Played a real '58 Stratocaster last night . . .

[Matt Ivaliotes]

Originally Posted by Cody

I don't think this thread would have gone this way if the OP had been raving about a RoadWorn, CS or boutique Strat. A Relic, maybe.

Oh, if the OP had said that nothing even came close to any of the items you list, that they possessed unique and impossible to duplicate greatness, oh yes it would have...

[dre]

Originally Posted by datguytim

Hey Dre! I'm your brother Pete's bandmate & friend- we met at Burbank airport when we flew up to SF to play! Zander ROCKS!

I got to play Eric's '58, but it was at Ziv's B-Day Party - I was right next to your brother when you called - hope you're feeling better.

Glad you can attest to the supremacy of the guitar!

P.S. - Pete showed me a pic of your Ebony block SG - SICK!!!

Ha, right on Tim, what a coincidence. I am feeling better, thanks. I was seriously worshiping the porcelain god....... man, what torture.

I planned to bring the SG to the party........ oh well, next time.

dre

[rwijaya]

Originally Posted by JP~)

Yup...true, some good some not so good. good guitar is good...bad guitar is bad. ...but also, if you are not used to playing an old strat with a 7.25 radius and beat frets it can sound like dog....then if you consider that it might be hangin' on a wall with old strings and doesn't get played much..well, it can be dog. Take that same guitar, level the fingerboard a little, give it some jumbo frets, a set-up and play it a bunch to wake it up and you might have another opinion of it....not that I really care, but just sayin'

well, i played my friend 64 strat that amazing sounding and it has 7.25 radii with very old strings on it, its his collection (a shame really). however when i strum the strings, the whole body just vibrates. and it weight probably only 7.5 pounds. Stock frets actually the frets is pretty low. and the guitar is completely not setup well. however, one of the most resonance strat i have every played through.

just sayin'

i'm disagree on what op said, if its old wood, it has to be great sounding guitar. that is not always the case.

[VaughnC]

I've been playing mostly Strats since '63 and, consequently, a thousand or so Strats have been in my hands. IMO, Strats of all era's are tonally all over the place...but, when I compare the best of then to the best of now, the best Strats of now, for whatever reason, just don't tonally hold up to the best of then. Yup, todays high end Strats are built to a tolerance that old Strats can't even approach and modern playability is generally much better. But, when it comes to tone, I have yet to play a Strat that eclipsed an old stock '64 I once owned.

Funny thing about all this is the modern Strat that turned out to be my current #1 (for the past year) and tonally closest to my old '64, is a MIM Fender Road Worn '60s Strat (that I eventually "vintageized" with a Callaham trem and Mare '64 spec pickups). But, even after playing a wall of some 50 Strats at all price points the day I purchased the RW, totally stock it stood head & shoulders above everything in the shop that day. So, I'm thinking that the day that Strat was put together the right neck just happened to find the right body...and Callaham & Mare just took it over the top. However, the MIM Road Worn '60's Strat that was hanging right next to the one I purchased, and likely from the same shipment, was a total tonal dog...at least to my ears.

Bottom line....I wished I'd never sold my old '64...it was the spoiler ...but the Worldcom execs had different plans for my finances .

[Kelsey]

I own a truly wonderful Fender CS Dealer Select Wildwood 10 50's relic Strat that I bought when they first got them in stock. I had a chance to play several of them, and it was clearly down to the blonde one I bought and a sunburst one that I wish I could have bought as well.

Over the past decade I've played a lot of Fender CS Strats and other modern versions from standard Fender lines to some very fine Boutique lines, and I've bought a few other very fine CS Strats that are still with me. Nevertheless, my WW10 has withstood all challengers but one -- an original '54 that a guy let me play one afternoon. It had an undesignated set of Seymour Duncan replacement pickups in it, and it sounded unbelievably good -- the only one to surpass my WW10. It sounded like a great tele in the bridge position with every classic Strat tone across the switch. I'll never forget it.

[peskypesky]

This why I'm skeptical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/sc...rius-lags.html

Despite a general belief among violinists that Stradivari and Guarneri violins are tonally superior, the participants in Dr. Fritz’s test could not reliably distinguish such instruments from modern violins. Only 8 of the 21 subjects chose an old violin as the one they’d like to take home. In the old-to-new comparison, a Stradivarius came in last and a new violin as the most preferred.

“These results present a striking challenge to conventional wisdom,” Dr. Fritz and her colleagues reported online Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


And
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddi...ainst-new.html

Many internet commenters quote expert violinists who claim old instruments are superior. Are they delusional? No, not in that they lack a sense of what quality sound is, or the dynamics of what a good instrument is. But endless psychological research shows that 1) people’s subjective impressions of violin sound, wine, etc are highly unreliable and unrepeatable over time, and 2) people are overwhelmingly influenced by knowledge or impressions of what they are testing. Note in the Fritz study, that the same pairs of instruments were unknowlingly and repeatedly tested by each player….and players were not consistent in their evaluation of them, on the same day, in the same room. This is why double blind studies are the only true test. Of course those earlier quoted “experts” chose old instruments….this is “cognitive dissonance” at work…they want or believe the old masters to be the best.

[DC1]

We've seen that before. Some poor assumptions and asking of the wrong questions going on in that experiment.

"A less respectful view of Dr. Fritz’s study is offered by the violinist Earl Carlyss, a longtime member of the Juilliard String Quartet. “It’s a totally inappropriate way of finding out the quality of these instruments,” he said. The auditions, he noted, took place in a hotel room, but violinists always need to assess how an instrument will project in a concert hall. He likened the test to trying to compare a Ford and a Ferrari in a Walmart parking lot.

“The modern instruments are very easy to play and sound good to your ear, but what made the old instruments great was their power in a hall,” he said.

Mr. Carlyss emphasized the very personal relationship that violinists have with their instruments — something that may be hard to emulate under the conditions of the test. A similar view was expressed by Mark Ptashne, a biologist and violinist who plays the Plowden Guarneri del Gesù — the old Italian violins all have individual names — and has also owned a Stradivarius.

“Even experienced players who have not lived with a great violin don’t realize what they are hearing or doing when they first play a great instrument,” he said. “Second, Strads and del Gesùs vary tremendously in sound characteristics and quality, so generalizations are hard to make from a few cases, in any event.”

Dr. Fritz acknowledged that her study used few violins. But it is quite difficult, she noted, to get owners to lend out their million-dollar instruments to be played by blindfolded strangers."

In my own case it was not "old guitar vs. new one" it was "best old guitar out of 25 or so pre-selected old ones compared to new ones". Perhaps the best old violin anyone had ever heard compared to the best new ones, would be more meaningful?

dc

[MartinC]

I don't doubt the OPs opinion on the strat that he played ... but my experience tells me something else.

I played a vintage (early 60's) strat once that only sounded OK and felt uninspiring to play ... it was for sale for tens of thousands of dollars ... by a country mile, the most expensive guitar I've ever played.

One of my "the one that got away" stories (I have 2) concerns a brand new custom shop relic of an early 60's strat. It was uninspiring to look at, to me at least. It was heavily aged and silver/light blue metallic in colour ... I like mint, ding free guitars and the colour would never be my choice. But, it had incredible tone and felt like the proverbial comfortable old shoes to play. It had been heavily discounted, I reckon because the RRP on it was way out of kilter with the way it looked on the wall ... so I don't believe there was anything at all that would make me or anyone predisposed to wanting to like the tone and feel because of the looks. It's been nearly 10 years since I played it and failed to buy it, but I can still remember it ... I bought an Am Dlx instead on the same shopping trip in the same shop which was half the price (mostly why I bought it instead of the relic) and was a great guitar ... but not in the same league when all said and done.

[peskypesky]

There have been other tests, with similar results.

In a similar 1977 experiment, Isaac Stern and Pinchas Zukerman and a classical violin dealer Charles Beare listened to a Stradivarius, a Guarneri, and a (then modern) 1976 British violin. They were also unable to identify which instrument was which, and two of them mistakenly identified the 1976 violin as the Stradivarius. [14]

In a test in 2009, the British violinist Matthew Trusler played his 1711 Stradivarius, said to be worth two million U.S. dollars, and four modern violins made by the Swiss violin-maker Michael Rhonheimer. One of Rhonheimer's violins, made with wood that the Empa researcher Francis Schwarze had treated with fungi, received 90 of the 180 votes for the best tone, while the Stradivarius came in second with just 39 votes. The majority (113) of the listeners misidentified the winning violin as the Stradivarius. [14][15][16]

[Drowned Rabbit]

In my experience, vintage guitars seem to have the opposite of the Placebo Effect. I approach them expecting more because of their price. The vintage ones have to work harder to impress me. Bottom line is - there are a lot of great guitars being made today. Quite a few builders are capable of making you an instrument that can hang with a really good vintage. But, when you get hold of a great sounding guitar that is also from the days-of-old, it's extra special. Maybe it's the history, or the rarity, I'm not exactly sure. But a great sounding vintage guitar is always going to be cooler than a modern one that sounds just as good. At least to me. If you, personally, are unhampered by this kind of bias, then consider yourself (and your wallet) lucky

[DC1]

Originally Posted by peskypesky

There have been other tests, with similar results.

In a similar 1977 experiment, Isaac Stern and Pinchas Zukerman and a classical violin dealer Charles Beare listened to a Stradivarius, a Guarneri, and a (then modern) 1976 British violin. They were also unable to identify which instrument was which, and two of them mistakenly identified the 1976 violin as the Stradivarius. [14]

Do you have a citation on this? What were the conditions? Whose violins were being used?

I think if you want to make the point that new instruments can sound as good as old ones, I think that is a reasonable point to support here. If you are trying to say that it's all placebos and confirmation biases, that has not yet been supported, and I don't think it could be.

Instruments sound different.

dc

[DC1]

Originally Posted by peskypesky

In a test in 2009, the British violinist Matthew Trusler played his 1711 Stradivarius, said to be worth two million U.S. dollars, and four modern violins made by the Swiss violin-maker Michael Rhonheimer. One of Rhonheimer's violins, made with wood that the Empa researcher Francis Schwarze had treated with fungi, received 90 of the 180 votes for the best tone, while the Stradivarius came in second with just 39 votes. The majority (113) of the listeners misidentified the winning violin as the Stradivarius. [14][15][16]

That process is supposed to produce truly impressive results. Perhaps the old ones can be improved upon now. Anyone tried it on strats yet?


dc

[peskypesky]

Originally Posted by DC1

Do you have a citation on this? What were the conditions? Whose violins were being used?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradiv..._sound_quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_...nd_old_violins

[peskypesky]

Originally Posted by Drowned Rabbit

In my experience, vintage guitars seem to have the opposite of the Placebo Effect. I approach them expecting more because of their price. The vintage ones have to work harder to impress me. Bottom line is - there are a lot of great guitars being made today. Quite a few builders are capable of making you an instrument that can hang with a really good vintage. But, when you get hold of a great sounding guitar that is also from the days-of-old, it's extra special. Maybe it's the history, or the rarity, I'm not exactly sure. But a great sounding vintage guitar is always going to be cooler than a modern one that sounds just as good. At least to me. If you, personally, are unhampered by this kind of bias, then consider yourself (and your wallet) lucky

I am very lucky. I don't care about names on headstocks or year of production or location of production. All I care about is how does it look, how does it play, and how does it sound?

[DC1]

Originally Posted by peskypesky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradiv..._sound_quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_...nd_old_violins

Yah, that's what I thought. Too many variables when someone else is playing, and of course, when you are playing, you can tell which is which.

Another issue is how the instrument interacts with the specific touch and style of a given player. These factors influence us greatly in how friendly and interesting an instrument seems to us. Technique in rock and blues etc, is much more varied than in classical violin, so it is hard to extrapolate too far from these tests to the guitars we are talking about.

Interesting stuff. thanks

dc