Squier / Fender , Epi / Gibson?

darthed1981

robgilmo said:

darthed1981 said:

robgilmo said:

Ah I see, so body construcyion and materials and even finish contribute to the sound of a guitar, that makes sense, but what about plauability? People say as above two identical fenders for instance wont play the same, this I dont understand, is it down to how they are set up?

No two items made of wood will ever be exactly the same.

They can be very similar indeed however.

There are other things about Squiers and Epis, Fenders and Gibsons besides actual overall suitability as musical instruments.

Squier have very thin necks, which renders them very easy to play for some people.

Epis often have a thin-ish D-profile neck, which can be a bit marmite.

Gibsons and Fenders go the whole shebang from tree trunk to modern tapered styles.

The neck and the ability to set it up properly make a huge difference to playability.  If I ever get to the stage I can pick up any guitar, just play it without worrying about the profile and worry about minor differences in tone, then I'll be a happy man!

My Squier standard tele doesnt have a perticularly thin neck, but then again ive never compared it to anything other than my korean epi, which seems much thinner.

That's interesting, matter of perception maybe?

robgilmo

Im begining to understand now, surely Fender necks are fairly close to being the same ?

robgilmo

darthed1981 said:

robgilmo said:

darthed1981 said:

robgilmo said:

Ah I see, so body construcyion and materials and even finish contribute to the sound of a guitar, that makes sense, but what about plauability? People say as above two identical fenders for instance wont play the same, this I dont understand, is it down to how they are set up?

No two items made of wood will ever be exactly the same.

They can be very similar indeed however.

There are other things about Squiers and Epis, Fenders and Gibsons besides actual overall suitability as musical instruments.

Squier have very thin necks, which renders them very easy to play for some people.

Epis often have a thin-ish D-profile neck, which can be a bit marmite.

Gibsons and Fenders go the whole shebang from tree trunk to modern tapered styles.

The neck and the ability to set it up properly make a huge difference to playability.  If I ever get to the stage I can pick up any guitar, just play it without worrying about the profile and worry about minor differences in tone, then I'll be a happy man!

My Squier standard tele doesnt have a perticularly thin neck, but then again ive never compared it to anything other than my korean epi, which seems much thinner.

That's interesting, matter of perception maybe?

It could be, the radius is different and the epi seems much smaller, so it could be that.

WezV

robgilmo said:

Im begining to understand now, surely Fender necks are fairly close to being the same ?

They are pretty consistent within an allowable variance.... Gibson vary a bit more because they use a softer wood more easily changed by the sanding stage

stickyfiddle

WezV said:

robgilmo said:

Im begining to understand now, surely Fender necks are fairly close to being the same ?

They are pretty consistent within an allowable variance.... Gibson vary a bit more because they use a softer wood more easily changed by the sanding stage

But that's without getting into neck profiles e.g. a CP60's Strat has a very different neck profile to an Ed O'Brien, which will change the general characteristics of the guitar's resonance.  @robgilmo if you haven't played lots of guitars, you might be amazed how many different neck profiles there are and how much they can affect playability.

These are the ones Warmoth started out with, and they have more now:

robgilmo said:

stickyfiddle said:

As an aside, my own cheapie parts-build Strat stands up well against CS stuff. It's not quite as good, but it's actually very close. Obviously it doesn't have a nitro finish, but aside from that, it plays and sounds brilliant. But that's after literally 17 years of modding and fettling and learning what works and what doesn't.  Not to mention a few hundred quid's worth of parts  

I was just thinking that, was it possible to build a high end or expensive guitar that performed the same as the guitar you copy?

To an extent. My Strat would have a retail price around 800 in parts (Callaham hardware, Rio Grande pickups, high quality pots & wiring, neck from a CP60's strat). And while I love it, that's partly because I've specced it exactly how I want it. And along the way, I also tried a bunch of other parts that didn't really work, so it's far from a simple "cheap guitar + upgrades = CS guitar" 

WezV

Indeed, but I think we are being asked to consider identical spec guitars here.

two identical guitars with identical neck profiles on paper.... 

Chalky

I've tried this myself on several guitars. I have replaced parts trying to see if my sub £200 guitars can be made to sound and feel like my £2000+ guitars.

I have used Switchcraft, CTS, Faber, etc and Lollar, Bare Knuckle, Custombuckers, etc.

I have dressed frets, rolled fingerboards, sanded and smoothed and set the guitars up very nicely to what I like.

The answer is No.  The wood and quality of construction makes a difference.

Now folks can argue all they like but 99.9% have zero experience of doing it - all they do is regurgitate what they've read (like young teenage lads boasting to each other about sex, despite them still being virgins).  As in sex, theory counts for nothing compared to experience.

Finally the argument moves to them saying, in a nutshell, "You must have done it wrong".  And you walk away because you think it better to leave them being a wanker....

thegummy

Why stop at Squier vs Fender, why not have a 50 quid Strat copy you don't even buy in a guitar shop vs. something like a Tom Anderson?

I think if you think of those 2 it seems obvious they couldn't be set up to be equal so makes it easier to accept that there is still a lot of variance allowed within the Strat copy template.

I do think this is an interesting topic and one that a lot of people don't truly know the truth about (myself as little as anyone). 

I think, although his post was a bit inflammatory, chalky is probably right that a lot of information can be people repeating what they've read.

Then again, I don't think one would have had to have upgraded many a low end guitar to have experience - having played a number of guitars extensively at different price ranges would give someone a good idea.

But then we're all affected by bias and placebo effect and it's very hard to judge something separately to our knowledge of what it is!

guitars4you

easy answer - play both - if you can and feel the difference then so be it - If you can't you've just saved yourself £400 to £2000 or so

can you justify the extra £400 - £2000 is a different question and to a large degree, then if you can afford it you don't need to justify it - If you can't afford it then you probably can't justify it - Flippant and even a touch arrogant as a statement maybe, but in simple terms it is correct

I'm fortunate that I can afford the more expensive model and I know I can feel the difference - I also appreciate it

However I would say that the improvement, in build quality + performance in mid to low end guitars has never been this good in the last 50/60 years or so, since the electric guitar became a popular instrument

midlifecrisis

i recently bought off ebay a really nice epiphone es339. I know its not the same as the gibson 339 in several ways. The finish on the epi is a thick gloss poly, the pickups and everything else is different. But for me it plays nice, the action is nice and low, the neck profile is comfortable and it makes a nice sound, and as a bonus the coil tapping is a very useful feature for me. But i make no pretence its as good or better than the gibson. Maybe if i played the gibson i would finfd even more differences, but i havnt because it is out of my budget at the moment.  I believe there are quality differences but its whether the difference in price justifies it to the individual and they have the means and can afford it. the epiphone bought on an ebay auction cost less than a tenth of the price of a new gibson. for that difference i can live with the heavy finish, cheaper hardware and an ugly headstock. if i was wealthier i may think these differences are worth paying the extra.  anyways we are fortunate to have such choices in guitars these days

meltedbuzzbox

Mortland said:

Obviously a lot of the comments above deal wth the sound, one main difference I would note is the build quality! A US made Gibson, in 99% of cases will be more solid than a Chinese Epiphone.

You need to play some more Gibson guitars I think

thegummy

guitars4you said:

easy answer - play both - if you can and feel the difference then so be it - If you can't you've just saved yourself £400 to £2000 or so

I don't think this is necessarily such good advice - it may be hard to tell a lot of differences from one brief playing session in a guitar shop whereas there could be differences that become very relevant over years of ownership and regular playing.

can you justify the extra £400 - £2000 is a different question and to a large degree, then if you can afford it you don't need to justify it - If you can't afford it then you probably can't justify it - Flippant and even a touch arrogant as a statement maybe, but in simple terms it is correct

I think most people would fall between the two extremes of not being able to afford 2 grand at all and being so rich that 2 grand is meaningless.

For most of us it's important to know how much an improvement we're getting for the extra 1500 quid because, while we could pay it if it's worth it, it would be too much money to waste if the improvement wasn't insignificant.

Sassafras

Where's @Three-ColourSunburst when you need him?

Funkfingers

robgilmo said:

I don't believe ... one guitar sounds better than another simply because it does

An electric guitar is an inanimate object. The sound it produces is a consequence of how it is played, amplified and the venue (or choice of microphone).

A guitar that is set up to my liking might not suit the next person who tries it. 



As for the tone wood question, I recently purchased one of the PRS S2 Reclaimed series guitars. This is constructed in part of two Brazilian wood species that are not commonly used in European and North American instruments. It is also semi-hollow. If there were a semi-hollow all-mahogany version of the same design, it would be possible to determine whether the unfamiliar woods bring something different to the sound palette.

Maynehead

One variable that is often overlooked is the neck relief profile.

the ideal profile is an even curve up to the neck join, then flat from there on.

Im my experience, the less “mass produced” the guitar is, the more chance the neck will be closer to the ideal curve. Since the neck curve is one variable that cannot be altered even with an advanced setup, I see this as being a major differentiator.

I’ve seen cheaper guitars with all sorts of skewed necks... too much curve in the first few frets, humped neck joins, ski-slope fret board ends, all of which directly or indirectly contributes to decreased playability. All the premium guitars I’ve set up have had close to ideal relief, meaning I can set a low action with minimal fret buzz.

HAL9000

The OP asks about similarly spec'd guitars. Surely the point here is that NO Squier has the same spec as any Fender (although some are close). On a Strat things like the wood, the sustain block, the saddles, the nut, the pots, etc will all make a difference to the sound, and the quality of these bits all improve as you get further up the range. 

I've upgraded the pickups and sustain block on my MIM Strat. It has made it a better sounding guitar than it was, but certainly hasn't transformed it into anything other than a MIM Strat that's a bit better. 

Any CS Strat I've ever played has been a noticeably better instrument. However, as a non-professional, I cannot even begin to justify a CS but I can afford to upgrade a few components here and there on something cheaper.

ICBM

I think a lot of what you pay for with more expensive guitars is consistency. It's absolutely true you can find an outstanding cheap guitar and an expensive dog, but they are the exceptions.

I had a Chinese two-humbucker Squier Strat which was an outstanding guitar in every way, literally as good as the PRS I had at the time once I'd upgraded the electrics. (I stupidly sold it, mostly because I didn't really like the colour.) I've also played a US Custom Shop Fender - not a Relic though - which sounded like it was made from soggy Weetabix. Both these things are unusual. I've also never played a Relic that was less than good, although for some reason I've generally found the 'team built' ones better than the top-of-the-range 'masterbuilt' ones.

thegummy

ICBM said:

I think a lot of what you pay for with more expensive guitars is consistency. It's absolutely true you can find an outstanding cheap guitar and an expensive dog, but they are the exceptions.

I hear this all the time but I don't trust my own knowledge to be able to accurately pick out one from the other which is probably the biggest reason I tend to pay as much as I can for a guitar, almost shortening the odds of getting a good one in a way. Must be great to have the expertise to look through a bunch of 600 quid guitars and pick out a great one.

A mildly amusing anecdote - when I first started watching Tim Pierce on Youtube (when I first got back into guitars as an adult) I saw him playing a beaten up scraggy guitar with no brand logo on the head stock and thought to myself "that's interesting, he must have found some old cheapo guitar in a charity shop that just happened to have the perfect sound and it's cool he's using that on all these hit records" then I eventually realised it was a very expensive relicked Bill Nash lol