Poly vs Nitro finish tone

[Tag]

I just picked up a PRS P.S. and ordered it with an ultra thin Nitro finish. I have several PRS guitars that have the regular Poly "dipped in glass" finish,and I think they sound exactly alike. The Nitro does not seem to resonate andy better. Anyone else have two of the same guitars (one with Poly, one with nitro) to check this out? They also feel the same as far as stickyness, but that nitro smell!!! EMMMMMM BOYYYY!!!!!!!!:D WOW does that smell GOOD!

[Dana Olsen]

Really hard to hear the difference in finishes, even with your good ears. Remember though, nitro cures - it can take up to a year for it to get really hard, and that's when you'd begin to hear the subtle difference.

Keep checking it, let us know if you begin to hear a difference.

Congrats on the new axe, Dana O.

[AJ Love]

my Suhr Classic T is the best guitar I've ever played in my life, and it has amazing tone, and Poly finish...

[Mr.Hanky]

I am of the opinion that the best thing you can do for a new guitar is play the snot out of it. More then anything that will help the tone of both the guitar and the player.

[scottlr]

I am another one that really can't tell any tone difference between nitro and poly. Nitro smells really nice in the case when new, though. I DO like that.

If I had a lot of money to blow for the sake of finding out, I get a Setzer Sig SSL to A/B against my SSU version.

As for Strats and Teles, I don't care as long as they sound good.

[dognmoon]

I spend a good deal of time over at Tom Anderson's forum, and Tom has stated more than once that he's tried the nitro finish and doesn't prefer it. I think he said it sounded thinner than a nice thick coat. Do a search on his site to get the quote, though.

[Nolatone Ampworks]

I bet alot has to do with how thick the poly is. A well applied not overdone poly finish probably won'd detract from the tone, as I think would be the case for most quality quitars whose finish is applied with care.

Paul

[VaughnC]

I've played guitars with either nitro or poly finish....and guitars seem to sound good or bad no matter what type finish is used. However, I think you have better odds of getting good tone with a thin finish, no matter what type it is. But you can't polish a turd either....bad wood is bad wood no matter what finish is on it ;).

[bullet69]

maybe on a acoustic. i just cant see it making a difference on a electric, especialy with a cranked up amp and a fuzz or overdrive pedal .

[michaelprice83]

NItro smells better. +1

[zenfreud]

I bought my CS Strat used and didn't notice a 'nitro smell'. Still don't. Perhaps some enterprising company will start selling cans of pseudo 'nitro smell' for that new/old guitar smell.

You know how some people really like the 'new car smell'? When I think of 'new car smell' I wonder about all the off-gassing and what it might do to our reproductive capabilities. Or digestive system. Or...

[brad347]

get the wood vibrating together! play the snot out of it! yes yes yes!!!

[Izy]

For a strat or a tele - its nitro finish for me.

I like the way nitro ages and that whole relic look thing.

For PRS, Les Pauls and others - poly finish

my 2 cents

[GuitarsFromMars]

I just picked up a PRS P.S. and ordered it with an ultra thin Nitro finish. I have several PRS guitars that have the regular Poly "dipped in glass" finish,and I think they sound exactly alike. The Nitro does not seem to resonate andy better. Anyone else have two of the same guitars (one with Poly, one with nitro) to check this out? They also feel the same as far as stickyness, but that nitro smell!!! EMMMMMM BOYYYY!!!!!!!!:D WOW does that smell GOOD!

I will not disagree about the way nitro smells on a new guitar,actually any nitro geet...it's already been said,play the snot out of it and enjoy your new guitar...:)

[BoyMambo]

I wasn't sure I should pipe in because I really don't know, but I thought the difference was that the nitro finish allow moisture in and out of the guitar so that the would could continue to age, where as the poly finish was fixed and didn't allow the wood to breath. So the tone would change over time more noticably on a nitro finished instrument. My luthier who built my single cut has urged my to leave the guitar out of its case, so it can continue to breath.

[jackaroo]

IZY...

I think that les pauls are all done in nitro....

[Doug Allen]

I have a 1982 Gibson ES-335 'dot neck' re-issue, it has the standard (thick) poly finish. After 15 yrs of play, the finish needed to be buffed with an abrasive cutter to remove the nicks/scratches/dings.

I used Meguiar's # 4 followed by # 9 swirl remover. The poly coat is so thick, the buffing resulted in a shiny, like-new finish. No surprise about the cosmetic change.

But - the sound was greatly improved - the guitar "came to life" with resonance! The wood is now allowed to vibrate much better, this is noticeable both acoustically and thru an amp. The thick poly coat had dampened/muted the natural sound - too much!

[Jon Silberman]

Let's get our terms straight. My understanding is PRS uses acrylic urethane, not polyester. And they use very little of it - that "dipped in glass" look is achieved with a remarkably thin coat of the stuff. When someone misstates this as "poly," it promotes visions of disco slacks. That is NOT the material a top notch builder like PRS uses for its finishes.

[The Violet Iris]

a big part of the difference of nitro and poly is thte allowing of the wood to breathe. but a lot of guys cure the woods they use for their guitars PRIOR to finishing them. in the old days of fender and gibson, they didn't really do that. or if they did, it was very very little. nitro does allow the guitar to breathe, and continue to de-moisturize, letting the water out and making the wood more dry and resonant. i myself wonder if prs cures their woods PRIOR to finishing the instruments.

i didn't think they did... but i know that some smaller guitar builders... that's the way they go...

BUT i think the prs's sprayed with nitro are to capture what we're talking about in the other thread, my faux aged prs bridge thread... which is the authentic gibson/fender aged look. the first prs's that paul made speciffically for santanna had nitro finishes like a vintage gibson or fender. that's largely because paul was building the guitars himself, handmade. and in the 80s, prs's were nitro finished also. that's why you get a lot of arguements from those guys who say "what!? prs's age! i've seen guys with them who had them for 20 years and they're beat to crap!" and yeah that's true they are! but those were made differently from today.

i'd say almost everybody has a jones for what a prs sprayed with nitro is going to look like in 50 years... i mean come on, the quality of a prs now is EASILY as good as a gibson 50 years ago! we all (or at least most of us) want our guitars to turn into instruments as good as a 59 burst is today.

i mean, truthfully, i think all the real guitar PLAYERS, the guys who gig every night and love music want their guitars to age. the guys who buy prs's because they're beautiful and they just want them to hang on the wall the rest of their life, they don't want the guitars to age a day. they want them to be just like pieces of art that hang on the wall. and really, a guitar like that is a piece of art. these are mostly the guys who buy those crazy private stock guitars and stuff. i mean you don't see johnny hilland playing a private stock model or anything like that... LOL.

but the new prs ps with nitro is an interesting development for a true vintage vibe guitar guy. i know i'm excited. WOO WOO!

:dude

[mrfjones]

i think as long as the finish is thin you will not be able to tell, but the thicker the finish the more it seems to choke out a good guitar. I do think nitro is better later on in the life of the guitar. I also believe it allows the wood to age much more than a poly or urethane finish, but my oldest guitar right now with a poly finish is a 7 year old telecaster that would look brand new if i hadn't dropped it and then reliced it to match the chips a little. that poly is bullet proof.

Poly will in my opinion look better (like new) longer but won't age quite the same way a good thin nitro will, so there are + and - to all the finishes. If you are going for a vintage vibe and sound I would suggest nitro only to let it breath and age the same way a vintage guitar would have.

[Tag]

When someone misstates this as "poly," it promotes visions of disco slacks.


Whats wrong with that? :confused:


:D

[kingsleyd]

Here are some thoughts on a lot of things relating to the "voice" of a guitar, poly/nitro among them, that ring true to my ears:

http://www.ronkirn.com/quest.htm

Violet Iris: here's a stock PRS model that's finished in nitrocellulose and specifically geared toward players who want to play the snot of a guitar and see it age:

http://prsguitars.com/showcase/current/moderneagle.html

[fendrguitplayr]

I'm convinced now that a guitar is either going to sound good or it isn't regardless of finish, fretboard, neck profile, pups. If you find one that sounds good, you will know it !

[Skip62]

I'm convinced now that a guitar is either going to sound good or it isn't regardless of finish, fretboard, neck profile, pups. If you find one that sounds good, you will know it !

Right on the money!

More clarification about the wood breathing, no lungs....lol

Actually the body "has" to be sealed before the nitro goes on, or the nitro will soak completely into the wood and look like bare wood. Since it's sealed, it "can't" breathe anyway, old wifes tail. SRV said he had played out his number 1 and it didn't sound as good as it did. With next to no finish, that guitar could breath.

[Jon Silberman]

It's not the top coat, it's the under coat.

My '86 PRS's finish has aged beautifully, the finish has sunk so deep into the wood you can read the back and sides like Braille.

My '52 RI with its nitro top coat will never age anywhere near as nicely because the wood is sealed with, in this case/to my understanding, true poly.

Relatively early on, PRS changed how it finishes its guitars in reaction to complaints - complaints! - about how "the finish is sinking into the wood!" So the current guitars won't age like mine.

That's "progress." :rolleyes:

[alanbass1]

I notice that PRS are doing '85 re-issues (private stock I think). Does this mean they are using their old method of finishing (which sinks) and the smaller heal as well?

[mrfjones]

It's not the top coat, it's the under coat.

My '86 PRS's finish has aged beautifully, the finish has sunk so deep into the wood you can read the back and sides like Braille.

That's "progress." :rolleyes:


I don't like that type of progress either. I can't wait for my telecaster (finished in black Nitro) to look like the finish you described. guitars like that have a life of their own at that point and it is beautiful, so many stories that could be told and so much remembered by the owner. Jon how about a pic or two?

also, how does she sound?

[jfalcs]

I have a 1982 Gibson ES-335 'dot neck' re-issue, it has the standard (thick) poly finish. After 15 yrs of play, the finish needed to be buffed with an abrasive cutter to remove the nicks/scratches/dings.

I used Meguiar's # 4 followed by # 9 swirl remover. The poly coat is so thick, the buffing resulted in a shiny, like-new finish. No surprise about the cosmetic change.

Gibsons standard finish is nitrocellulose lacquer.

But - the sound was greatly improved - the guitar "came to life" with resonance! The wood is now allowed to vibrate much better, this is noticeable both acoustically and thru an amp. The thick poly coat had dampened/muted the natural sound - too much!

Gibson's standard finish is nitrocellulose lacquer.

[stratzrus]

I am of the opinion that the best thing you can do for a new guitar is play the snot out of it. More then anything that will help the tone of both the guitar and the player.

+1

I picked up an '02 ES 335 last year that I described as sounding, "new and lacking a decent jazz tone. After playing it extensively, the difference in sound is remarkable and is now quite acceptable for jazz.

I suspect, as Hanky said, that playing it will make a much larger difference in sound than either finish if properly done.

stratzrus

[malabarmusic]

Forget poly vs. nitro. How about Tyler's matte shmear vs. candy gloss shmear? There's something sensual about the feel of the matte body combined with the oil finish maple neck, but I have no idea (and don't really care!) whether a gloss finish would shift the tone.

- DB

[brad347]

I have a 1982 Gibson ES-335 'dot neck' re-issue, it has the standard (thick) poly finish. After 15 yrs of play, the finish needed to be buffed with an abrasive cutter to remove the nicks/scratches/dings.

I used Meguiar's # 4 followed by # 9 swirl remover. The poly coat is so thick, the buffing resulted in a shiny, like-new finish. No surprise about the cosmetic change.

But - the sound was greatly improved - the guitar "came to life" with resonance! The wood is now allowed to vibrate much better, this is noticeable both acoustically and thru an amp. The thick poly coat had dampened/muted the natural sound - too much!

I've often wondered about this. If it was possible to "thin" out a slightly thick finish with abrasives and polishing. My Tokai strat is great but the finish (nitro) is just slightly too thick. Like you can't see the woodgrain underneath (which is the best IMO). I might try this, sparingly at first of course.

[Tag]

Actually the body "has" to be sealed before the nitro goes on, or the nitro will soak completely into the wood and look like bare wood. Since it's sealed, it "can't" breathe anyway, old wifes tail.


Is this true of vintage guitars as well? If not, how come my vintage Guilds still have their finish on them? My old X500 looked brand new. (early 70s) If it is true, it needs to be posted all over the net.

[Skip62]

Hey Tag, it is true of Fender's and Gibson's. I've used lacquer to paint wood and if you put it directly on ash, alder, and mohagny it will sink right into the wood and you won't be able to tell it's there except the piece will be shinier than normal. This doesn't happen immediately, it takes a day or 2 per coat. I put 10 coats on in the same day, it might take a month, but it will soak in. Maple is a very dense wood, and I don't think, it needs to be sealed. It was too long ago for me to remember weather I had to seal it or not.
Check out this site for more info, he's done a lot research into finishs and other things guitar
http://www.provide.net/~cfh/

[sanhozay]

My preference with nitro has nothing to do with the sonic superiority snake oil debate. I just greatly prefer the aesthetic attributes of guitars {especially old ones} finished in a nitro-cellulose finish. For me, they look better, feel better and age better than poly. Poly, pretty much, is the equivalent of vinyl siding to me.

[paintguy]

I've often wondered about this. If it was possible to "thin" out a slightly thick finish with abrasives and polishing. My Tokai strat is great but the finish (nitro) is just slightly too thick. Like you can't see the woodgrain underneath (which is the best IMO). I might try this, sparingly at first of course.

Yes it is!!!

[paintguy]

Let's get our terms straight. My understanding is PRS uses acrylic urethane, not polyester. And they use very little of it - that "dipped in glass" look is achieved with a remarkably thin coat of the stuff. When someone misstates this as "poly," it promotes visions of disco slacks. That is NOT the material a top notch builder like PRS uses for its finishes.

My understanding is Prs uses polyester to seal the wood and acrylic urethane to topcoat the color. So, it is completetly sealed with poly and only topcoated with urethane because urethane looks much better, is thinner, and is way easier to buff.

[Jim Soloway]

We use both and I currently play one of each. Tonally, I don't consider it to be nearly as important as which strings I'm using.

[brad347]

Yes it is!!!

COOL! Time to go to the auto parts store and get some meguiars! :dude

Any tips to avoid an uninentional "relic" job?

[Dana Olsen]

After painting over a few thousand guitars and a few hundred of them nitro.... I dont hear a difference. It is how thick and how hard, not the type of material.
ALL finishes let the wood breath
Otherwise your maple neck would never move when painted with Acrylic urethane and I promise you that they still need adjustments.
Also Many old Fenders were not nitro, just a nitro topcoat, they used fullerplast to seal and Acrylic lacquer colors. Leo just choose the softest easiest to buff and repair topcoat.The voice of experience resonates loudly ... regardless of the type of finish (GRIN)

We use both and I currently play one of each. Tonally, I don't consider it to be nearly as important as which strings I'm using.
Dana O.

[paintguy]

COOL! Time to go to the auto parts store and get some meguiars! :dude

Any tips to avoid an uninentional "relic" job?

I would colorsand it lightly if possible with 2000' sandpaper first. I don't think compounds and polishes/glazes will thin it much if not at all.
If it is that thick, I don't think you have to worry about the unintentional relicing. Just don't sand the edges between the top and sides and the back and sides. Also any edges of cavities. Those areas tend to burn off paint in seconds. Use compounds only on those areas.

Larry

[paintguy]

Polyester does not dry on rosewood without special treatment so most people will not use it on necks. Many of the Relics from the CS used an acrylic urethane. We offer acrylic urethane top coat and call it thin skin. In fact many of our guitars are now Acrylic urethane especially the lighter colors like whites, even our white pro series is thin skin since the acrylic is very clear. Polyester has a tint to it. I personally dont care for nitro on necks, it is more sticky than acrylic urethane.

John,
who mentioned rosewood finishes on Prs? :D You quoted me as if I had. They don't put a clearcoat on the rosewood necks. I was speaking of the mahogany necks, bodies and maple tops. You also mention the CS shop and relics. Are we talking Prs here?
And yes you are right about polyester not drying on rosewood. I was responding to someone saying Prs uses urethane, not poly. That is true as a final clearcoat, but not to seal the wood.

I'm confused(not the first time):confused:

[brad347]

I would colorsand it lightly if possible with 2000' sandpaper first. I don't think compounds and polishes/glazes will thin it much if not at all.
If it is that thick, I don't think you have to worry about the unintentional relicing. Just don't sand the edges between the top and sides and the back and sides. Also any edges of cavities. Those areas tend to burn off paint in seconds. Use compounds only on those areas.

Larry


THANKS! Is 2000' a specialty grade of some sort, or will they have it at the hardware store? I'm really gonna try this!!

[hemlock]

If thicker finishes muffle the natural tone of the guitar, then those Dan Armstrongs shouldn't make any sound at all, should they?

Every finish vibrates. Just go with what sounds good (or smells or feels or tastes) to you.

[Unburst]

IMO, finish has little to no effect on the tone of a solid body, an acoustic, or archtop, maybe even a semi might be affected by thick finish, but that would be regardless of it being poly or nitro.

Even vintage guitars have sealer/undercoat before the nitro goes on, in Fender's case this was Fullerplast, essentially plastic.
So the idea that nitro lets wood "breathe" is hogwash.

[Myxolidian]

IMO, finish has little to no effect on the tone of a solid body, an acoustic, or archtop, maybe even a semi might be affected by thick finish, but that would be regardless of it being poly or nitro.

Even vintage guitars have sealer/undercoat before the nitro goes on, in Fender's case this was Fullerplast, essentially plastic.
So the idea that nitro lets wood "breathe" is hogwash.
Well put. I can't stand nitro. Even when cured, it can still be a bit sticky in hot/humid conditions and isn't durable whatsoever. And like you said, bodies have to be sealed before painting or it'll suck up ALL the finish.

If you want the wood to "breathe", you'd have to play a raw guitar. And that would probably be the most unstable piece of wood ever.

[paintguy]

THANKS! Is 2000' a specialty grade of some sort, or will they have it at the hardware store? I'm really gonna try this!!

Yeah, automotive paint supply like myself:D

[sanhozay]

:nonoObviously, there is a lockstep attitude on the Gear Page regarding this debate. Torn asunder by economics, logistics and what works best for Brand A, lets fricken face it - there exists no definitive school of thought which is best. Although, the benchmark moments of dismissive dialogue that accuses one side of some nefarious propaganda is always provocative.

[Jon Silberman]

I was responding to someone saying Prs uses urethane, not poly. That is true as a final clearcoat, but not to seal the wood.

I'm confused(not the first time):confused:

That was me. And I don't know what PRS currently seals the wood on their guitars with nor did I hazard any guesses.

I did state that on my '52 RI, sealant (undercoat) is not nitro which is why the axe will never age like a true '52.

I furthermore added that my '86 PRS's undercoat (if any) is different from that of the later axes (see my earlier post).

[Jon Silberman]

:nonoObviously, there is a lockstep attitude on the Gear Page regarding this debate. Torn asunder by economics, logistics and what works best for Brand A, lets fricken face it - there exists no definitive school of thought which is best. Although, the benchmark moments of dismissive dialogue that accuses one side of some nefarious propaganda is always provocative.

As Curley Howard would say, "HUH?!" :eek:

:)

[rgsss14]

This harkens back to the old story about the finish on Stradivarius violins -
Master luthiers studied the build, the woods, etc. and then deemed that it was some secret formula that A.S. used for the finish that created their magic tone....is that all bunk as well?

[brad347]

It's the OLD. You can't build in old. Or character.

[Mr.Hanky]

Play the damn thing!

[hemlock]

Play the damn thing!

:roll

[jakob]

For a strat or a tele - its nitro finish for me.

I like the way nitro ages and that whole relic look thing.

For PRS, Les Pauls and others - poly finish

my 2 cents

I couldn't agree more....

I don't mind it if one of my strats get's a scratch, ding and I like the worn
look on them, but if I get a scratch on my Les Paul I'm not a happy man...:rolleyes:

[jakob]

As Curley Howard would say, "HUH?!" :eek:

:)
:rotflmao

+1

I got lost somewhere....

[Lance Romance]

The difference between NEW guitars with Poly and Lacquer is very slim, but in 30 years, the difference will be very noticeable.

Nitro breathes (not the wood) and poly seals the wood off from the ouside world forever, and thus there is no aging process with a poly finish. On the other hand, nitro never completely dries and keeps getting thinner and thinner. This is a very desireable trait.

IMHO: When a guitar maker does not finish their instrument in Lacquer, they are sacrificing tone and quality in the name of manufacturing and monetary savings. They are not choosing poly over lacquer because it sounds better. It takes more time to spray lacquer, it takes more time to dry, You have to spray more coats, and you have to be very carefull when buffing it.

Also, when spraying lacquer you use PORE FILLER before spraying a nitro sealer coat on to the bare wood. This solves the lacquer sinking problem mentioned before as an old wives tale. Gibson and Martin do not use a plastic sealer.

I'm not surprised to hear that Fender did use a plastic sealer...shoot...they decided to BOLT their necks on to their bodies. They were willing to cut all kinds of corners.

[paintguy]

quote=Jon Silberman]That was me. And I don't know what PRS currently seals the wood on their guitars with nor did I hazard any guesses.

I did state that on my '52 RI, sealant (undercoat) is not nitro which is why the axe will never age like a true '52.

I furthermore added that my '86 PRS's undercoat (if any) is different from that of the later axes (see my earlier post).

Jon, I was referring to your comment but I was speaking of Prs in the 90's and beyond. I apologize fo not specifiying. You did say Prs uses urethane, not polyester in your first post. I was just saying they actually use both. Again, I was referring to Prs of the 90's and later. I Missed the 2nd post.:jo

My other comments were aimed at John Suhr who used my quote and then spoke of a totally different topic. That's where I was confused.

Anyway, this subject had been beat to death on TGP and I really can't believe every new thread turns in to page after page after page of opinions. I keep telling myself, "don't post, don't post" :D :jo

I say "let's just play our guitars and enjoy them for what they are instead of analyzing every detail of construction".

It's kind of fun to discuss this stuff and learn, but I think we put way too much stock in one little piece of the equation.(whatever it may be)

Cheers to the nitro guys. Cheers to the urethane guys. Cheers to the poly Guys. Cheers to the oil guys.:BEER Cheers to anyone I missed.

Larry

[brad347]

Well I got some 1000 grit sandpaper, some rubbing compound from 3M and some Meguiars #2 polish.

I have been f-ing LAYING into the back of this ash-bodied, nitro finished strat and after rubbing, polishing, and buffing it looks NO different. I'm wondering how thin I can go? How do I know when to stop? Is there any way to tell I'm getting close to the wood? That's the dangerous part. :)

It's fun though. I don't know if I'll be able to tell a difference or not but it's an interesting project for an evening. I'm being very careful around the edges. Turns out this finish seems to be a bit thicker even than I thought it was.

[paintguy]

Well I got some 1000 grit sandpaper, some rubbing compound from 3M and some Meguiars #2 polish.

I have been f-ing LAYING into the back of this ash-bodied, nitro finished strat and after rubbing, polishing, and buffing it looks NO different. I'm wondering how thin I can go? How do I know when to stop? Is there any way to tell I'm getting close to the wood? That's the dangerous part. :)

It's fun though. I don't know if I'll be able to tell a difference or not but it's an interesting project for an evening. I'm being very careful around the edges. Turns out this finish seems to be a bit thicker even than I thought it was.

Sand the finish till it is uniformly dull. Any shiny spots or dots should be sanded. Again, I would stay away from the edges. Are you using water? Is the 1000' wet and dry or dry paper?

-L

[bullet69]

It's the OLD. You can't build in old. Or character.


bingo

[brad347]

Sand the finish till it is uniformly dull. Any shiny spots or dots should be sanded. Again, I would stay away from the edges. Are you using water? Is the 1000' wet and dry or dry paper?

-L

Well, I used 1000 grit wet/dry paper, with water. I went really light on the edges as you suggested. So I sanded through a tiny spot on top instead! Haha! Just barely. And it's in a spot where my wrist tends to rest anyway, I probably thinned it out a little bit the 'honest way' from playing wear and this just broke the camel's back. I was being pretty even about it, but I was getting after it. Honestly, I don't mind so much. Which is weird because I thought I would. Hm.

The verdict is, after about an hour of playing it unplugged it definitely seems to have had an impact. I wouldn't say "drastic," or at least I didn't think so right at first. Funny, it seemed that my guitar played better more than sounded better, which was curious because I didn't do any setting-up or adjusting. Very strange... until I realized that the guitar was actually just (as a result of the thinner finish?) more responsive to my touch. I had to dig in less to get the sound out that I needed, especially on single-note stuff, totally unplugged.

A worthwhile experiment on a cool guitar, but not a vintage 'specimen' and totally my 'player' guitar anyhow, so I'm not worried about the little sand-through spot. At any rate, it by no means got through to bare wood, it's just that the color is starting to look a leetle bit lighter in that area.

Thanks for your help.

[Doug Allen]

Dear Mr. Suhr,

Thank you. You, amongst the numerous posters, comment from actual and truly extensive "hands-on" experience. Your products are state-of-the-art examples of excellence in workmanship. If you assert that you "dont hear a difference" in type(s) of material(s), only in the applied thickness of each, we all are "well advised" - you offer "Expert Testimony." BTW, ya sure build some fine guitars! (amps, too...)

After painting over a few thousand guitars and a few hundred of them nitro.... I dont hear a difference. It is how thick and how hard, not the type of material. ALL finishes let the wood breath
Otherwise your maple neck would never move when painted with Acrylic urethane and I promise you that they still need adjustments.
Also Many old Fenders were not nitro, just a nitro topcoat, they used fullerplast to seal and Acrylic lacquer colors. Leo just choose the softest easiest to buff and repair topcoat.

[tonedaddy]

The difference between NEW guitars with Poly and Lacquer is very slim, but in 30 years, the difference will be very noticeable.

Nitro breathes (not the wood) and poly seals the wood off from the ouside world forever, and thus there is no aging process with a poly finish. On the other hand, nitro never completely dries and keeps getting thinner and thinner. This is a very desireable trait.

I'm trying to understand your comments, but it appears you're suggesting that nitro breathes, but wood doesn't breathe??
How does the moisture content of wood change if wood doesn't breathe?
Am I misunderstanding you?
:confused:

IMHO: When a guitar maker does not finish their instrument in Lacquer, they are sacrificing tone and quality in the name of manufacturing and monetary savings. They are not choosing poly over lacquer because it sounds better. It takes more time to spray lacquer, it takes more time to dry, You have to spray more coats, and you have to be very carefull when buffing it.

And you know the motivations of builders you've never met or spoken to?
Do tell....

I'm not surprised to hear that Fender did use a plastic sealer...shoot...they decided to BOLT their necks on to their bodies. They were willing to cut all kinds of corners.
I have no reply to this absolute statement.
Actually, I'm speechless (no mean feat some around here might say).
:D

Play the damn thing!

This is the correct answer.
Even it you can't prove it.
:p

[K-man]

Nitro breathes (not the wood) and poly seals the wood off from the ouside world forever, and thus there is no aging process with a poly finish. On the other hand, nitro never completely dries and keeps getting thinner and thinner. This is a very desireable trait.

So if what you are saying is true, then my guitars that have their necks finished in poly would never need truss rod adjustments because the moisture content in the neck would remain constant year round. Sound correct? Funny 'cause I have to adjust my truss rod several times a year.

[K-man]

Dear Mr. Suhr,

Thank you. You, amongst the numerous posters, comment from actual and truly extensive "hands-on" experience. Your products are state-of-the-art examples of excellence in workmanship. If you assert that you "dont hear a difference" in type(s) of material(s), only in the applied thickness of each, we all are "well advised" - you offer "Expert Testimony." BTW, ya sure build some fine guitars! (amps, too...)

Agreed. One of the few opinions in this thread that I actually value.

[Izy]

Wow, what a great thread.

Learnt lots about finishes. Apologies on the getting the whole poly finish on the les pauls thing wrong. Still learning about these things.

Since there is so many experienced luthiers here, i was wondering, how do you guys know which piece of wood would make a killer sounding guitar??

Probably an overasked question but i never did get an answer or read about this before?

Can anyone share their experience?

Thanks

[paintguy]

Play your guitars, stop typing and make some music, too much theorizing and not enough playing, one afternoon of practice will make more of a difference than any finish
[/QUOTE]
I think that is the best said thing on this thread.:AOK :D My point exactly.

[phoenix 7]

I am of the opinion that the best thing you can do for a new guitar is play the snot out of it.

I TOTALLY agree. However, the expression "play the snot out of a guitar" always makes me think of a guitar covered with boogers. :worried

And I guarantee sure that won't help the tone of a nitro OR a poly finish. :nono

:p

[BoyMambo]

Bingo!!!!:rotflmao

I will say that any hard finish will slow the rate of change in the moisture content of the wood, but they all breath. Even my poly finishes shrink and actually my poly finishes are thinner than many Gibson lacquer finishes I have seen including the two Gibsons I own. How thick and how hard......nitro after all just means "air dry" (not catalized).

Mr Suhr,

I am interested in this topic on many levels, but my question is off topic a bit. I have just bought a new nitro finished singlecut from Charles Cilia and the more I play it the better and louder it gets. When I play a note, it almost blooms and I cannot describe the sustain, incredible. Great guitar. I thought it was a combination of great wood and the nitro finish.

What I don't understand is why the guitar seems to be improving? Is it my imagination. Why does it seem to be becoming more resonant and louder?

Is something happening at a fundamental level to the instrument when I play it?

Sorry about dragging you off topic.

[Jack The Riffer]

If only Clapton, Hendrix, Page and those other guys knew what we know about what kind of finish they should have had, they might have been famous.

[Mr.Hanky]

I TOTALLY agree. However, the expression "play the snot out of a guitar" always makes me think of a guitar covered with boogers. :worried

And I guarantee sure that won't help the tone of a nitro OR a poly finish. :nono

:p

Hmmmm

Perhaps I should start a new thread on the pros and cons of various bodily fluids on nitro/poly finished guitars.

We would have to limit the discussion to human fluids, or have sub categories for the animal kingdom.

[mattmccloskey]

I always like how 'non-nitro' (polyester, acrylic, polyurethane,etc.) feels on the neck and the non-stickyness of it.
I do however like that nitro is easier to repair. If you get a little dinger you can add laquer and it melts into the old stuff, and then you can buff it pretty clean (as long as it isn't super duper thin).
When you get a ding in an anderson, suhr, prs, etc, you can't do that easy of a fix. I have had it done with super-glue and it fills a dent in the clear ok, but the only repairs I have seen that look great are done by the manufacturer.
Of course most guys who dig nitro seem to welcome the weathered or checking look, so it doesn't really matter in that case.
I am fine with either really, if it looks well done.
It would seem almost impossible to tell really, you would have to paint the same guitar twice in each finish, same thickness, and then compare and have perfect recall of how the first type sounded on the same wood!

[Coach]

I did state that on my '52 RI, sealant (undercoat) is not nitro which is why the axe will never age like a true '52.

Yes it will. In an e-mail to Fender shortly after I bought my '52 RI I asked if there were any Fender Authourized Repair shops that would re-finish my RI to the original specs. I was told Fender didn't have authorized repair shops but was given a few reputable ones but in closing the e-mail the representative told me that Fender's have ALWAYS had a thin poly undercoat.

[HeeHaw]

They also feel the same as far as stickyness, but that nitro smell!!! EMMMMMM BOYYYY!!!!!!!!:D WOW does that smell GOOD!

I wonder if that smell causes cancer?:worried

[Lance Romance]

I think we are talking about the same thing here...I guess it's a matter of technical and non-technical terms. When wood expands or contracts due to changing moisture content it's not "Breathing" technically, but I inderstand how you are using the term to mean expansion and contraction of the wood. Lacquer is porous and allows the wood to expand and contract, or as you would say "Breathe".

And you know the motivations of builders you've never met or spoken to? Do tell....

This is my opinion (as I made clear), and I didnt say it was a fact, BUT, please tell me another reason why a luthier would choose poly over lacquer.

I have no reply to this absolute statement.
Actually, I'm speechless (no mean feat some around here might say).
:D

The Facts on this are obvious to me (and I own and Love many Fender Guitars)....Fender wanted to make good guitars, but they wanted to make them faster and cheaper than Grestch, Gibson, and Epiphone. If you want to make something cheaper and faster than the norm, you have to cut corners. The bolt on neck, the pickguard with mounted controls/pickups, Zero headstock pitch, no Binding...etc. These design specs were intended to save money during manufacture.

[phoenix 7]

Hmmmm

Perhaps I should start a new thread on the pros and cons of various bodily fluids on nitro/poly finished guitars.

We would have to limit the discussion to human fluids, or have sub categories for the animal kingdom.

Good idea. Isn't there a legend about one of the famous Italian violin makers using human blood in his violin finishes? Come to think of it, could that be what makes those red and yellow 50's Gibson sunbursts sound so amazing? Human blood? Or maybe it's URINE???? :worried

Maybe that will be the next step toward true "authenticity" Gibson makes with its LP reissues: a new Historic VOS-U series....

[scott]

PRS fills the grain with pore filler then sprays a product call isolante on the whole guitar. I also use this stuff. It seals it up so you can spray the polyester sanding sealer over rosewood. It seals the oils in so the polyester will dry. Otherwise it just stays sticky and wont dry. I know this from experience. I once sprayed a solid cocobolo guitar with poly and it didnt dry. Let me tell you that was a real beotch to get all that shit off of there. Thats how I discovered isolante. I talked to Joe Naggs(??) the prs dude and he also told me thats what they use. There U have it.
PRS finishes are actually prety thin. Ive seen Gibson Nitro finishes that looked much thicker.
Also buffing a finish with polish will remove little or no finish. I cant believe that it would make any difference to the sound much less a dramatic one.



www.heatleyguitars.com (http://www.heatleyguitars.com)

[Ron Kirn]

Tele Discussion

Let’s see, I seem to recall saying “One of the suspected characteristics of Nitro is that it continues to shrink for many years, thus improving the tone of the guitar. That’s the topic of another discussion, were just talking about the “mystique” surrounding Nitro today.”

I didn’t think anyone wanted to go there, but what the heck….

First, TONE is adjusted with those knobs on most guitars and amplifiers. It is usually electrically modified as it relates to an amplified instrument. Paint, construction and various other components that go into making a guitar create the VOICE, not tone, of the guitar. That voice is not adjustable via simple methods. Except by a luthier… well a rank amateur can change the voice considerably too.. you just don’t wanna go there……

And yes Poly and/or Nitro will indeed alter the “voice” or resonant acoustic characteristics of an instrument, but I submit . . those variances are so slight that in a blind test, with similar guitars, virtually no one would be able to tell.. . . OH . . close your mouth, and read on….

Perhaps you may have noticed, there are a few other things in the signal path between the plucked strings and the echoes reflecting off the wall in the back of the venue in which you are playing. They can all affect the sound to a certain extent, and just about all of them will alter the apparent “voice”. That is unless you figure the guys writing the advertising copy for the Oxygen free copper guitar cords, or the graphite impregnated speaker cones, or the genuine vintage style vacuum tubes in the amps, or the effects pedals, or the strings, or the nut, or, or, or.. and on and on and on…. You do have a Power conditioner dontcha, ‘cause plain old 117 VAC ain’t near as sweet sounding as conditioned 117 AC...? Jezus….. Find a real electrical or acoustic engineer and tell him about that one… P. T. Barnum was right…

What of something as basic as the acoustic design of the room in which the guitar is played, and if the amp is miked is it a Capacitance discharge Electret Condenser audio reference Sennheiser or that over EQed on the low end 34.95 special from Radio Shack? Now the difference between those two will make a hell of a difference in that “voice”. Oh Man! How many times have I been in a club and had to take Dramamine just to keep from hurling chunks when I heard the crud coming out of the PA system.

In those club PA’s you have an open mike for the vocalist and, of course you have all the guitarists all playing entirely too loud. The un-captured sound from all those tubed amps CAN travel the 10 feet to the vocalists mike and get re-amplified too, effecting the apparent “VOICE”. I’m sure many of you have been in recording sessions, where many of the various artists and their instruments are isolated by an acoustic barrier for this very reason. Notice also, the recording studio is a basic anechoic room, that’s what all the blankets and fiberglass is stapled to the walls for.

That is why my mantra is PRACTICE. Because even with a really sh** oopps I can’t say that… even with a really bad audio system a great player will amaze everyone, whereas average, is well, just average, plus whatever influence, good or bad, the crummy audio system has on the performance.

Any way, back on point…. If anyone ever noticed, when ever ANY audio device is analyzed, it is done in an anechoic room… that means it is not only sound proof, but no sound can be reflected around the interior of the room either. Now, take two identical (there is no such pair) guitars, one with a Nitro finish and the other with a Poly finish and it will take a pretty high-end and sophisticated audio spectrum analyzer to really tell the difference, acoustically. While YOU may notice a considerable difference, it’s just a figment of your imagination. Close the mouth again, here’s more.

A figment of your imagination, why? Because of the psychosomatic influences. What that means is you expect to hear a difference, therefore you will hear a difference. That is why ALL honest audio comparisons are double blind tests. Actually any comparison test involving one or more of your senses has to be blind to produce valid credible data. That means the one conducting the test doesn’t know which unit is being auditioned and the one hearing the stuff doesn’t either. That way there is no visual influence on the part of the one doing the listening because pretty or exotic, or over engineered equipment sounds better than ugly wussy equipment every time. Also there is no influence from the one conducting the test, such as, Ok, now here’s that old piece of crud Poly Guitar, tell me what you think of this POS”. Guys, that happens. Just listen to the dribble coming from a salesman the next time you’re in a Mega Guitar store as he hypes the high commission made in where ever hack he wants you to buy. Then listen to him dis the classic piece you really want.

My experience back in the 80’s was I was very into very esoteric audio…I’m talking about what was basically a record player and supporting electronics that cost what an exotic sports car would. I was party to a double blind test featuring audio reference monitors. That is, speakers to the “Best Buy” crowd. The most expensive and most highly rated were the Wilson Audio Monitors, those suckers cost a whopping 20,000.00 a pair in the 80’s vs, the humble Magneplanar MG III’s at 1500bux… When those auditioning could see what was being played, the Wilsons won every time, but in a blind test the Maggies absolutely skunked the Wilsons time after time. It’s the same today. Pretty wins every time, of course the Wilsons were the size of a small bus which tended to awe the client with its dominating presence.

Back to point. Now take the same two identical guitars, one done in Poly and the other done in Nitro. Turn the volume on one up just a crack and bingo. The louder one sounds “better” than the other. Such a sound level variation can be caused by any number of things in that line between the pick and the sound waves bouncing around the room. A faulty capacitor, a burnt resistor, chewing gum on the end of one of the plugs, a cold solder joint inside the 55 year old Blackguard, all can make a guitar louder or not as loud as a comparable instrument.

Now when ya’ll come back to flame me, please be kind. Remember this is only the tip of a very complex acoustic, electronic, architectural, psychological calculus that yields the finished product and I didn’t even mention the multimillion dollar digitized electronics that are involved in cutting a master, re-mixing it and getting it to CD… and what are you playing that CD on and what are you hearing it through?

Now in deference to those that just gotta have the Nitro, special pups etc., Go for it. Music is a very emotional and psychological experience, and number one on most lists is you have gotta be in love with your instrument to perform at your best. So if you want a 1962 Danelectro made of Masonite with that skunky little lipstick pickup, you better go get one ‘cause it WILL definitely effect your performance. Who is it, U-2 that plays those things?

Man, life is so darn complicated, unless you can play. Ya know, nobody ever gripes about the equipment a real artist is using, ever, except the roadie.
And just for the record, as it has always been with acoustic instruments, and YES an electric guitar is as much an acoustic instrument as a Stradivarius. The best finish is NO finish. So between that and protecting the instrument there has to be a few compromises.

Who said Stevie Ray’s Strat didn’t have a finish? Go look again. There’s still some lacquer on that Strat that hasn’t been chipped off yet. Whenever you see advertising copy that suggests a special unique finish, it’s first, primary reason for being printed is to compel you to want to go buy one for that reason. It doesn’t matter if it’s a hand applied French polish, hand sprayed Nitrocellulose, mechanically dipped in heated chewing gum, or the luthiers has found a 55 gallon drum of the varnish Stradivarius used in the 18th century, it’s all for the sake of expediting the sale. Remember, this is Marketing 101.

Now, sure some luthiers have sniffed enough wood dust over the years so that they ignore all the reasons I have outlined that can alter the voice of an instrument, and really think their guitar is actually the panacea of electric lutes, but remember as mentioned above, the psychological influence that can infect objective reason.

For those that think ‘ol Ron’s been just too darn wordy again, I say, Shoot boy, this here’s the short version, come on buy and bring a good cigar and some Single Malt.. and I’ll tell ya what I really think. So Poly, or Nitro… I gotta tell ya, all my guitars are Nitro…

Now once again, here’s how to get the sound and respect you all want…. Go practice….


Ron Kirn

[Ron Kirn]

To continue my previous dissertation and possibly help some avoid spending good money in search of what is at best the moving target of tone. . .

Earlier in this thread I was discussing how there are so many variables in the audio chain that exists, beginning with the plucked string, until the amplified sound reflects off the walls in the room in which the guitar is being played.

Since I was trying to be brief, an absolute impossibility for me, I neglected to mention several other variables that must be factored into the auditory equation.

The first of which is, the ears of the one trying to disseminate what “tone” actually “voice” the person to which those ears are part of, is looking for.

The problem for all of us, and I do mean all, is we have criminally abused those two most important components in that entire chain. If we, while playing wore hearing protectors, that would be one thing, but ya know, I can’t recall ever once seeing a guitarist with a pair on.

Since the Sound Pressure Level (expressed as decibels or db) at the ears of the typical guitarist playing in any given venue exceeds 110 db, hearing damage begins almost from the earliest performance. Of course we’re all young, know it all, and are invincible, so we don’t really give a sh** Oops.. slipped again…. Give a hoot .. . so we just keep on playing cranking the gain up..

I don’t know the ages of those participating in this discussion, but I’m betting those of ya’ll in the over 50 set, have tinnitus, that is a constant ringing in the ears. This is often caused by being exposed to loud noises like over powered amps, and *****in’ wives. But it is a sure indication of a damaged auditory organ growin’ on either side of your head.

Now take a damaged pair of ears and try to determine what guitar has the best voice. That’s gonna be a tough one. Here’s an example of what can happen…

Back in the 70’s here in Jacksonville, a world class musician got the “to die for” recording contract with Columbia. They wanted him to produce as well as perform on the album (pre CD’s). He recorded it here in Jax, at a recording studio I was in and out of quite often. The owner, a friend of mine, asked me to listen to the finished master. It was great music but the sound sucked. The musician’s hearing was shot, remember he was the producer too, (oh today he is totally deaf). The entire session had been so over equalized on the high end, it was like listening to cats screech while fingernails were being dragged over a chalk board.

The entire session had to be re-masterd, and fortunately he wound up with a successful album that paid for all the hearing treatment through the rest of his life.

The point, If you go to a firing range, they will throw your butt out for not wearing hearing protection, get a job in a noisy environment, they will fire your sorry butt for not wearing hearing protection, but… we have all been so cool so as to stand up on stage in an incredibly dangerous environment, wearing no hearing protection, and proceed to blow our ears out with some great music.

So if your hearing is crappy, you aren’t really in a position to make a rational judgment as to what sounds good, “voice wise”.

Musicians will spend thousands on a new amp, their 4th or 5th, but wont pay the 25 dollar co-pay to have their hearing checked. Kinda makes you say Hummmm.

So variable number one, can you hear what da heck you are trying to hear… Don’t forget the psychosomatic effect of expectation.

The next thing to consider is this: in the world of scientific auditory examination and auditioning to determine sound variances, at approximately equal volume, if the pieces of equipment cannot be switched between within a few seconds. The ear cannot accurately determine a difference. This is because your CPU, the brain, will automatically alter your cognition to accommodate for those variances after only a few seconds.

Here is a visual analogy of what happens. Have you ever seen a photograph that was taken in a room with plain old light bulbs lighting the subject? Sure ya have, they are always Orange, Orange, Orange….or.. if the subject was under florescent lighting, they are GREEN as they can get…. But, you think.. I was there, I remember , it wasn’t orange.. what thu? Those guys at Insty Prints screwed up. Well not so… It’s that darn brain of yours was adjusting and color correcting the input… just like your ears when you’re listening to different audio sources of the same thing.

OH.. I just heard every body gasp… Yeah….If the two different guitars are played at two completely different volume settings, or way different tone settings you will remember the difference, and it will be overwhelmingly apparent, but I’m talking about a head to head comparison. To determine the “BEST VOICE” of a guitar, and to do that they have to be played as close to the same volume as possible.

If you think I’m full of it, try this little experiment. Sit down in front of a reasonably decent stereo system with just the 2 speakers. Now play some music, and have 2 friends move the speakers around. You will notice immediately a difference in the overall tonal quality of the sound. Now. Go back to the original position with the speakers and play the music for a few moments.. turn it off.. and relocate the speakers. Turn the music back on.. and listen. Your perception will be. It sounds the same. Try it several times, this is your brain making the automatic corrections so you don’t go crazy.

So…. Like I said, to get the sound and respect. . . well you know the rest..


Ron Kirn

[Stike]

This is my opinion (as I made clear), and I didnt say it was a fact, BUT, please tell me another reason why a luthier would choose poly over lacquer.

It doesn't yellow, cold check, or feel sticky. Also ask the builders in SoCal about air quality laws.

[Tone_Terrific]

So…. Like I said, to get the sound and respect. . . well you know the rest..


Ron Kirn

:BEER
the virtual Scotch is n/a

[Jack Briggs]

The right nitro doesn't feel sticky at all. In fact less so than polyurethane, by far!

[Ascension]

I can't tell a difference in tone between Nitro and Poly on a solid body as long as the poly finish is a reasonabley thin one. However I can shurly tell a difference in the way the guitar ages. For me checking and discolorations that come as Nitro ages are NOT attractive!! Not withstanding the SERIOUS enviromental issues with spraying real Nitro. Frankly I don't want to have to worry about leaving my guitar on a stand and the stand rubber turning the guitar black opening the case after the guitar has been out in the cold and seeing the finsh disintigrate ect. I will NOT EVER buy a new guitar if it is finshed in Nitro for those reasons PERIOD!!

[paintguy]

I can't tell a difference in tone between Nitro and Poly on a solid body as long as the poly finish is a reasonabley thin one. However I can shurly tell a difference in the way the guitar ages. For me checking and discolorations that come as Nitro ages are NOT attractive!! Not withstanding the SERIOUS enviromental issues with spraying real Nitro. Frankly I don't want to have to worry about leaving my guitar on a stand and the stand rubber turning the guitar black opening the case after the guitar has been out in the cold and seeing the finsh disintigrate ect. I will NOT EVER buy a new guitar if it is finshed in Nitro for those reasons PERIOD!!

Don't hold back. Say what you really feel.:D

[Jon Silberman]

Sigh ... again: DON'T CONFUSE A THIN COAT OF ACRYLIC URETHANE WITH A THICK COAT OF POLY.

It is unscientific and unfair the way some folks "prove nitro beats everything else" by setting up a strawman argument of "thick poly versus super thin nitro" which they then use to knock down the poly like New Orleans before Katrina. Well, duh, yes, the super thin nitro coat beats the thick poly one and ... so what?

To the extent there is a battle, it's thin acrylic urethane versus thin poly. If you can hear a difference between these two, congratulations, your ears are better than mine.

[Ascension]

Don't hold back. Say what you really feel.:D
Sorry to come off so heavy handed but I had some really bad experiances with a couple of rather expensive late 80's Showcase Gibsons I bought back in 1988. I am rather anal about my guitars apperances so I was NOT happy when within two years the finish on both had checked and turned colors:BITCH . On the other hand the Saphire Blue flame top 1989 Carvin DC200 I bought used in 91 with a Poly finish still looks like new after years on the road:AOK .

I also have seen several Nitro finish Guitars with black spots from the chemical reaction with rubber of stands and saw a Gibson J45's finish bust all to pieces one night when a buddy opened the case after the Guitar had been in the trunk in the cold. Nope I don't care for Nitro!!

[dogfood]

I have fewer opinions about this topic than most but I have some questions. If a heavy "clear coat" can hinder the "tone" what about a guitar with paint or a gold top? Do these thicken the coats and "dull" the tone? What about a nearly non existant finish on a guitar such as the Faded line from Gibson? Do these style finishes allow the wood to breathe/vibrate/move better?

[paintguy]

Sorry to come off so heavy handed but I had some really bad experiances with a couple of rather expensive late 80's Showcase Gibsons I bought back in 1988. I am rather anal about my guitars apperances so I was NOT happy when within two years the finish on both had checked and turned colors:BITCH . On the other hand the Saphire Blue flame top 1989 Carvin DC200 I bought used in 91 with a Poly finish still looks like new after years on the road:AOK .

I also have seen several Nitro finish Guitars with black spots from the chemical reaction with rubber of stands and saw a Gibson J45's finish bust all to pieces one night when a buddy opened the case after the Guitar had been in the trunk in the cold. Nope I don't care for Nitro!!

Wow, 2 years later and they checked and turned colors. Don't get me wrong, I have no love for nitro as well. Not my preferred finish at all. It's just that I have nitro finished Gibson guitars for years and no real adverse affects to the finish. In fact I'm a little bummed the bursts may have faded ever so slightly. I purchased a few really strong sunbursts and figured they would fade and look cooler, but they really haven't. I ended up repainting one and selling the other.
I really don't think today's nitro is anything like nitro of yesteryear. The fading and checking that some people love, aren't what the paint companies intended. I think they improved the durability and fade resistance of their products to address these issues.

Some people's gain and other's loss.:D

[ssimon64]

I don't know if it really makes a difference in tone, but I have a nitro strat and two poly strats, and I sure like the look feel and smell of the nitro better. I also like the fact that it nicks easy and will checker and discolor with age. gives character.

[khudson]

After painting over a few thousand guitars and a few hundred of them nitro.... I dont hear a difference. It is how thick and how hard, not the type of material. ALL finishes let the wood breath.


I have an AVR '62 Strat. Of course this is poly coated, but I have received the most compliments from others about its tone. I was really close to pulling the trigger on a thinskin, but this one really outshined when I picked her up. Go figure!

[Ron Kirn]

If ya'll will go back and read the boatload 'o stuff I wrote earlier, you will see a simple solution to the never ending quandary regarding finishes and tone.

If you will do a real blind test you will be surprised, but the key is it has to be blind so that the only sense that is stimulated is your auditory one. That keeps your psyche out of the equation.

Ron Kirn

[daphil]

Sorry to come off so heavy handed but I had some really bad experiances with a couple of rather expensive late 80's Showcase Gibsons I bought back in 1988. I am rather anal about my guitars apperances so I was NOT happy when within two years the finish on both had checked and turned colors:BITCH .

Funny how you feel considering people are ready to shell out extra dough to get that sort of finish "character"...

:YinYang

[SW33THAND5]

Not withstanding the SERIOUS enviromental issues with spraying real Nitro.

i hope that you only buy guitars made with 100% replenishable "smart" woods

:worried:worried:worried:worried

[MichaelK]

Anyone else have two of the same guitars (one with Poly, one with nitro) to check this out?
Given the inherent differences just in two different pieces of wood, I think accurately attributing ANY difference to the finish alone would be impossible.

That said, I would not buy a used car from anyone who said they could hear a difference.

[phoenix 7]

I can't tell a difference in tone between Nitro and Poly on a solid body as long as the poly finish is a reasonabley thin one. However I can shurly tell a difference in the way the guitar ages. For me checking and discolorations that come as Nitro ages are NOT attractive!! Not withstanding the SERIOUS enviromental issues with spraying real Nitro. Frankly I don't want to have to worry about leaving my guitar on a stand and the stand rubber turning the guitar black opening the case after the guitar has been out in the cold and seeing the finsh disintigrate ect. I will NOT EVER buy a new guitar if it is finshed in Nitro for those reasons PERIOD!!

To me, the solution is to rule out rubber stands (or cover the rubber with some cotton cloth), rather than rule out all guitars with nitro finishes (which rules out a lot of great guitars!!). Solution #2 would be not to leave the guitar out in the cold, or, if you have to, don't open the case right away when you bring it into a warm place. I've been playing nitro finish guitars for 25 years and never had any of these problems.

I do respect the environmental concerns about nitro, though. But to me they aren't compelling enough to turn me away from a great nitro-finished guitar. Maybe I'm just not green enough! :(

[trap]

got it jon! i a-b'ed my sig prs semi hollow against an LP with a nitro finish and my prs sounded better to my ears.so#1-it's individual. my 89 prs cu24 looks like it has a real thin finish on it and it sounds great. Sigh ... again: DON'T CONFUSE A THIN COAT OF ACRYLIC URETHANE WITH A THICK COAT OF POLY.

It is unscientific and unfair the way some folks "prove nitro beats everything else" by setting up a strawman argument of "thick poly versus super thin nitro" which they then use to knock down the poly like New Orleans before Katrina. Well, duh, yes, the super thin nitro coat beats the thick poly one and ... so what?

To the extent there is a battle, it's thin acrylic urethane versus thin poly. If you can hear a difference between these two, congratulations, your ears are better than mine.

[Lance Romance]

Frankly I don't want to have to worry about leaving my guitar on a stand and the stand rubber turning the guitar black opening the case after the guitar has been out in the cold and seeing the finsh disintigrate ect.

If a company makes an instrument stand that eats lacquer, I say shame on the stand maker, NOT the finish. Nitro has been used for hundreds of years on stringed instruments, and these johnny-come-lately stand companies should be blamed.

[bullet69]

personaly i think the best thing about nitro is that it wears off quickly so i guess i like the fact that i can get rid of it faster:jo

[jakob]

All I can say is that my new EJ Strat sounds great, maybe it's the nitro don't know.

[MichaelK]

All I can say is that my new EJ Strat sounds great, maybe it's the nitro don't know.

No, it's the diameter of the knobs.

I once had a Gibson with those small knobs they had for a while in the late 90s. I swapped them out for vintage-style large knobs and the difference was INCREDIBLE. It had SUSTAIN FOR DAYS. It had TONE TO DIE FOR. OMFG! IMO! WTF! LMAO!

I love the internet.

[jakob]

Well you sure know sarcasm when you see it.
Put some snakeoil strings on your guitar, makes you play faster.

[tonedaddy]

This is my opinion (as I made clear), and I didnt say it was a fact, BUT, please tell me another reason why a luthier would choose poly over lacquer.

You didn't say it was a fact.
You DID say "IMHO: When a guitar maker does not finish their instrument in Lacquer, they are sacrificing tone and quality in the name of manufacturing and monetary savings. They are not choosing poly over lacquer because it sounds better."

I respect your opinion.
But several builders have already posted the reasons posted they've chosen 'non-nitro' finishes. And none of them have mentioned a willingness to sacifice "tone and quality in the name of manufacturing and monetary savings."

Even more accurately, those builders haven't said they've chosen a finish because it sounds better. Instead, almost universally, they've said they simply can't tell the difference or the difference is insignificant.

In addition those builders consistently meet expectations for tone/quality with pro/semipro players that should know the difference when a builder is sacrificing tone and quality in one of their guitars.

The Facts on this are obvious to me (and I own and Love many Fender Guitars)....Fender wanted to make good guitars, but they wanted to make them faster and cheaper than Grestch, Gibson, and Epiphone. If you want to make something cheaper and faster than the norm, you have to cut corners. The bolt on neck, the pickguard with mounted controls/pickups, Zero headstock pitch, no Binding...etc. These design specs were intended to save money during manufacture.

And you've now introduced "faster and cheaper" where before you simply said "cheaper".
Those are not the same thing.

Certainly Leo incorporated component designs that enabled the use of production line methods in guitar building, something that had not been done before.

But lower costs were not the only compelling reasons for choosing a component design (separate bodies/necks) in production line building methods. Those include:

- increased production (higher output)
- higher quality (i.e. the accurate use of the word, meaning less variation from specification)
- easier to remove and service the necks/bodies
- enabled user serviceable neck repairs and replacements in an age with limited access to luthiers/dealers
- enabled production/assembly with staff that were not trained luthiers, instead using staff that could be initially trained in a single production/assembly process
- solved Leo's factory problems of not having the machinery or the money to do/use anything more complex/sophisticated.


Fender has been quoted in several books/articles regarding the user serviceability aspect in the original design. This is reinforced by the records of parts (e.g. neck) sales during the early years.

In addition, Leo is often quoted with a plainspoken compliment he used to describe something he admired:
“It’s built the way it oughta be built.”

This does not infer methods that "sacrifice" anything or "cut all kinds of corners". Rather, it reflects the engineering mindset of a radio repairman that is saying it's built the appropriate way to achieve the product's goals, with the right parts, with the right methods/processes.

Again, increased production may have enabled economies of scale that lowered costs in the long run. But lower costs achieved in this manner do not infer the same meaning as phrases you used originally such as "willing to cut all kinds of corners" or "sacrificing tone and quality".


Just my opinion.
But when it's all said and done, we may be closer to each other's opinions than it appears at first.
And that may be because we're interpreting our choice of words differently.

Maybe I'm wrong (at least I hope so), but I hope we agree that builders here that have posted about their use of non-nitro finishes are making great guitars with their other choices of finishes.
:AOK

[enharmonic]

I'll say this...you're not going to hear the difference between poly or nitro when you're playing your guitar through a cranked high gain amp. You'll hear a tube swap before you ever hear poly or nitro in that environment.

[jzucker]

my personal opinion is that it's the thickness of the coating that makes a bigger difference than whether it's poly vs. nitro.

[Jon Silberman]

Yes it will. In an e-mail to Fender shortly after I bought my '52 RI I asked if there were any Fender Authourized Repair shops that would re-finish my RI to the original specs. I was told Fender didn't have authorized repair shops but was given a few reputable ones but in closing the e-mail the representative told me that Fender's have ALWAYS had a thin poly undercoat.

http://www.provide.net/~cfh/fenderc.html

[Ian Anderson]

The right nitro doesn't feel sticky at all. In fact less so than polyurethane, by far!

Bingo!

I like them all they all have their place.

[Ron Kirn]

You betcha... done correctly Nitro feels like the skin of a 21 year old college cheerleader..... Poly feels like plastic because that’s what it is, but that's where the difference ends. As for the tone thing... that's so subjective, it will never be concluded definitively. Anyone have a Audio Spectrum Analyzer and an Anechoic audio lab?

Poly is great for touring acts, where the guitar is little more than a tool. It's far more durable than nitro, but anyone that is entering a 30 year long relicing process will need Nitro, poly just doesn't wear the same if at all.

Now quit screwin’ ‘round here, and go do something that will really make a difference in your sound… go practice.

Ron Kirn

[Jack Briggs]

You betcha... done correctly Nitro feels like the skin of a 21 year old college cheerleader..... Poly feels like plastic because that’s what it is, but that's where the difference ends. As for the tone thing... that's so subjective, it will never be concluded definitively. Anyone have a Audio Spectrum Analyzer and an Anechoic audio lab?

Poly is great for touring acts, where the guitar is little more than a tool. It's far more durable than nitro, but anyone that is entering a 30 year long relicing process will need Nitro, poly just doesn't wear the same if at all.

Now quit screwin’ ‘round here, and go do something that will really make a difference in your sound… go practice.

Ron Kirn



Right on!!!!!

[DADGADammit]

My preference with nitro has nothing to do with the sonic superiority snake oil debate. I just greatly prefer the aesthetic attributes of guitars {especially old ones} finished in a nitro-cellulose finish. For me, they look better, feel better and age better than poly. Poly, pretty much, is the equivalent of vinyl siding to me.

wow, you cut through the bs for me on that statement. had to bump this up for that.

[felken]

If this has been said already forgive me, I did not read every post completely.

I think that the difference in finish types is probably more noticable the thinner the underlying wood is. The ratio of the finish thickness to the wood thickness would be one of the more dominant variables in how the wood vibration is changed.

Thus, it probably has much less effect on solid bodies compared to hollow bodies and the thinner the top and less bracing the more effect the different finishes may have on hollow bodies.

[leodiditright]

Listen to your belly ! nitro guitars vibrate more freely, you can feel it on your stomach. To me they have always sounded better, they don't have this somewhat "chemical" vibe and a little vulgar treble that the poly ones usually got.

[bluetweed]

don't fool yourself in thinking the EJ strat is nitro/ its a nitro top coat with a thick poly base coat/ just look how thick the color finish is, way too thick for nitro

[archtopjazz]

Can't hear the difference.

[jakob]

don't fool yourself in thinking the EJ strat is nitro/ its a nitro top coat with a thick poly base coat/ just look how thick the color finish is, way too thick for nitro

Is that true ?

I never heard that before, where did you read that ?

[bullet69]

no its not true .you can see its so thin alot of them are starting to show wear after what a year and a half or two years of play.having said that i still say that with a solid body guitar running through a pedal going into a cranked up amp i just cant see it making a difference. I could see it with a acoustic and maybe a hollow body but not a solid.

[axepilot]

Poly or nitro - who cares? You bought the guitar because it spoke to you in the first place. I feel sorry for the folks that would turn down a guitar that truly pleases them only because they discovered a poly finish.

Sometimes a good guitar is just that, regardless of the finish.

[jakob]

Poly or nitro - who cares? You bought the guitar because it spoke to you in the first place. I feel sorry for the folks that would turn down a guitar that truly pleases them only because they discovered a poly finish.

Sometimes a good guitar is just that, regardless of the finish.

You don't have a clue why I bought the guitar.
I own guitars with poly finishes, I like the idea that the guitar will wear
out the more I play it unlike my other guitars.
And it's a great guitar with or without nitro.

What finish, what strings, what pick ?
Who cares, some people care....:rolleyes:

[axepilot]

You don't have a clue why I bought the guitar.
I own guitars with poly finishes, I like the idea that the guitar will wear
out the more I play it unlike my other guitars.
And it's a great guitar with or without nitro.

What finish, what strings, what pick ?
Who cares, some people care....:rolleyes:

Easy, man....................

My post was not aimed at you at all. It was aimed at the general intention of the entire thread. And you're absolutely correct - I don't have a clue as to what motivates you to buy a guitar.

[jakob]

Sorry about that, I was arguing with someone while I wrote my post.
Yeah not a good idea.
I get what you are saying axepilot. :)

[axepilot]

No worries, it's all good, man! :D

[Clearspider]

Really hard to hear the difference in finishes, even with your good ears. Remember though, nitro cures - it can take up to a year for it to get really hard, and that's when you'd begin to hear the subtle difference.

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS! :D
I ordered an Allparts Telecaster body from a dude that sprays the Nitro himself. When I started installing everything it kept chipping off at screwholes. I was kind of put-off about it as I was being very careful and gentle so as not to put blemishes on it before I could even play it. I remembered it was sprayed thin but still like "what is this crap?"
Makes total sense now.

[bluetweed]

Is that true ?

I never heard that before, where did you read that ?


It is true/ call fender , they will tell you the same/ after a few years of spraying nitro you can see it without even touching the guitar/99% of there nitro guitars have poly under coats and thin nitro clear top coats/pore filling and waiting for real nitro to cure and dry etc would be way too labor and time consuming for them/ this translate into $
Play what you like, but the facts shoud be known

[Ian Anderson]

Interesting thread. I got kicked out of the paint store the other day for tapping on cans of paint trying to find the best one!

;)

[Jack Briggs]

Interesting thread. I got kicked out of the paint store the other day for tapping on cans of paint trying to find the best one!

;)

Ha Ha Ha!!! Great one, Ian!! I get kicked out of auto paint supply store just for mentioning the word "nitro"!!:rotflmao

[clothwiring]

I get kicked out of auto paint supply store just for mentioning the word "nitro"!!

Probably because they thought you meant that gas mixture stuff. lol

bluetweet I'd like to see that in writing, if you were talking to the wrong person they probably have no clue what you're even talking about. The thin-skin series was a take-off from the EJ series because enough people wanted guitars like the EJs. I know the standard '62 RIs had the poly base and I know how thick it is since I refinshed one. The Thin Skins and the EJs on the other hand don't have that thick poly base and like others have said...show considerable wear after only a short time.

[leodiditright]

C'mon guys, open your ears, nitro guitars do vibrate and sound different than poly ones and I doubt than the Custom Shop Time Machine have poly coating on them. ThinSkin nitro finish is one of the reasons that give vintage and good reissues guitars their mojo.

Wether you can feel and hear it is another story and I don't mean to be rude.:YinYang

[MichaelK]

Kinda makes you wonder if anyone can learn anything off the internet.

[paintguy]

Interesting thread. I got kicked out of the paint store the other day for tapping on cans of paint trying to find the best one!

;)

That was you at my store, huh?:nono

Too funny!!!:rotflmao