I've been showing pictures of five guitars during construction for some time now, it has been a slow project, having to fit it in between "proper" orders. I should have individual photographs soon.
It's an extension of "The Guitar Experiment", from 2014. The conclusions from that were a little controversial, and although I don't argue with the overall results, it does leave something unanswered from my point of view.
A big part of my job is to talk to customers about choice of timber, and it simply isn't possible for me to say, "it doesn't make any difference ". I am sure, and so are most people I know, makers and players, that the wood choice for the back and sides is an important part of the guitar's tone. My view is that it is a small part, but that small part is very important. When we get to this level of instrument, it's the small parts that make the difference, just like in wine tasting and Hi Fi.
Many years ago, I noticed the confusion when trying to explain tone in terms of words, so that two people cannot agree unless they have the same understanding of the words used. If I were to say, “this one has ‘clarity’”, I've no way of pointing to the "clarity" and saying "there, that's what I mean". That's where the biggest problem occurs. If we can't agree on what words mean, we can't make a proper analysis using those words. There were some parts of the experiment's conclusions that reinforced these thoughts, so I'm trying to explore that a little more.
The original experiment took so long to complete and publish, that the test guitars are long gone and I can't re-examine them, but I did learn some lessons from those tests.
My objective this time is to reassure myself, and Alex and Paul, that we are speaking truthfully when we talk about tone and to gain some better way of discussing it with customers.
Part of that will be to get experienced opinion, particularly from players who have very fine ears, in the same way that whisky or chocolate tasters have a very discerning palate.
Here is a test. If I asked you to play and listen to a number of guitars, then write down a description of the sound of one of them, then pass that description to another person, would they be able to find that guitar from your description alone?
Would that work? I could call it the Bucknall test. Typically, complicated.
At Ullapool, I began to gather player's thoughts. Clive Carroll, Hugh Burns, John Smith, Will McNicol, Jule Malischke, Richard Smith, and many others, all spent a lot of time, playing and listening, telling me what they heard. I had three players write down some quite extended analyses. I hope to get other players and even makers to play and listen, and we shall see if there are any conclusions.
It isn't intended to be a thoroughly scientific test, I don’t have the time, but you would be welcome to visit and play them while I still have them all.
A few words about the guitars. One particular guitar last year had started me on a new path which I think will develop a lot in the coming years. A 12 fret, long scale, cutaway model, nearly an Alchemist, which I made using Will McNicol's music (and Will himself) as the "model". Big sound, very comfortable to hold and play. That is what we have here, in five variations. New features include carbon reinforced necks, and truss rod adjustment from the soundhole, the idea being to reduce any variability in neck settings between guitars and to test out new ways forward in design.
The guitars do vary in decorations, inlays and tuners because I wanted to represent a variety of tastes and price bands. None of that should affect the tone.
One comment from a good friend, an excellent guitarist, which demonstrates some of the difficulty in talking about tone
“I don't like that one as much as the other one I didn't like”
I'm still trying to work that one out, but don't get it wrong, - he “liked” them all!
And a final note, even though I must keep them here for quite a while longer, and I haven't advertised them at all, I have already "sold" three of them.
