Catalyzed polyurethane

Runn3r · February 18, 2009

Here is how I understand the impact of wood on tone and sustain.. The string is plucked, causing the wood to vibrate along with the string.

The more the wood vibrates, the longer the string will vibrate, thus the longer the note can be heard. This is what we call sustain

. If the wood doesn't vibrate well, the sustain is reduced. Sustain is completely and utterly unrelated to the tone being produced by the string. Or, more to the point, the length of time the string vibrates does nothing to color the electrical signal being generated by the pickup and string interaction. When a string vibrates, it doesn't just move back and forth. It oscillates, at varying degrees up and down the string. The closer it is to the ends of the string, the tighter the oscillation, and the treble frequencies are most prominent. That's not to say they are louder, but the bass frequencies are much quieter. At no point does the wood have the ability to change that oscillation. All it can do is resonate with the string, thus giving the string sympathetic vibrations that prolong the strings vibration. Pickup position along the string has a drastically larger impact on the coloration of tone than the wood can.

...some might say tht the more the wood 'vibrates' the LESS the string will then 'vibrate' since energy has been 'lost' through the wood 'vibrating'...

...some might raise the ole guitar made from stone/rock/heavy mass as an example of very long sustain but 'tone' still considered 'undesirable'...

...thus is da reason why some prefer 'stiffer necks' (neck tht 'vibrate' less) for longer sustain at the risk of reducing 'tone'...

RaVenCAD · February 19, 2009

Tone cannot be reduced.. Tone can only be changed. There is no correct level of tone. There is only tone you like and tone you do not like, and that isn't quantifiable data.

wrathfuldeity · February 19, 2009

That thing about

EVERYONE

wanting a nitro finish on their guitar is complete and utter nonsense.

Electric Blues that is breath taking

IMHO the forgotten discussion about tone is the psycho-acoustic aspect.

Stripped a clear poly with a ceramic infared heater worked like a charm about 1 hour. However not good for clear finish due to scorching but if painting it would work great...did tung oil but was going for funk and feel.

Electric Blues · February 19, 2009

Electric Blues that is breath taking

Thanks very much. I'm glad you liked it!

Runn3r · February 19, 2009

Tone cannot be reduced.. Tone can only be changed. There is no correct level of tone. There is only tone you like and tone you do not like, and that isn't quantifiable data.

...i am sorry but da blue guitar of electric blues haz 2 'tone' knobs which are marked from 1 to 10...

...ergo...

...'tone' can be reduced AND is 'quantifiable' ...

unistudent1980 · February 19, 2009

When I started this thread I din't really mean to troll EG. I was a little bit frustrated and tired as well as surprised at a)how hard the stuff is b) how thick it was. This is the thrid refinish I've done/or is in progress but the other two were nothing like this.

Meanwhile I've found using the paints used for plactic model building work really well for this kind of thing and its readily available. I like the Tamiya stuff. anyways it'll be pearl white in about a month and I hope this turns out as well as my first try.

Electric Blues · February 19, 2009

When I started this thread I din't really mean to troll EG. I was a little bit frustrated and tired as well as surprised at a)how hard the stuff is b) how thick it was. This is the thrid refinish I've done/or is in progress but the other two were nothing like this.

Meanwhile I've found using the paints used for plactic model building work really well for this kind of thing and its readily available. I like the Tamiya stuff. anyways it'll be pearl white in about a month and I hope this turns out as well as my first try.

Tamiya=great paint and good spray nozzles

soundcreation · February 19, 2009

OK here's where all of you people who's argument... "thinner is better" but there is "no difference between nitro and poly"....falls apart.

This was posted by armitage in a similar debate a month ago...quoting this guy:

Not that long ago, Terry McInturff used to post here, until he got sick of "I don't know anything but I'll argue my opinion with your 30 years of experience." This is what he said about finishes;

"There is no inherent difference in tone between cellulose resin and polyester resin. Yet, we can often hear a difference between the two. Why?

Answer: Because a polyester finish is almost always considerably thicker than a nitro lacquer finish. When mixed for spraying, polyester ranges from 50% to 95% solids content. Nitro lacquer ranges from 10% to 25% solids content.

Due to the dramatically higher solids content, polyester finishes can be mighty thick by finishing standards. A .030" film thickness is common. This has an effect upon tone that even a non-player can hear. The lows are attenuated and the highs are boosted, because the stiff, thick finish has raised the resonant frequencies considerably.

Nitro cellulose lacquer has far less solids content, and hense (properly applied) a nitro film thickness can be very thin. The average film thickness on a TCM finished with nitro averages out at aprox .008 when fresh. The finish will continue to shrink over the years, and will lose about another .002" in two years. A thin film such as this has FAR less influence upon the resonant frequencies of the raw wood. Hense, it is more controllable. One can design a guitar that sounds as intended in the raw wood form, and the finish will not shift that tone hardly at all."

There was more but I just pulled out the issue we are dealing with. The only issue I have with it is his own wording...he says there are no "inherent differences" but then goes on to give basically the very definition of an inherent difference with regard to the solid contents...

Now I believe this is correct....if you don't then prove to me with a link or something that the solid content argument is false...ie that the solid content of poly finishes are not a higher percentage than Nitro....If you do accept what he says then we can proceed.

If you accept that this is true then a poly finish, for all intents and purposes, can never be as thin as a nitro finish. Because obviously, if you sprayed two equally thick coatings of poly and nitro the nitro would still be thinner because in a given volume poly has a MUCH higher solids content. You'd have to apply nitro 7 or 8 times as thick as poly to get them even. And that just simply never happens. Nitro finishes are nearly always paper thin.

Now I don't know this for sure but I believe in the US companies are required to have permits for spraying nitro and that it is a much more expensive finish to apply. My belief is all these companies like suhr and anderson benefit by saying there is no difference because it allows them to build more cheaply.

Is it a coincidence that nitro fenders are usually high end and expensive? Doubt it.

I also look at all the high end japanese builders and I can't think of one that doesn't use nitro on their guitars. I believe they need to build the best possible guitars they can to take sales away from american imports. And they do. You're trying to tell me all those builders just do it because they think it is what consumers are demanding? Doubt it. A lot of these guys consider themselves artisans and are looking to build the best guitar possible. Believe it or not some companies do choose to put quality ahead of cost.

Runn3r · February 19, 2009

OK here's where all of you people who's argument... "thinner is better" but there is "no difference between nitro and poly"....falls apart.

This was posted by armitage in a similar debate a month ago...quoting this guy:

Not that long ago, Terry McInturff used to post here, until he got sick of "I don't know anything but I'll argue my opinion with your 30 years of experience." This is what he said about finishes;

"There is no inherent difference in tone between cellulose resin and polyester resin. Yet, we can often hear a difference between the two. Why?

Answer: Because a polyester finish is almost always considerably thicker than a nitro lacquer finish. When mixed for spraying, polyester ranges from 50% to 95% solids content. Nitro lacquer ranges from 10% to 25% solids content.

Due to the dramatically higher solids content, polyester finishes can be mighty thick by finishing standards. A .030" film thickness is common. This has an effect upon tone that even a non-player can hear. The lows are attenuated and the highs are boosted, because the stiff, thick finish has raised the resonant frequencies considerably.

Nitro cellulose lacquer has far less solids content, and hense (properly applied) a nitro film thickness can be very thin. The average film thickness on a TCM finished with nitro averages out at aprox .008 when fresh. The finish will continue to shrink over the years, and will lose about another .002" in two years. A thin film such as this has FAR less influence upon the resonant frequencies of the raw wood. Hense, it is more controllable. One can design a guitar that sounds as intended in the raw wood form, and the finish will not shift that tone hardly at all."

There was more but I just pulled out the issue we are dealing with. The only issue I have with it is his own wording...he says there are no "inherent differences" but then goes on to give basically the very definition of an inherent difference with regard to the solid contents...

Now I believe this is correct....if you don't then prove to me with a link or something that the solid content argument is false...ie that the solid content of poly finishes are not a higher percentage than Nitro....If you do accept what he says then we can proceed.

If you accept that this is true then a poly finish, for all intents and purposes, can never be as thin as a nitro finish. Because obviously, if you sprayed two equally thick coatings of poly and nitro the nitro would still be thinner because in a given volume poly has a MUCH higher solids content.

You'd have to apply nitro 7 or 8 times as thick as poly to get them even. And that just simply never happens. Nitro finishes are nearly always paper thin.

Now I don't know this for sure but I believe in the US companies are required to have permits for spraying nitro and that it is a much more expensive finish to apply. My belief is all these companies like suhr and anderson benefit by saying there is no difference because it allows them to build more cheaply.

Is it a coincidence that nitro fenders are usually high end and expensive? Doubt it.

I also look at all the high end japanese builders and I can't think of one that doesn't use nitro on their guitars. I believe they need to build the best possible guitars they can to take sales away from american imports. And they do. You're trying to tell me all those builders just do it because they think it is what consumers are demanding? Doubt it. A lot of these guys consider themselves artisans and are looking to build the best guitar possible. Believe it or not some companies do choose to put quality ahead of cost.

...why can't a poly finish be as thin as you like?!

...are you assuming ALL nitro finishes are thin?!

...if indeed nitro has less 'SOLIDS' in them then it stands to reason that it requires MORE spraying to achieve a finish thick enough to buff out

...perhaps this might contribute to the 'extra expense'?!

...otoh poly finish do not require as much spraying if indeed poly has more 'solids content'

...what about wipe on poly finishes?! they are mixed down thinner than standard poly...i get very thin finish with this poly mix...

...it is well known that most mass manufactured guitars are poly finished...thus it is only natural for non mass manufacturers to make a point of difference in things like finishes to gain some market share...i.e. sell their guitars

...in making tht point of difference...a viral campaign often accompanies creating myths along the way...

...who's to say this is not yet another myth?!

...i have heard of Terry M and have been educated by his frequently knowledgeable posts on another forum but is he above the 'campaign' tht highlights a point of difference between his guitars and the mass manufactured ones he is competing against?...

...and then all da boutique followers who have purchased such nitro guitars...wouldnt it stand to reason tht they would prefer nitro over poly espc after they have invested in said nitro item?!

soundcreation · February 19, 2009

...why can't a poly finish be as thin as you like?!

...are you assuming ALL nitro finishes are thin?!

...if indeed nitro has less 'SOLIDS' in them then it stands to reason that it requires MORE spraying to achieve a finish thick enough to buff out

...perhaps this might contribute to the 'extra expense'?!

...otoh poly finish do not require as much spraying if indeed poly has more 'solids content'

...what about wipe on poly finishes?! they are mixed down thinner than standard poly...i get very thin finish with this poly mix...

...it is well known that most mass manufactured guitars are poly finished...thus it is only natural for non mass manufacturers to make a point of difference in things like finishes to gain some market share...i.e. sell their guitars

...in making tht point of difference...a viral campaign often accompanies creating myths along the way...

...who's to say this is not yet another myth?!

...i have heard of Terry M and have been educated by his frequently knowledgeable posts on another forum but is he above the 'campaign' tht highlights a point of difference between his guitars and the mass manufactured ones he is competing against?...

...and then all da boutique followers who have purchased such nitro guitars...wouldnt it stand to reason tht they would prefer nitro over poly espc after they have invested in said nitro item?!

It can be....but according to him...."Now, if a polyester finish had the same film thickness as did nitro, the finishes would sound IDENTICAL. This is very, very difficult for most mfg's to achieve in a production environment, however." .....sounds reasonable to me.

Well my nitro finishes are pretty thin.....I suppose I can't speak for every single guitar ever finished in nitro.

I don't think so.....I think it means it goes on thinner in the first place.

Again I don't think so....I've heard the extra expense is due to nitro being a bit of an environmentally unfriendly product if not handled correctly....which is regulated...permits or licenses etc......again I'm not positive on this but I did read it somewhere before.

Just because you wouldn't spray as much doesn't mean the density couldn't be higher in poly.

I know nothing about wipe on poly so I'll have to take your word...but again it's not about thickness...it's about the density of what's in the finish.

Gibson is a mass manufacturer are they not? They use nitro exclusively..

Well by your logic whose to say that the "poly" experts aren't doing some myth making of their own? Sounds like it to me.

Your right, he could be just blowing his own horn.....(see next paragraph)

See my last paragraph in the last post I made about the Japanese builders. If you want to write it off as all about marketing and nothing else....well that's up too you. I just personally am not that cynical. Just to many lutheirs/high end builders who use it both in america and japan whose bottom line isn't always about money or maximizing market share.

RaVenCAD · February 19, 2009

You need to understand this simple fact about business.. All bottomlines are about money.. Anyone that says otherwise, or even hints that they're doing something intentionally that might decrease their profits, is a lying bastard.

GilmourD · February 19, 2009

Here's the funny thing about the super thin finishes from back in the day...

Leo Fender was cheap. He didn't want to spend a lot of money. If he could use less finishing materials it would cost him less money. Therefore, we got thin finishes.

Did this happen to have a fairly decent benefit? Absolutely. However, Leo was thinking of the bottom line, not the nuances of tone.

soundcreation · February 19, 2009

You need to understand this simple fact about business.. All bottomlines are about money.. Anyone that says otherwise, or even hints that they're doing something intentionally that might decrease their profits, is a lying bastard.

Again...I'm not that cynical. So you don't think there are any artisans out there at all making and selling guitars? Nobody who puts quality first? Knowing that if they do, that's what's going to make them money?

You should really get into high end Japanese guitars. I'd think you'd see there are plenty. And also from what I've read...companies like Hamer (at least the US side anyway) and Heritage don't cut corners on their manufacturing.

Electric Blues · February 19, 2009

Here's the funny thing about the super thin finishes from back in the day...

Leo Fender was cheap. He didn't want to spend a lot of money. If he could use less finishing materials it would cost him less money. Therefore, we got thin finishes.

Did this happen to have a fairly decent benefit? Absolutely. However, Leo was thinking of the bottom line, not the nuances of tone.

Yep. The man just used the car paints available at the time. If I'm not mistaken, the Dauphne Blue similar to mine was a Cadillac color(?)

Pope on a Rope · February 20, 2009

...why can't a poly finish be as thin as you like?!

...are you assuming ALL nitro finishes are thin?!

...if indeed nitro has less 'SOLIDS' in them then it stands to reason that it requires MORE spraying to achieve a finish thick enough to buff out

...perhaps this might contribute to the 'extra expense'?!

Lacquer is much more labor intensive than polyurethane or polyester. That would definitely add to the cost. Lacquer contains much less solid material compared to polyurethane and polyester. Lacquer cures by evaporation. When you spray lacquer, most of it goes into the air as spray mist and evaporation. It takes a lot of coats to do a lacquer finish.

...otoh poly finish do not require as much spraying if indeed poly has more 'solids content'

...what about wipe on poly finishes?! they are mixed down thinner than standard poly...i get very thin finish with this poly mix...

Polyurethanes and polyesters are designed for fast cover, high build, high gloss, quick cure and durability. You can thin down polys for thinner finishes but manufacturers use it to put guitars out fast. Polys cure due to a chemical reaction with far less material lost to evaporation. It takes less to do more as opposed to lacquer.

...it is well known that most mass manufactured guitars are poly finished...thus it is only natural for non mass manufacturers to make a point of difference in things like finishes to gain some market share...i.e. sell their guitars

A guitar with a lacquer finish is going to take more time and material for a finished product. If you were to take two identical guitars, finish one in polyurethane or polyester and finish the other with lacquer. There is going to be big differences in price between the two guitars. With polys you can be assembling the next day, but with lacquer you must wait days or weeks for it to cure or it's too soft to handle and then you still need to buff it.

A lacquer finish simply requires a lot more hands on time to do properly.

...in making tht point of difference...a viral campaign often accompanies creating myths along the way...

...who's to say this is not yet another myth?!

...i have heard of Terry M and have been educated by his frequently knowledgeable posts on another forum but is he above the 'campaign' tht highlights a point of difference between his guitars and the mass manufactured ones he is competing against?...

...and then all da boutique followers who have purchased such nitro guitars...wouldnt it stand to reason tht they would prefer nitro over poly espc after they have invested in said nitro item?!

I think they would prefer it because it is much thinner than a poly finish. As in a post above that quoted Mcinturff, he say's something like "it's more to with the thickness rather than the materials themselves."

Guitars with a thinner finish just feel and sound livelier than ones with a thick, heavy finish.

Lacquer is also much nicer looking when wet sanded and buffed to a high gloss. You can make lacquer look like glass with a flawlessly untextured finish. You just can't get that type of shine with polys. No matter how much wet sanding and buffing you do you just can't get a buffed, poly finish as smooth and flawless looking as a buffed, lacquer finish. Similar in texture to watermelon skin.

That's another selling point for lacquer that you don't see mentioned.

GilmourD · February 20, 2009

Yep. The man just used the car paints available at the time. If I'm not mistaken, the Dauphne Blue similar to mine was a Cadillac color(?)

Here's an EXCELLENT resource on Fender paint color info. In fact it'll even tell you which were nitro and which were acrylic.

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

BoredGuitarist7 · February 20, 2009

Very durable.

Very cheap.

Very easy.

All pro's, no?

Nitro feels better to me, and it wears faster and looks better over time. Poly, on the other hand, is like a rock.

Electric Blues · February 20, 2009

Here's an EXCELLENT resource on Fender paint color info. In fact it'll even tell you which were nitro and which were acrylic.

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

Wow. Thanks for the great link!

Runn3r · February 20, 2009

I think they would prefer it because it is much thinner than a poly finish. As in a post above that quoted Mcinturff, he say's something like "it's more to with the thickness rather than the materials themselves."

Guitars with a thinner finish just feel and sound livelier than ones with a thick, heavy finish.

Lacquer is also much nicer looking when wet sanded and buffed to a high gloss. You can make lacquer look like glass with a flawlessly untextured finish. You just can't get that type of shine with polys. No matter how much wet sanding and buffing you do you just can't get a buffed, poly finish as smooth and flawless looking as a buffed, lacquer finish. Similar in texture to watermelon skin.

That's another selling point for lacquer that you don't see mentioned.

...thank you for many excellent points...

...i find it more believable that a thin finish is better than a thick finish rather than the ole 'nitro is better than poly' BS ...

...indeed i always thought nitro finishes require a lot more work (and skill if kept thin) than a poly finish but i question your assertion that it doesn't 'buff out' as well as a 'nitro finish' ...

...in any case, i have seen both types of finish on plenty of guitars and can't say tht one is 'shinier or better buffed out' than the other in any sort of generalised way...

Runn3r · February 20, 2009