It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
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
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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... )
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?!
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!
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.
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)
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
And certainly, when talking to my wife about guitars, she accepts the cost more easily than when I need another bike.