i don't think this necc says anything about all guitars... but cheap gibson vs expensive epiphone...

[mistermikev]

the epiphone has gibson pickups... and sounds like rubbish to me compared to the gibson.  surprised how dif these two sound.  just curious of the general reaction.

 

 

[Bizman62]

As they said the finish is different. I can imagine that a quarter inch layer of plasticky polyurethane will dampen the vibrations much more efficiently than a hair thin layer of nitro. I'd even say that having the thick plastic on the neck makes all the difference. I wonder what would happen if they stripped the neck of the Epi and applied just some TruOil instead. My guess is that the neck would feel much more responsive.

[mistermikev]

32 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

As they said the finish is different. I can imagine that a quarter inch layer of plasticky polyurethane will dampen the vibrations much more efficiently than a hair thin layer of nitro. I'd even say that having the thick plastic on the neck makes all the difference. I wonder what would happen if they stripped the neck of the Epi and applied just some TruOil instead. My guess is that the neck would feel much more responsive.

there is a finishing group on facebook... lot of really amazing guys doing crazy good finishes... if you even mention nitro and a difference in sound from poly - immediate ban.  

i once re-finished my hamer steve stevens in poly... and I will say that initially I detected a super bright quality to the guitar... but this seemed to fade off in about 6 months.  I'll draw no conclusions from that... just stating it as I saw it.

I have a hard time believing that it could be one thing that makes that guitar sound so different and with that in mind I suspect it is a combination of things contributing to the sound.  there are a number of things I wonder about afa contributions to that epi sounding so bad... certainly possible the finish, the veneered overlay, the nut, the difference in quality of wood, did they use the sm quality pots?, the pot metal used for the bridges on those epis.

I have heard epiphones that sound surprisingly good... have an ES295 that I rather like and have had epi les pauls in the past that sounded good in proximity to other nice guitars.  I really don't think you'd see this kind of difference on every epiphone... but have to admit the video has me somewhat doubting my observations!

Out of curiosity... I had an epi bridge laying around, and a gotoh ... and I don't know if that epi was a bad example but tapping on them was noticeably different... and that has stuck a bias in my mind that they are all beyond crap.  

 

[Bizman62]

3 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

if you even mention nitro and a difference in sound from poly

I'm not against either, and I've never used nitro myself... But the thickness of the finish can make a difference. As they said, the neck of the Epi felt chunkier and as they were of the same shape and we're talking about a Les Paul Tribute I would assume that the bare wood measurements are identical. 

Your comment about the bridges makes sense. There's metal and there's "metal" that look the same when chromed. Yet there's a huge difference between an almost foamy cast thingy and a piece carved of a solid block. My knowledge of metal working is almost zero so I can't tell why some metal objects bend and stretch while others just break leaving a grainy surface looking like frozen sand. But I can guess that one makes nicely ringing bells and the other doesn't.

[mistermikev]

47 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

I'm not against either, and I've never used nitro myself... But the thickness of the finish can make a difference. As they said, the neck of the Epi felt chunkier and as they were of the same shape and we're talking about a Les Paul Tribute I would assume that the bare wood measurements are identical. 

Your comment about the bridges makes sense. There's metal and there's "metal" that look the same when chromed. Yet there's a huge difference between an almost foamy cast thingy and a piece carved of a solid block. My knowledge of metal working is almost zero so I can't tell why some metal objects bend and stretch while others just break leaving a grainy surface looking like frozen sand. But I can guess that one makes nicely ringing bells and the other doesn't.

well... sure... but playing devil's advocate here: I think a thin poly finish is def possible - just more difficult -esp in a mass mfg arena.  I have to admit tho - if you look at an epi-fony they typically have a very thick finish. I don't think they even scrape the binding on them - as I recall an epi std I had that had clear over the binding.  perhaps too thick to scrape and sand down!

that said... ibanez guitars... and the jem 77fp in particular - have extremely thick finishes... yet the fp is widely regarded as the best sounding jem and perhaps one of the best sounding clean tone guitars ever.  the flipping thing has actual cloth curtain material burried in gloss! 

one of the best sounding fenders ever - the pink paisley - has basically wallpaper buried in gloss.  I don't know that I'm willing to fully blame it on gloss.

'bare wood measurements'... i don't think your assumption about neck size is accurate.  there are so many different gibson profiles... just in the historics there is "pre-59/58 boatneck", "59 roundback" and "60 slim".  further, a tribute would undoubtedly be to the '59 burst' ie roundback while a studio typically has something similar to a 60 slim. 

all that said I trust that if the cap and chappers said it was a thick finish - it was.

 

[Bizman62]

They said that the neck profiles looked like to be of same type, and later they said that the Epi neck felt just that much thicker because of the thick layer of poly. No actual measuring, just feel.

Anyhoo, I know about the cloth buried in gloss in JEMs and some other guitars, but: How about the necks? For what I've heard the neck is that vibrates the most which is also logical as it's the longest and thinnest part between the nut and the bridge. There's not much flex in the body, don't you agree? As Chappers said in the vid, he could feel the neck respond. Paisley Teles and JEMs both seem to have a natural neck, although I don't know what they're covered with. A quick search told both clear lacquer and Tung Oil. For sure plain clearcoat is thinner than primer and paint covered with clearcoat! Also, knowing how thin the JEM necks are, I doubt that they would have sacrificed structural integrity by making it even thinner and then coating it with a thick layer of clearcoat to match the thickness requirements of Steve Vai.

I got this idea already during my first post: Would wearing a vinyl glove with a lightly protected neck produce a similar feeling to a bare hand on a heavily coated one? The vinyl isn't any thicker than a glosscoat so the dampening of the vibrations might be close enough.

[mistermikev]

4 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

They said that the neck profiles looked like to be of same type, and later they said that the Epi neck felt just that much thicker because of the thick layer of poly. No actual measuring, just feel.

Anyhoo, I know about the cloth buried in gloss in JEMs and some other guitars, but: How about the necks? For what I've heard the neck is that vibrates the most which is also logical as it's the longest and thinnest part between the nut and the bridge. There's not much flex in the body, don't you agree? As Chappers said in the vid, he could feel the neck respond. Paisley Teles and JEMs both seem to have a natural neck, although I don't know what they're covered with. A quick search told both clear lacquer and Tung Oil. For sure plain clearcoat is thinner than primer and paint covered with clearcoat! Also, knowing how thin the JEM necks are, I doubt that they would have sacrificed structural integrity by making it even thinner and then coating it with a thick layer of clearcoat to match the thickness requirements of Steve Vai.

hard to say if their assessment is accurate.  A very small difference in neck thickness can seem huge... difference in fret size can make a small neck feel bigger... and certainly a dif in finish thickness could account for it... or some combo of both.  

 

How about the necks? - well that is a good point.  the neck on the jem has a razor thin finish - maybe one step away from being like a music man.  if it has any lacquer it is almost non-existent.  then again perhaps some of it has been worn off on mine - it is 30+ years old.  I believe the neck on a paisley would just be typical nitro so also quite thin.  good point.

ok, devil's advocate... guitars that have thick finish but sound good... well for one the rickenbacker.  idk if they use nitro... but those finishes sure look thick and they gloss the fretboard and the back.  certainly less common.  

[Bizman62]

30 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

the rickenbacker.  idk if they use nitro

At least on the fretboards they used to use a "conversion varnish" which ages a bit like nitro but is stronger. Later they changed to an even tougher UV cured poly. Can't tell if they used that only on fretboards or all over the guitar. Taken from the link above.

[mistermikev]

18 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

At least on the fretboards they used to use a "conversion varnish" which ages a bit like nitro but is stronger. Later they changed to an even tougher UV cured poly. Can't tell if they used that only on fretboards or all over the guitar. Taken from the link above.

right on.  good info.  my interest in having this discussion is mostly to temper my own convictions when building... fortunately for me I like the feel of a bare neck anyway.  that said... I can't help but still think a thin finish on a body, and quality hardware/wood, is also a good safe bet.  it also kind of makes me think I want to build a series of les paul type guitars and explore differing types of hardware/finish in the interest of observing any differences first hand.  someday.

 

[curtisa]

7 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

As they said the finish is different.

Everything is different. They're different instruments with different pickups and hardware played by different people through different amps. If the implication is that the tonal difference is down to just the finish in this case, that's massively jumping the gun.

 

7 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

But the thickness of the finish can make a difference. 

Welllll, acoustic instruments, perhaps. But electric? And just the neck?

 

7 hours ago, mistermikev said:

i once re-finished my hamer steve stevens in poly... and I will say that initially I detected a super bright quality to the guitar... but this seemed to fade off in about 6 months.  I'll draw no conclusions from that... just stating it as I saw it.

The grain of salt that must be considered with things like that is that the human ear and mind is notoriously bad at 'remembering' the timbre of a sound given enough time between hearing that sound twice. Some studies indicate that it can be as small a handful of seconds. Refinishing a guitar is naturally going to take days to weeks, so making a judgement call on whether removing/changing the finish affected the sound is fraught with unknowns and unreliabilities, made all the more variable owing to natural inconsistencies of the person using the instrument to assess the change.

FWIW I'm not suggesting that the finish does or does not make the world of difference in sound. For all I know it could. But in the absence of real data I'm sceptical that it must be automatically assumed that it does. Chappers' preference as to how good the guitar sounded could have instantly been swayed the moment he felt how glossy the neck felt in his hand, throwing any real objectivity he might have had straight out the window. If he's the sort of guy who  doesn't like the feel of gloss poly he might subconsciously draw conclusions as to how the guitar sounds before he even plugs it in ('this neck feels quite sticky and grippy, I bet it doesn't resonate well...').

[mistermikev]

28 minutes ago, curtisa said:

Everything is different. They're different instruments with different pickups and hardware played by different people through different amps. If the implication is that the tonal difference is down to just the finish in this case, that's massively jumping the gun.

 

Welllll, acoustic instruments, perhaps. But electric? And just the neck?

 

The grain of salt that must be considered with things like that is that the human ear and mind is notoriously bad at 'remembering' the timbre of a sound given enough time between hearing that sound twice. Some studies indicate that it can be as small a handful of seconds. Refinishing a guitar is naturally going to take days to weeks, so making a judgement call on whether removing/changing the finish affected the sound is fraught with unknowns and unreliabilities, made all the more variable owing to natural inconsistencies of the person using the instrument to assess the change.

FWIW I'm not suggesting that the finish does or does not make the world of difference in sound. For all I know it could. But in the absence of real data I'm sceptical that it must be automatically assumed that it does. Chappers' preference as to how good the guitar sounded could have instantly been swayed the moment he felt how glossy the neck felt in his hand, throwing any real objectivity he might have had straight out the window. If he's the sort of guy who  doesn't like the feel of gloss poly he might subconsciously draw conclusions as to how the guitar sounds before he even plugs it in ('this neck feels quite sticky and grippy, I bet it doesn't resonate well...').

glad to have your input on this curtisa.  thank you for that.  

I hear you on the human ear... I am hyper aware of that now and admitedly was less so then... and I always generally take the approach that "I must be wrong" because if you don't believe there is a chance you are totally wrong... you are 99% more likely to be wrong... at least in my experience.  I wouldn't mention this guitar... except it was like a literal ice pick to the ear.  I didn't even like the guitar that was my #1 before this, and remember distinctly wrestling for months on what I would do - complete refinish?  Further note... at the time I had no pre-concieved notions about poly sounding any particular way.  I had not even heard of that until years later. 

The pickups, the hardware, the neck - this was all the sm stuff.  Even the amp I was playing thru at the time was the sm.  Now, still, I can't be 100% sure... you never can... but I was absolutely convinced at the time.  Also... this was an incredibly thick finish.  I filled the pores on mahog by simply spraying more poly.  I think I went through possibly 5 cans of rattle poly.  So.... this anecdote was not meant as a "therefore qed poly is brighter" - just the relay of my recolection of the experience.

afa chappers... I hardly even listened to what they said... I was only relaying how I heard those guitars and to me - they are absolutely night and day.  Are you saying you don't hear a difference between them?  I'm not trying to "emporers new clothes" - you... just I really did hear a difference between them.  Even when they switched... and hyper aware that the playing on the epiphone by captain was painfully not as good.... I'm hearing a big dif there.  Again, I don't even think that necc every epiphone would sound as bad as this particular one... I fully believe it's this specific epiphone does not sound good to me... also not fully convinced all that difference can be nailed down to lacquer because it's just such a big dif... it would almost have to be a compilation of bad aspects.

[curtisa]

17 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

Are you saying you don't hear a difference between them?

Not at all. I can clearly hear a difference when they're being played side by side. But that's not that surprising, as almost nothing in the two examples in that video are the same. I'm not even sure what switching is meant to prove anyway, as Chappers isn't playing the same things on both guitars each time.

Re: the Epi sounding bad vs the Gibson sounding good. I don't really hear it sounding one way or the other; it's just two different flavours of humbucker-equipped guitar. It has different characteristics that I might be able to isolate and identify if I listen closely enough, but undoubtedly they'd take on completely different angles played through a different setup. Without it being in my hands plugged into my rig I don't think I can make a judgement on whether or not it tickles my eardrums.

Unlike an acoustic instrument an electric guitar should never be assessed solely by it's own qualities. At a basic level it's only a small stage in a substantially larger signal chain. It's not much good if you don't plug it in.

 

 

[mistermikev]

3 minutes ago, curtisa said:

Not at all. I can clearly hear a difference when they're being played side by side. But that's not that surprising, as almost nothing in the two examples in that video are the same. I'm not even sure what switching is meant to prove anyway, as Chappers isn't playing the same things on both guitars each time.

Re: the Epi sounding bad vs the Gibson sounding good. I don't really hear it sounding one way or the other; it's just two different flavours of humbucker-equipped guitar. It has different characteristics that I might be able to isolate and identify if I listen closely enough, but undoubtedly they'd take on completely different angles played through a different setup. Without it being in my hands plugged into my rig I don't think I can make a judgement on whether or not it tickles my eardrums.

Unlike an acoustic instrument an electric guitar should never be assessed solely by it's own qualities. At a basic level it's only a small stage in a substantially larger signal chain. It's not much good if you don't plug it in.

 

 

right on.  that is the thing... when chappers played it thru his amp... it sounded bad to me... when captain played it thru his amp... it also sounded bad... I think that was the point of switching amps - to show how they sounded on either setup.  and the studio actually sounded great on both.  no epi snob here... i still have an epi 295 that i like a lot... just that one is a bad example to me and surprising because it has good pickups.  it is fair to assume that perhaps it was just that setup... and I dunno if either of them setup their amp using the gibson... but there was a consistency in what I didn't like and the only thing that changed was... the guitar.

[curtisa]

*shrug* Hard to say. There's lots of different factors that might influence the decision that one guitar might be better than the other. Personally I think it's a little questionable that Chappers might make those comments towards the end about the finish being the magic that the Gibson had over the Epiphone. He knew it was a Gibson, which might have influenced his decision. He knew that nitro might have some mystique over poly, which might have influenced his decision. He was playing both through an amp which he was presumably familiar with, which might have influenced his decision. His playing had also warmed up a bit by that point in the video, which might have influenced his claim too. Maybe he could feel the vibrational difference under his fretting hand. Then again, maybe he's dribbling shit

I genuinely thought for a second at the point where The Captain was announcing that, '...it's probably not the decision the people wanted to hear...' that they would announce the Epi was the better of the two. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Rob Chapman channel is (was?) also a vehicle for selling guitars on behalf of the Andertons store. It's kinda not surprising that the outcome was that the Gibson was better. Maybe it genuinely was the better of the two, but there's enough doubt in my mind to question the impartiality of the guys holding the guitars and hence, their claims.

Many years ago I bought a Fender Newporter acoustic guitar, solely because I wanted to impress my peers with the knowledge I had a guitar with 'Fender' stamped on the headstock (a rarity back then at my age where I grew up), even if it was made in Korea with a plywood top. That was despite my knowledge that many other acoustics I'd tried while shopping at the same time sounded better and had better specs for the same price. I regretted it for many years afterwards. Brand prestige can have weird effects on buyers.

[Bizman62]

6 hours ago, curtisa said:

If the implication is that the tonal difference is down to just the finish in this case, that's massively jumping the gun.---
--- But electric? And just the neck?

Fully agreed. But I wasn't speaking about tonal difference, I was talking about haptic feedback. That's what I understood Chappers meant by saying that the Gibson was nicer to play, more alive. Take any guitar and paint the neck to see if anything changes. Or rather, for testing purposes put a layer of tape on the neck. Plastic package tape may be even thinner than the Far-Eastern lacquer so you can experiment with several layers to see if there's any change in responsiveness.

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

the human ear and mind is notoriously bad at 'remembering' the timbre of a sound given enough time between hearing that sound twice. Some studies indicate that it can be as small a handful of seconds.

Again I fully agree. I can't hear any difference in most of the "tonewood" v.s. magnetic pickup tests given that the picking is consistent and the woods have similar properties regarding flexibility and such. You know what I'm talking about!

6 hours ago, mistermikev said:

afa chappers... I hardly even listened to what they said... I was only relaying how I heard those guitars and to me - they are absolutely night and day. 

For learning purposes I did listen to what they said. As @curtisa said, they were different instruments with different pickups and hardware, the pickups most likely having the biggest influence in sound and tone so they sounded different despite all the bells and whistles in the pedal board. And they didn't play the same riffs or anything to actually test how they sounded. From what I understood the entire comparison was to find out which of the two was a better guitar, and by better they (to me) seemed to mean playability, feel and overall quality and craftmanship, not sound.

[mistermikev]

3 hours ago, curtisa said:

*shrug* Hard to say. There's lots of different factors that might influence the decision that one guitar might be better than the other. Personally I think it's a little questionable that Chappers might make those comments towards the end about the finish being the magic that the Gibson had over the Epiphone. He knew it was a Gibson, which might have influenced his decision. He knew that nitro might have some mystique over poly, which might have influenced his decision. He was playing both through an amp which he was presumably familiar with, which might have influenced his decision. His playing had also warmed up a bit by that point in the video, which might have influenced his claim too. Maybe he could feel the vibrational difference under his fretting hand. Then again, maybe he's dribbling shit

I genuinely thought for a second at the point where The Captain was announcing that, '...it's probably not the decision the people wanted to hear...' that they would announce the Epi was the better of the two. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Rob Chapman channel is (was?) also a vehicle for selling guitars on behalf of the Andertons store. It's kinda not surprising that the outcome was that the Gibson was better. Maybe it genuinely was the better of the two, but there's enough doubt in my mind to question the impartiality of the guys holding the guitars and hence, their claims.

Many years ago I bought a Fender Newporter acoustic guitar, solely because I wanted to impress my peers with the knowledge I had a guitar with 'Fender' stamped on the headstock (a rarity back then at my age where I grew up), even if it was made in Korea with a plywood top. That was despite my knowledge that many other acoustics I'd tried while shopping at the same time sounded better and had better specs for the same price. I regretted it for many years afterwards. Brand prestige can have weird effects on buyers.

There's lots of different factors - agreed.  every guitar sounds the way it does because of it's totallity.  

the magic that the Gibson had over the Epiphone - there is no question for me... that chaps and capn are influenced by the idea that "nitro sounds better"... and their playing on both absolutely displays that... but I don't think I'm unconsciously influenced by that.  I personally believe that a thick vs thin finish can make a difference... but beyond that I doubt highly that the type of finish necc dooms a guitar.  that said... I think I'm listening pretty objectively but coming to the sm ultimate conclusion that one does indeed sound better to me.  I'm def not influenced by their need to sell guitars and I think they are... but I also doubt they would purposely try to make the epiphone sound worse.  

I don't believe he's feeling any vibration through the neck... and that does sound like malarky to me... but again I'm just basing my opinion on what I hear and trying to be objective despite the criticism my opinion might encourage.  I'm kinda putting myself out on a limb and ultimately trusting my ears for better or worse.

fender - hehe... well here's my own anicdote that is very parallel.  I have owned a cort acoustic since the 90s.  I bought the cort despite knowing how frowned upon the name is... because I know that they make some really high end good guitars - the larry coryell and matt guitar murphy for one and two.  I had played a coryell and it sounded great.  dealer cost on my acoustic guitar in 99 was $700 - so it was a lot of money for me at that time.  solid cedar top and mahog back and sides.  I bought the undesireable label despite potential criticism..  There were certainly other brand names that were more respected that we were a dealer for (alvarez for one) that I could have bought instead.  Not saying I am impervious to the sm brand infuence... just that I'm not afraid of going with my gut despite criticism.

[mistermikev]

2 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

 

For learning purposes I did listen to what they said. As @curtisa said, they were different instruments with different pickups and hardware, the pickups most likely having the biggest influence in sound and tone so they sounded different despite all the bells and whistles in the pedal board. And they didn't play the same riffs or anything to actually test how they sounded. From what I understood the entire comparison was to find out which of the two was a better guitar, and by better they (to me) seemed to mean playability, feel and overall quality and craftmanship, not sound.

well... idk what specific model pickups are in either... typically 490r/498t in the studio - no idea on model in the epi... but in both guitars they are supposedly gibson pickups (which is rare for an epiphone to have).  edit: just looked it up: the epiphone has 57 classics in it which are widely considered an upgrade to the 490t.  oddly, what I'm hearing is muffled highs and the classics are less overwound than 490 series... should have more highs.  this is not meant as "qed it's not the pickups" just stating it as I see it.