have a friend who builds double basses, and he reassuringly says there is 'ideal' and there is knowing how to make a usable piece of wood perform. I was very pleased to learn that trees large enough for a one-piece top on a double bass are quite rare nowadays...he has some historical favorites that have 6-8 piece tops out of necessity, and reading about the diverse methods and wood choices of Busato, there are surely many ways to get to a goal. He's not named Bob & does well.

I was really inspired to read how 'accepted' cedar is with gypsy guitars...I have alot of old tight-grained quarter-sawn cedar pieces, smallish, but available. The bass guy was very encouraging about it as well. He uses a mix of old growth forest wood with proper sourcing and also shared a cold-climate tree with another luthier who said he'd use his half for firewood. The bass top built with the unburnt half tree went into a bass that won a conference award for tone.

I'm more intent on learning right now than finishing something and having it be full of more mistakes than successes. One of the things I want to do along the way is make new cedar tops for cigar boxes - there is little to lose there economically and it offers plenty of opportunity to set some kind of measurable goal and see what works and doesn't. I don't expect to make a Busato or Favino this way, but I can still learn something. It'll keep me off the street for a while anyway.

Thanks again

murrayatuptown

What do I do with these badges I'm earning here? ;O) Reminds me of getting stickers as a kid in elementary school ;O).

So far they're all good ones. I suppose it's better than earning 'troll', 'banned', 'aggravates the >bleep< out of the general populace', etc.

Buco

Here's to your "like" badge that you're about to receive, you've earned it :!!