The big difference in aged wood relates more to the age of the wood to start with rather than the number of years it's been pretending to be a musical instrument -- in ye olde dayes, the wood came from ye olde growthe forest, which has long since been concreted over and turned into a Walmart parking lot, and was air-dried for 5, 6, 10, 20 years before being turned into a guitar.tuffteef wrote:Gearmond wrote:...though aged wood does sound better.
in some cases old wood might make a difference
being built really good helps haha
ive owned plenty of old guitars old wood so on forth that were fine but not terrific
ive had some new reissue ones that blew the old ones out of the water in sound
Now, the wood is cut from relatively young trees and kiln dried to get it out the door quicker -- what company is going to store a pile of wood for 10 years any more? So the wood in your 1954 telecaster was already 80 years old before Leo had it cut up; the wood in your 90s Ibanez Shredblaster though was probably only a few years old to begin with, sat in a kiln for a week, and then got pummeled into submission.
Funny, I read a paper on Stradivarius violins, where they did all sorts of weird tests on them to see why they were so good. (You want to talk about mojo parts ... :-) and they reckoned there were a few really good years of climate where the trees had just the right amounts of everything they needed to make wood with just the right Young's modulus and stuff like that. Part fluke and part skill on the part of the builder...
