Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

crunchman

Lewy said:

Acoustic guitar is a funny old business because one person's diminishing returns is another person's table stakes depending on what, how and where they play. It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought. And these aren't dentists playing this music.... This is because there is a difference between the acoustic projection you get from a really really good dreadnought and a more standard one and that can be the difference between having an ok time and a great time as the player, and the rest of the ensemble. That's fundamental to that player, it's not "the last 2%" as people sometimes describe it. Worth noting that if you were in Bill Monroe's band, you played his pre-war Martin whether you wanted to or not, because that's what he wanted to hear!

There are definitely some guitars that project better than others.  I have a Martin dreadnought that doesn't sound hugely loud to me as a player.  I used to have another guitar (12 Fret Dreadnought) that sounded louder to me when playing but a dB meter across the room read 3dB higher with the Martin.

Pjon

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

bertie

Pjon said:

At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

hard to say - but with the bigger brands,  "custom shop"  or words to that ilk  are usually an indication that a  "more highly skilled" craftsman is involved. 

Big brands are "massed produced" they have to be to be able to supply such volumes  - and I dont think it unreasonable to assume the lower the model / ££  the less skilled / less hands on - the work force is.

Smaller builders that still supply "off the shelf" models -  Like Atkin, Brook etc  do build by hand and with either luthier or "luthier skilled"  workforce,  just utilising "factory line production" for the "off the shelf"  stuff

Lewy

Barnezy said:

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ? 

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?" 

This is why: 
https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE

Although many don’t want to believe it, most the tone of electrics comes from the pups and strings. The rest is there to hold the strings in tune. 

That video really isn't the slam dunk people seem to want it to be. First up you can hear some differences, secondly he's not playing much if anything that highlights the ASDR envelopes of the instruments and then thirdly half the clips have got overdrive and COMPRESSION on them, so who knows what other differences that is negating. And then if everything this video claims is true, why do a LP and a 335 with identical pickups, scale length and set up sound different?

The trouble with trying to apply this sort of analysis to musical instruments is that the first thing you have to do in the interest of consistency is stop trying to actually produce music with them....so what's the point?

Pjon

bertie said:

Pjon said:

At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

hard to say - but with the bigger brands,  "custom shop"  or words to that ilk  are usually an indication that a  "more highly skilled" craftsman is involved. 

Big brands are "massed produced" they have to be to be able to supply such volumes  - and I dont think it unreasonable to assume the lower the model / ££  the less skilled / less hands on - the work force is.

Pretty much what I guessed. So, next question, a luthier built guitar vs a mass produced guitar at the same price - generally the luthier built should be better than the other? (I know this isn't really quantifiable.)

Lewy

Pjon said:

bertie said:

Pjon said:

At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

hard to say - but with the bigger brands,  "custom shop"  or words to that ilk  are usually an indication that a  "more highly skilled" craftsman is involved. 

Big brands are "massed produced" they have to be to be able to supply such volumes  - and I dont think it unreasonable to assume the lower the model / ££  the less skilled / less hands on - the work force is.

Pretty much what I guessed. So, next question, a luthier built guitar vs a mass produced guitar at the same price - generally the luthier built should be better than the other? (I know this isn't really quantifiable.)

I'm not sure where you'd get a luthier built guitar at the same price as a mass produced guitar unless the mass produced one was overpriced or the luthier was working cheap?

Dave_Mc

crunchman said:

There are definitely some guitars that project better than others.  I have a Martin dreadnought that doesn't sound hugely loud to me as a player.  I used to have another guitar (12 Fret Dreadnought) that sounded louder to me when playing but a dB meter across the room read 3dB higher with the Martin.

That's one thing that I find very weird and very hard to get my head around as someone who started on electric guitar- you go to try an electric guitar, and (within reason, I guess it's different if you're playing a gig!) you hear the same thing if you're playing as if someone else is- the sound is coming from the amp, and you can sit or stand in the same place relative to the amp whether you're playing the guitar or just listening. But with acoustic, it sounds different if you're playing it or someone else is!

Pjon said:

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

I'm not sure. I would imagine that @bertie is on the right lines. The other thing is, it might depend on where the instrument is made. To be clear, I'm not 100% sure if this is correct or just internet myth, but the word on the net seems to be that in Japan, to work in a guitar factory you have to be a qualified luthier (it may be a bit less vague than that, maybe to work in certain parts of guitar production you have to be a luthier, I'm not sure). But if that is true, that would suggest that most guitars made in Japan have had the attention of a luthier.

Lewy said:

Barnezy said:

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ? 

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?" 

This is why: 
https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE

Although many don’t want to believe it, most the tone of electrics comes from the pups and strings. The rest is there to hold the strings in tune. 

That video really isn't the slam dunk people seem to want it to be. First up you can hear some differences, secondly he's not playing much if anything that highlights the ASDR envelopes of the instruments and then thirdly half the clips have got overdrive and COMPRESSION on them, so who knows what other differences that is negating. And then if everything this video claims is true, why do a LP and a 335 with identical pickups, scale length and set up sound different?

The trouble with trying to apply this sort of analysis to musical instruments is that the first thing you have to do in the interest of consistency is stop trying to actually produce music with them....so what's the point?

Yeah. The big problem about any of those things is that if you play the instrument normally, people (often non-musicians, but not always!) will say, "Oh it's not a fair test, it wasn't double-blind" etc.- and that's a fair point, on the face of it. But as you say, what you have to do to actually make it even close to a double-blind test makes it so far removed from how music is actually made in the real world that it's kind of getting pointless and still doesn't really tell you anything!

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that cognitive biases etc. don't exist, they absolutely do and we need to be aware of them. But for almost every cognitive bias there's usually an exact opposite one- the "there's no such thing as tonewood for electric guitars" brigade seems to be just as keen to believe that the wood makes no difference as the "tonewood makes a difference" camp wants to believe it does! And I guess you could make the argument that "the burden of proof is on those making the claim"... but to me that's a cop-out, especially if either side could investigate the thing pretty easily (it's different if the person making the claim is arguing in favour of something which is essentially unfalsifiable, of course!). Saying "I don't (or shouldn't) have to provide any proof" doesn't exactly make me want to believe you're in the right...

Plus they keep quoting that study that was done, and as far as I'm aware, although the conclusion said it didn't make any difference, the data in the paper suggested it did!

guitarjack66

Whatever the pros and cons of acoustic v electric,surely its agreed that the woods involved in an acoustic make much more of a difference than an electric? At least as a proportion or percentage?

malcolmkindness

Lewy said:

Pjon said:

bertie said:

Pjon said:

At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

hard to say - but with the bigger brands,  "custom shop"  or words to that ilk  are usually an indication that a  "more highly skilled" craftsman is involved. 

Big brands are "massed produced" they have to be to be able to supply such volumes  - and I dont think it unreasonable to assume the lower the model / ££  the less skilled / less hands on - the work force is.

Pretty much what I guessed. So, next question, a luthier built guitar vs a mass produced guitar at the same price - generally the luthier built should be better than the other? (I know this isn't really quantifiable.)

I'm not sure where you'd get a luthier built guitar at the same price as a mass produced guitar unless the mass produced one was overpriced or the luthier was working cheap?

I have three luthier built guitars, by that I mean they were each individually built by one craftsman luthier, I also own two high end Martins. Two of the three hand built models cost less than either of the Martins, not because they are less good, but because high end Martins command a high price and single luthier guitars generally don't, unless the builder is very well known and has a long waiting list.
I have been playing guitar for nearly 60 years and with the benefit of that experience, would confidently say that unless you require something unusual, ie. neck shape, string spacing etc. you will always be better off buying a good example of a well known brand, second hand if possible. 

malcolmkindness

Pjon said:

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

They are all massed produced in factories. The size of the factory and the level of training given to the employees are the only variables.
I know a couple of luthiers personally and they are very reluctant to employ anyone because it changes the whole business model. This is why it's very difficult to compare "individual luthier built" guitars with factory built ones, regardless of the reputation of the factory.

Tannin

guitarjack66 said:

Whatever the pros and cons of acoustic v electric,surely its agreed that the woods involved in an acoustic make much more of a difference than an electric? At least as a proportion or percentage?

That is beyond question.

But then an acoustic guitar isn't the equivalent of an electric guitar, it is the equivalent of an electric guitar, and an amplifier, and a speaker system, and a pedal board. 

Dave_Mc

guitarjack66 said:

Whatever the pros and cons of acoustic v electric,surely its agreed that the woods involved in an acoustic make much more of a difference than an electric? At least as a proportion or percentage?

Yeah I think so. I'm not sure anyone is saying it's not (though I could be wrong). And also what @Tannin said (though I guess you can use amps and fx with acoustics too, but you don't have to).

DavidR

Just had a look through thread again as OP. Clearly acoustic ownership/purchase is more than just a scientific pursuit. The closest analogy would be with car ownership perhaps. 

At a rational level, the wide choice and competitive improvements in quality which have occurred in the last two or three decades have, for me anyway, blurred the distinctions between making choices on the grounds of manufacturer, price, luthier vs. non-luthier or old vs. new instruments.

There is, happily, now a huge choice and lots of avenues to go down as owners, collectors or musicians. And that's great. No emphasis on cost or brand etc. is any more valid than any other.

For acoustic players this is a golden age. You really don't have to pay that much money to find a very good instrument.  Paying £3-4K+ (and that's fine), will no longer lead to as great an increment in quality, tone or playability as it might have done in previous decades, and that increment might be irrelevant to many players. 

Me, I drive a Fiat 500L, and I love it, but I'd like a Mercedes E Class too!

:-)

DavidR

Pjon said:

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

No a luthier guitar is a luthier guitar and a thing apart. One made throughout the build by one person, often in discussion with the buyer. There are no economies of scale and you pay for that service and talent. Mass produced instruments pay lip service to 'luthier input' but its not the same.  The word luthier derives from the lute (itself a name deriving from el Ud, the arabic stringed instrument). Some might say that anyone involved in the production of stringed instruments is a luthier. But the expectation from a true luthier-built instrument is that it will be built by one person, by hand, bespoke and individual. Luthier acoustics are a small niche market for a few. Compare this with top end classicals, they are always luthier built. Acoustics less so. Some would say the top US brands hold the high ground there, after all they were the innovators in acoustic evolution. Less true of late but still a valid viewpoint for many.

Pjon

DavidR said:

Pjon said:

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

No a luthier guitar is a luthier guitar and a thing apart. One made throughout the build by one person, often in discussion with the buyer. There are no economies of scale and you pay for that service and talent. Mass produced instruments pay lip service to 'luthier input' but its not the same.  The word luthier derives from the lute (itself a name deriving from el Ud, the arabic stringed instrument). Some might say that anyone involved in the production of stringed instruments is a luthier. But the expectation from a true luthier-built instrument is that it will be built by one person, by hand, bespoke and individual. Luthier acoustics are a small niche market for a few. Compare this with top end classicals, they are always luthier built. Acoustics less so. Some would say the top US brands hold the high ground there, after all they were the innovators in acoustic evolution. Less true of late but still a valid viewpoint for many.

Yeah, I get that. But you haven't said whether you think the luthier guitar would be any better than an expensive mass produced guitar. ;D  It was answered by someone who owns both above though. And it was someone else who brought up luthiers anyway. 

I do lots of cycling and work in the bike industry and have been trying to work out if the situation is the same in both hobbies. Indisputably, with bikes you get a better one the more you pay, as long as you have the skill to use it to its maximum. And it's very much diminishing returns above certain price points. But put someone on a £5k mountain bike who hasn't got the skill to throw it down a black run and they'll not feel the value of that £5k. I can justify expensive bikes, but am a middling guitar player so am curious whether I'd even feel any difference between a top end guitar and my £600 Cort. I'm hoping I would, but whether I could justify £1000s on a guitar would be the  next question. (Guitars are cheap compared to bikes though...    )

LastMantra

Probably on me they're a waste of money. 

Sometimes I think they are too much, too detailed and bright.
I like the sound of my cheap (think it was £80 and had a lollypop stick for a bridge) warm sounding "Norman" for bashing away in my style. 
Probably lots of others wouldn't agree, but what do they know?! 

DavidR

Pjon said:

DavidR said:

Pjon said:

artiebear said:

  Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria. 

The OP doesn't mention luthiers, just expensive guitars and names a few brands. (Martin, Atkins, etc). At what point do mass produced but well known brands use luthiers to build the guitars? Or are they actually mass produced? (I've played guitar for decades but only become interested in the ins and outs of guitar geekdom in the last few years, so I don't know this!) 

No a luthier guitar is a luthier guitar and a thing apart. One made throughout the build by one person, often in discussion with the buyer. There are no economies of scale and you pay for that service and talent. Mass produced instruments pay lip service to 'luthier input' but its not the same.  The word luthier derives from the lute (itself a name deriving from el Ud, the arabic stringed instrument). Some might say that anyone involved in the production of stringed instruments is a luthier. But the expectation from a true luthier-built instrument is that it will be built by one person, by hand, bespoke and individual. Luthier acoustics are a small niche market for a few. Compare this with top end classicals, they are always luthier built. Acoustics less so. Some would say the top US brands hold the high ground there, after all they were the innovators in acoustic evolution. Less true of late but still a valid viewpoint for many.

Yeah, I get that. But you haven't said whether you think the luthier guitar would be any better than an expensive mass produced guitar. ;D  It was answered by someone who owns both above though. And it was someone else who brought up luthiers anyway. 

I do lots of cycling and work in the bike industry and have been trying to work out if the situation is the same in both hobbies. Indisputably, with bikes you get a better one the more you pay, as long as you have the skill to use it to its maximum. And it's very much diminishing returns above certain price points. But put someone on a £5k mountain bike who hasn't got the skill to throw it down a black run and they'll not feel the value of that £5k. I can justify expensive bikes, but am a middling guitar player so am curious whether I'd even feel any difference between a top end guitar and my £600 Cort. I'm hoping I would, but whether I could justify £1000s on a guitar would be the  next question. (Guitars are cheap compared to bikes though...    )

I don't know Pjon. Honestly you'd have to try both. I have a £4K Antonio Marin Montero luthier made Classical. He is the most senior and well respected luthier in Granada. I can't tell the difference between it and a Ramirez 125 anos which is a much cheaper mass produced instrument. But I came to classical late in life. TBH the Marin is cleverer than I am and I don't deserve it! I've never owned a luthier made acoustic. My poshest acoustic is a Martin OM 28. I don't enjoy playing it any more than my Yamaha FG5 or even my Vintage V300 MH. I've been playing since 1975 and I've owned a fair few acoustics. Not as many as some on FB but quite a few.

If you could draw a graph of diminishing returns I think it would be skewed much more to the right than it was in the 1970's. i.e. the more money you pay greater the degree of diminished returns. Mid priced guitars have improved out of all recognition in that time period. That's all I'm saying I suppose. I would no longer pay £4K for any guitar. Or if I had that much money - I would buy two!

Dave_Mc

DavidR said:

Just had a look through thread again as OP. Clearly acoustic ownership/purchase is more than just a scientific pursuit. The closest analogy would be with car ownership perhaps. 

At a rational level, the wide choice and competitive improvements in quality which have occurred in the last two or three decades have, for me anyway, blurred the distinctions between making choices on the grounds of manufacturer, price, luthier vs. non-luthier or old vs. new instruments.

There is, happily, now a huge choice and lots of avenues to go down as owners, collectors or musicians. And that's great. No emphasis on cost or brand etc. is any more valid than any other.

For acoustic players this is a golden age. You really don't have to pay that much money to find a very good instrument.  Paying £3-4K+ (and that's fine), will no longer lead to as great an increment in quality, tone or playability as it might have done in previous decades, and that increment might be irrelevant to many players. 

Me, I drive a Fiat 500L, and I love it, but I'd like a Mercedes E Class too!

:-)

I'd agree with that just fine. To be clear, I'm not a massive fan of the big brands either, and often think you can get more for your money looking elsewhere.

Pjon said:

Yeah, I get that. But you haven't said whether you think the luthier guitar would be any better than an expensive mass produced guitar. ;D  It was answered by someone who owns both above though. And it was someone else who brought up luthiers anyway. 

I do lots of cycling and work in the bike industry and have been trying to work out if the situation is the same in both hobbies. Indisputably, with bikes you get a better one the more you pay, as long as you have the skill to use it to its maximum. And it's very much diminishing returns above certain price points. But put someone on a £5k mountain bike who hasn't got the skill to throw it down a black run and they'll not feel the value of that £5k. I can justify expensive bikes, but am a middling guitar player so am curious whether I'd even feel any difference between a top end guitar and my £600 Cort. I'm hoping I would, but whether I could justify £1000s on a guitar would be the  next question. (Guitars are cheap compared to bikes though...    )

I don't know anything about bikes, so bear that in mind. I do get the feeling with a lot of the sports kit (not just bikes) that the pro-quality stuff is often actually harder to use- if you have the skill to make use of it, it will make you better, if you don't it may make you worse! I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's really the same thing going on with musical instruments, or at least guitars- a better guitar to me is a better guitar, whether I'm a virtuoso or a beginner. A lot of the really great guitars almost play themselves- that's better for a beginner or a pro (maybe even more so for a beginner). Granted- if you're playing more basic stuff you might not notice as much, so it may still not be worth it.

bertie

Pjon said:

. But put someone on a £5k mountain bike who hasn't got the skill to throw it down a black run and they'll not feel the value of that

that's the bottom end of the range for the boys next door to us -  they sell a lot of Santa Cruz and and Julianna  -  I think the starting one is just under £4k...............  top is £14k I think

It makes my guitar buying look more acceptable   


old mate of mine's husband is world vetran champion  (I think)   just been to the champs in south america IIRC)

Pjon

bertie said:

Pjon said:

. But put someone on a £5k mountain bike who hasn't got the skill to throw it down a black run and they'll not feel the value of that

that's the bottom end of the range for the boys next door to us -  they sell a lot of Santa Cruz and and Julianna  -  I think the starting one is just under £4k...............  top is £14k I think

It makes my guitar buying look more acceptable   


old mate of mine's husband is world vetran champion  (I think)   just been to the champs in south america IIRC)

Yeah. I picked £5k because that's how much my main MTB costs - but that's one of several bikes I have. I ride with plenty of people who are on more expensive bikes, especially those who have an ebike. They get used hard around here - it's a good place to ride off road.

And certainly, when talking to my wife about guitars, she accepts the cost more easily than when I need another bike.